3 ms·
That is a valid way to look at it. I and probably a lot of our former Broadband committee would tend to agree with you. However, the last time I spoke with an
by mad_ned 5y ago
That is a valid way to look at it. I and probably a lot of our former Broadband committee would tend to agree with you. However, the last time I spoke with any of them was spring of 2020, to thank them again for their efforts - because I was thinking about how supremely screwed we all would have been going into Covid without high speed internet in town. I think all things considered now, they were more or less equally happy with our (imperfect) outcome as I.
- a2tech 5y agoHopefully the city was wise enough to not sign a monopoly agreement with Charter--my city owns our own poles and it allowed us to let in a small fiber ISP who's competing with ATT and Comcast (and I think winning handily). 1gpbs symmetrical Internet access for ~50USD/month. No caps.
- rayiner 5y agoThere's no such thing as a "monopoly agreement." Monopoly franchise agreements are banned under federal law. If you read one you'll see a provision that makes clear it's "non-exclusive." Providers end up with de facto monopolies for two reasons: 1) Many places (like the one here) are marginal in terms of whether it's worth building anything at all. A second provider coming in is unattractive. 2) What's legal is build-out requirements, which force a provider to serve every (or nearly every) home in a town. That torpedos competition except in the largest cities, because a second provider can't just wire up the areas where it makes sense to overbuild.