4 ms·

Typically there are four consumer level providers in US markets. One coax, one copper/fiber, one (or more) satellite, and most likely a regional operator that m

Typically there are four consumer level providers in US markets. One coax, one copper/fiber, one (or more) satellite, and most likely a regional operator that may be either copper/fiber or coax. Also some regions do have consumer-level WISPs, although those are more rare in urban areas. Webpass being a high profile exception. The problem is you can't get the standard Comcast or U-verse product in those buildings. The landlord signed a 10-year deal stating "10mb/s" per unit. Meanwhile your neighbor in a non-exclusive building gets 75mb/s easily for the same price or even less than you're paying under the exclusive agreement. Worse, a lot of these buildings sign deals with no-name local fiber providers (or resellers) who pull the same crap, so its not a "big business won't let us compete" issue as much as it is lack of choice for residents due to existing contracts by the property owner.

mikeash 10y ago
Satellite is terrible and doesn't really count. I've never heard of someone using satellite unless they literally have no wired ISPs available. IMO it belongs in the same category as cellular internet. According to this report, in 2013 only 28% of US households had three or more providers capable of giving 10Mbps service, and 24% only had one: http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-broadband-service-providers.pdf http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-... If you raise the bar to 25Mbps, then only 9% had three or more, and nearly half only had one choice. That's 2.5 years old, but I don't think it has changed all that much. Maybe they offer even worse services in these buildings, but I bet that in areas where they have a monopoly simply because of no competition, I bet it's pretty bad too. It certainly was for me when I lived in such an area.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Those surveys include all of the US's massive rural areas. In urban areas there's more choice and much higher speeds. 80% of the population lives in urban areas. I think its important to keep that in mind when reading surveys like these. Just because some guy who chooses to live in the middle of nowhere gets only 1.5mbps DSL doesnt mean I can't get 100+mbs in urban areas. I'm currently on a 100mbps in Chicago with AT&T and Comcast soon releasing their consumer-level gigabit fiber product. Other cities have the same or better, like Kansas City's Google fiber. Its dishonest to say that high-rise renters in urban areas should think 10mbps is competitive. Its not remotely so. This also cuts both ways. I know a building serviced just by RCN and every tenant gets 100mbps and a bunch of channels for a good price. Its a mixed bag, but usually leans on less competitive products.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    If 80% of the US population lives in urban areas, and 50% of the US population only has one choice for 25Mbps service, then that means at least 37% of the urban population only has one choice. If 72% of the entire US population had at most two choices for 10Mbps, then that means at least 65% of urban dwellers do.
zeveb 10y ago
> The landlord signed a 10-year deal stating "10mb/s" per unit. Meanwhile your neighbor in a non-exclusive building gets 75mb/s easily for the same price or even less than you're paying under the exclusive agreement. Units with no better than 10Mb/s service should let for significantly less than otherwise-equivalent units with 75Mb/s, significantly less given modern Internet usage. There may be folks who are willing to give up some about of bandwidth in order to save on rent; it would be unfortunate if that choice were taken away from them.
- mikeash 10y ago
  They're not going to be saving anything. If these agreements cut the rent the landlords could charge, they'd never sign them. All this does is trap people who failed to investigate beforehand.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > If these agreements cut the rent the landlords could charge, they'd never sign them. If landlords believed these agreements cut the rent the landlords can charge by more than they are kicked-back, they'd never sign them. I'm certainly not defending this sort of thing. But, given a competitive rental market, it's not something to worry overmuch about.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      A competitive rental market is something that rarely exists. In most of the cases I've heard of, the demand is much greater than supply, so the landlords are free to charge whatever and if you don't accept, there are 100 other people in line for the same apartment.
      - mrep 10y ago
        Like you said, depends on the market. Here in Seattle, whenever one of my intern friends would move in, we would first tell them to look for apartments with wave/condo internet. 60$ a month, no contract or installation fees for 100 Mbit per second internet. It hasn't gone down once in that past 4 months nor ever slowed from that speed (I can also spend an extra 20$ a month to get 1 gbit per second).

mikeash 10y ago

Satellite is terrible and doesn't really count. I've never heard of someone using satellite unless they literally have no wired ISPs available. IMO it belongs in the same category as cellular internet. According to this report, in 2013 only 28% of US households had three or more providers capable of giving 10Mbps service, and 24% only had one: http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-broadband-service-providers.pdf http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/competition-among-us-... If you raise the bar to 25Mbps, then only 9% had three or more, and nearly half only had one choice. That's 2.5 years old, but I don't think it has changed all that much. Maybe they offer even worse services in these buildings, but I bet that in areas where they have a monopoly simply because of no competition, I bet it's pretty bad too. It certainly was for me when I lived in such an area.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Those surveys include all of the US's massive rural areas. In urban areas there's more choice and much higher speeds. 80% of the population lives in urban areas. I think its important to keep that in mind when reading surveys like these. Just because some guy who chooses to live in the middle of nowhere gets only 1.5mbps DSL doesnt mean I can't get 100+mbs in urban areas. I'm currently on a 100mbps in Chicago with AT&T and Comcast soon releasing their consumer-level gigabit fiber product. Other cities have the same or better, like Kansas City's Google fiber. Its dishonest to say that high-rise renters in urban areas should think 10mbps is competitive. Its not remotely so. This also cuts both ways. I know a building serviced just by RCN and every tenant gets 100mbps and a bunch of channels for a good price. Its a mixed bag, but usually leans on less competitive products.
- mikeash 10y ago
  If 80% of the US population lives in urban areas, and 50% of the US population only has one choice for 25Mbps service, then that means at least 37% of the urban population only has one choice. If 72% of the entire US population had at most two choices for 10Mbps, then that means at least 65% of urban dwellers do.

zeveb 10y ago

> The landlord signed a 10-year deal stating "10mb/s" per unit. Meanwhile your neighbor in a non-exclusive building gets 75mb/s easily for the same price or even less than you're paying under the exclusive agreement. Units with no better than 10Mb/s service should let for significantly less than otherwise-equivalent units with 75Mb/s, significantly less given modern Internet usage. There may be folks who are willing to give up some about of bandwidth in order to save on rent; it would be unfortunate if that choice were taken away from them.

mikeash 10y ago
They're not going to be saving anything. If these agreements cut the rent the landlords could charge, they'd never sign them. All this does is trap people who failed to investigate beforehand.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > If these agreements cut the rent the landlords could charge, they'd never sign them. If landlords believed these agreements cut the rent the landlords can charge by more than they are kicked-back, they'd never sign them. I'm certainly not defending this sort of thing. But, given a competitive rental market, it's not something to worry overmuch about.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    A competitive rental market is something that rarely exists. In most of the cases I've heard of, the demand is much greater than supply, so the landlords are free to charge whatever and if you don't accept, there are 100 other people in line for the same apartment.
    - mrep 10y ago
      Like you said, depends on the market. Here in Seattle, whenever one of my intern friends would move in, we would first tell them to look for apartments with wave/condo internet. 60$ a month, no contract or installation fees for 100 Mbit per second internet. It hasn't gone down once in that past 4 months nor ever slowed from that speed (I can also spend an extra 20$ a month to get 1 gbit per second).