4 ms·

Small world; most of my ISP complaints come from just north of you in Baltimore. Although I think it's unfair to call the numerous problems of monopolistic ISP

Small world; most of my ISP complaints come from just north of you in Baltimore. Although I think it's unfair to call the numerous problems of monopolistic ISPs "customer service" alone (service interruption, quality?) we certainly had our fair share of main breaks, probably once every few months/years you would see a fountain up through some major intersection, so I'll give you that. But they were fixed. Rapidly, and often motivated political will for higher investment, although unfortunately that never seemed to cross over past "reactionary" to "planning ahead." Meanwhile. when Comcast has an exclusive agreement with an apartment complex, and their connections in a leaky electrical box are so corroded that 20%+ packet loss was the norm, there was effectively 0 avenue for improvement. However, you've summarized the problem well for infra: There's simply a lack of funding/costs are not being accounted for. To my mind that's a MUCH simpler problem than convincing a free market to guarantee equivalent service for something that isn't "optional" in modern life, and that might not have effective competitive pressures. (It's not like our internet service market is miles ahead of competing first world countries, even within large cities where America-scale isn't as big a problem)

rayiner 9y ago
> To my mind that's a MUCH simpler problem than convincing a free market to guarantee equivalent service for something that isn't "optional" in modern life, and that might not have effective competitive pressures. I’ve lived in Baltimore, DC, and Annapolis, and at each address I’ve had Verizon FiOS in competition with Comcast. (At my house, both companies offer fiber). Service was good enough where I’d take the duopoly over BGE any day. I think in most places, you can support enough competition (even with the "natural monopoly" tendencies of the market) to outrun poorly-run U.S. municipal governance/regulation. If you live in a reasonably-sized city or suburb and don't have competition, blame the government. (E.g. Baltimore doesn't have FiOS even though 80% of the rest of Maryland does, because the city denied Verizon a franchise.)
- existencebox 9y ago
  I had always heard a different story about why Verizon wasn't coming to Baltimore, I tried to dig up some articles to read up more but since most of the events were in 2012 it was sparse; what I did find however suggested that not only is "blame the government" not true in this case, "blame the corporation" might, as I couldn't find any references to it being the Baltimore Govt. and not Fios who made the decision in this matter. From a former councilwoman and president of Baltimore Development Corperation:[0] “The City Council had nothing to do with the fact that Verizon FiOS doesn’t exist in Baltimore city,” said Cole. “The city didn’t stand in their way. They made a business decision.” And from Verizon's own communication in response to redlining accusations:[1] Verizon is not deploying FiOS in Baltimore City or in any other new areas in Maryland or across the country at this time because we’re now focused on delivering our FiOS services in those communities where we already have approved cable franchises and where we already have begun to build our FiOS network. [0]https://technical.ly/baltimore/2016/03/03/broadband-got-hearing-city-council-improving-wont-easy/ https://technical.ly/baltimore/2016/03/03/broadband-got-hear... [1]https://baltimorebrew.com/2010/02/28/waiting-for-fios-baltimore-verizon-says-fuhgeddaboutit/ https://baltimorebrew.com/2010/02/28/waiting-for-fios-baltim... As an aside, While BGE had a handful of outages, usually mid-winter, Comcast had it beat for me by a long shot, across 3 different apartments. I unfortunately had Comcast or DSL as the only options. (And CLEAR, which was surprisingly good ~8 years ago for what it was)
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Baltimore wouldn’t give Verizon a cable TV franchise, which is necessary to make the business model work when cable companies sell broadband/TV bundles. A number of buildings in Baltimore actually have FiOS (my apartment did), so Verizon is clearly interested in building there. In a way, cable cutting will be a huge boon for broadband deployment. Municipalities’ right to regulate technically only extends to cable television service. Historically, most people have wanted cable television as part of the deal. (Almost nobody in my Baltimore apartment actually subscribed to FiOS because they couldn’t offer TV.) But if everybody switches to streaming, that dramatically restricts municipal authority over deployment.

rayiner 9y ago

> To my mind that's a MUCH simpler problem than convincing a free market to guarantee equivalent service for something that isn't "optional" in modern life, and that might not have effective competitive pressures. I’ve lived in Baltimore, DC, and Annapolis, and at each address I’ve had Verizon FiOS in competition with Comcast. (At my house, both companies offer fiber). Service was good enough where I’d take the duopoly over BGE any day. I think in most places, you can support enough competition (even with the "natural monopoly" tendencies of the market) to outrun poorly-run U.S. municipal governance/regulation. If you live in a reasonably-sized city or suburb and don't have competition, blame the government. (E.g. Baltimore doesn't have FiOS even though 80% of the rest of Maryland does, because the city denied Verizon a franchise.)

existencebox 9y ago
I had always heard a different story about why Verizon wasn't coming to Baltimore, I tried to dig up some articles to read up more but since most of the events were in 2012 it was sparse; what I did find however suggested that not only is "blame the government" not true in this case, "blame the corporation" might, as I couldn't find any references to it being the Baltimore Govt. and not Fios who made the decision in this matter. From a former councilwoman and president of Baltimore Development Corperation:[0] “The City Council had nothing to do with the fact that Verizon FiOS doesn’t exist in Baltimore city,” said Cole. “The city didn’t stand in their way. They made a business decision.” And from Verizon's own communication in response to redlining accusations:[1] Verizon is not deploying FiOS in Baltimore City or in any other new areas in Maryland or across the country at this time because we’re now focused on delivering our FiOS services in those communities where we already have approved cable franchises and where we already have begun to build our FiOS network. [0]https://technical.ly/baltimore/2016/03/03/broadband-got-hearing-city-council-improving-wont-easy/ https://technical.ly/baltimore/2016/03/03/broadband-got-hear... [1]https://baltimorebrew.com/2010/02/28/waiting-for-fios-baltimore-verizon-says-fuhgeddaboutit/ https://baltimorebrew.com/2010/02/28/waiting-for-fios-baltim... As an aside, While BGE had a handful of outages, usually mid-winter, Comcast had it beat for me by a long shot, across 3 different apartments. I unfortunately had Comcast or DSL as the only options. (And CLEAR, which was surprisingly good ~8 years ago for what it was)
- rayiner 9y ago
  Baltimore wouldn’t give Verizon a cable TV franchise, which is necessary to make the business model work when cable companies sell broadband/TV bundles. A number of buildings in Baltimore actually have FiOS (my apartment did), so Verizon is clearly interested in building there. In a way, cable cutting will be a huge boon for broadband deployment. Municipalities’ right to regulate technically only extends to cable television service. Historically, most people have wanted cable television as part of the deal. (Almost nobody in my Baltimore apartment actually subscribed to FiOS because they couldn’t offer TV.) But if everybody switches to streaming, that dramatically restricts municipal authority over deployment.