6 ms·

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov http://www.broadbandmap.gov, can anyone find one city

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov http://www.broadbandmap.gov, can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

pgrote 12y ago
For wired connections my zip code shows 4 providers. This was exciting since there is only 1 right now that is equipped for high speed internet. The other 3 are dedicated business telecom companies and do not offer residential service. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't differentiate between residential and business. Looking at the wireless I was excited to see Wimax offered in my zip code according to the site. When I go the provider's map of coverage I only see a small section of the metro area covered and it doesn't include my zip code. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't include the actual wireless coverage provided.
- cpitman 12y ago
  This is one of the real issues with the FCC's collection of this data. Broadband providers don't report where they have customers they are providing service, they report areas that they "cover", where "cover" may just mean an intention to provide service. It may also mean that broadband (>3Mbps) is available, for the low low price of your first born. There's also a potentially anti-competitive slant to this: There are government subsidies available to provide coverage to unserved areas, which might help a small ISP or competitor move into the area. But if we say we cover it...
- broadband432 12y ago
  If you give me your zip code or a surrounding zip code, I can assure you that I'll find more than 1 residential broadband provider in your area.
  - mhurron 12y ago
    And of course, if one person in a zip code can get it, everyone can. I could give you my old Zip code, it would include a small city that had DSL providers and Cable. Where I lived there was one provider, 3mb DSL. That finally showed up about 4 years ago.
    - gfdgh54yhgf 12y ago
      Even with 3Mbps, that's still sufficient for vast majority of Americans. Netflix, like the guy said, recommends only 3Mbs. Heck it requires only 0.5MBps[1] [1] https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
      - mhurron 12y ago
        That wasn't the point. The user is saying everywhere has multiple providers to choose from, and it is just not true.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    Ooh, that's funny. I guess you've never lived in apartments where your choice is between up-to-100mbit Comcast or 768K DSL from ATT. I guess LTE is also a choice for high speed if you want to use less than 5GB per month.
jdmichal 12y ago
That site has... Interesting data. It seems to be granulated based on zip code. It shows, for mine: 1 cable provider 2 ADSL providers It shows FiOS also, but I can almost guarantee that there is no residence within this zip code that can get it. So, the real question is, how much do you consider ADSL "broadband"?
- broadband432 12y ago
  What is your zip code? I am quite certain there's just not one residential broadband provider in your area.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Considering most urban ADSL runs at 15/1Mbps standard it very much is broadband. I guess American providers just like having larger distances and thus lower speed on their wires, but there's nothing wrong with ADSL.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    No. A lot of it can't go above 3 Mbps download. 15 is available only if you are very close to the box. So it's definitely not most.
shmerl 12y ago
Something like DSL or satellite service is not comparable with others (it's too inferior). As well as a capped service is not comparable. Discarding all that you get something that is clearly a monopoly. Plus several companies which do offer something substantial but operate in collusion are essentially a monopoly anyway. Real competition is for example Google Fiber or some other small ISP on the scene. That's when you starting getting 1 Gbps for less than $100. But such cases are quite rare still.
- broadband432 12y ago
  Going by your definition, does Apple have a monopoly on phones since every other phone is inferior? Just because one broadband provider has greater speeds than the others, it doesn't mean it has a 'broadband monopoly'. Again most Americans don't need 100Mbps+. They are fine with 25Mbps. Netflix only requires 3Mbps. Now the "cable monopoly" is a separate issue entirely. Comcast has superior speed in some areas because the municipalities create bottlenecks that keep new wires from being laid (like charging exorbitant fees to do so). See, http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
  - shmerl 12y ago
    Apple has a lot of monopolistic (anti competitive) problems, not just in attitude but in practice. A perfect example is their ban on alternative browsers on iOS. So bringing Apple doesn't help your cause. > Again most Americans don't need 100Mbps+. That's a pile of trash and song that monopolists like to sing to justify their unwillingness to upgrade their networks (since if there is nowhere else to turn, their inferior networks will be used for crazy prices anyway - users simply will have no choice). They start singing a very different song when they face actual competition. They quickly forget their previous claims that no one needs more bandwidth and start offering it. Which just demonstrates how sick the current ISP market is. I.e. imagine you are trying to find a transport service, and local transportation company tells you that their horse and buggy service is just fine, because no one needs anything better (didn't everyone use it for hundreds of years already?). And then their competitor actually builds a railroad... You get the idea - that's exactly what's going on with ISPs now.
FireBeyond 12y ago
Ehhh... For my home, 2.5mi from the Capital Building in Washington State, I'm offered four wired broadband providers: 1. Comcast, "advertised 100mbps to 1gbps" (true enough, although you can only get 150mbps, so I'm not sure if that's bracketing) 2. CenturyLink, "25-50mbps" (CenturyLink's own website says "Our systems indicate that our High Speed Internet is not currently available at your service address." I tried several other streets in the area that indicated that none of them had availability either.) 3. Platinum Equity LLC, "10-25mbps" (err, Platinum Equity is an investment firm - oh, one of their portfolio offers "T1 and Bonded T1" lines to businesses) 4. Integra Telecom Holdings, "3-6mbps" (a Vancouver telco that does business fiber). So there's one - Olympia, WA.
- broadband432 12y ago
  For Olympia, WA, http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olympia,-washington/lat=47.0378741/long=-122.90069510000001/ http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp... There's Comcast, Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and a host of others. EDIT: Facts deserve downvotes?
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    Select "wired" and you're back to what FireBeyond said. One provider. As I replied to you earlier in another thread, cellular internet isn't equivalent, nor is it priced comparably. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olympia,-washington/lat=47.0378741/long=-122.90069510000001/wired/ http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp... re: EDIT: I didn't DV you but you shouldn't be surprised. There probably isn't a single HN'er without direct experience shopping for an ISP, and thus few without the knowledge that the many promises of "broadband" service are often mere pie in the sky.
    - gfdgh54yhgf 12y ago
      But the argument here is "broadband monopoly" not "wired broadband monopoly", which municipalities have direct control over on who gets to lay cables. The "broadband monopoly" argument should stop since American consumers aren't limited to one broadband provider. Anyway, one of the wired ones that's listed (CenturyLink) does residential internet from what I can tell[1]. Another wired one that's also listed for residential in Olympia is MegaPath (owned by Platinum Equity, another wired one)[2]. [1] http://www.centurylink.com/home/internet/ http://www.centurylink.com/home/internet/ [2] http://www.megapath.com/services-residential/ http://www.megapath.com/services-residential/
jeffbush 12y ago
In my ZIP, four of the entries are cell phone providers (don't count), AT&T DSL which is listed as 10Mbps+ (I had it; it was only 900kbps), one that is business only (dedicated lines), and a "fixed wireless" provider that is pretty slow and expensive ...and Comcast, which is what I have because it's the only >5Mbps solution available to customers in my neighborhood. I live 15 minutes away from Google's main campus, so it's not like I'm in the sticks or something. I'm looking at the telephone pole near my house and there are only two wires coming off it: one from Comcast and one from the phone company. And the phone lines can't do more than 1mbps.
- broadband432 12y ago
  Why don't they count? AT&T and Verizon are also broadband providers. They're not dial up services. Isn't that the definition of broadband? The cell providers are listed under "Advertised Speeds Above 3 Mbps Data" or above. Just because Comcast has the fastest service doesn't mean it has a monopoly on broadband services. The vast majority of the American population don't need 100Mbps+ anyway. If they did, there would be more competition in that market.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    The expense and severe limitations of cellular data service rule it out as an equivalent or practical home ISP. It is superior to satellite based service, but that's not saying much.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    >"Why don't they count?" 900kbps from ADSL is not a choice against 30-100+ from DOCSIS
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Technically, I have four, maybe five choices, only one of which is practical. Wireless - Poor reception, technicians unable to connect to uplink/head-end equipment Cellular - Too expensive, data caps, and poor reception (really). DSL - I used this for four years at my home and was generally satisfied with my private DSL reseller's service. I only left because their service only allowed 1.5Mb, which was no longer satisfactory. Ironically, AT&T now offers 6Mb/s service in my area but DSL resellers apparently aren't permitted to resell "U-verse" even though it is provided via an industry standard protocol, ITU G.992.3 Cable - I have cable now 15Mb, the highest speed they offer. They keep promising to roll out higher speeds, but have yet to do so. Satellite - Does that count as broadband? Not for me. High latency and low uplink speed rules it out, and expense. This is an especially crazy situation for me considering that I live near a major internet backbone corridor (0.5mi from my home). So, strictly speaking there is no monopoly, but the result is hard to distinguish from that of a monopoly/cartel situation.
TheCondor 12y ago
There are loop holes to getting in the database. The wireless providers aren't selling w data rate at every location, they sell a package that can reach that rate in the right locations. Likewise, why are speeds so low still if there is all that competition? Once the wiring is done, it should be fairly inexpensive to upgrade performance and that should be a pretty clear competitive edge. Are they colluding? Or is it really somehow a noncompetitive market? I've been in Comcast country a couple times, as soon as there were even whispers of not renewing their franchise, comcast just magically upgraded everyone's performance, I saw that twice. No fee increase.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov http://www.broadbandmap.gov, can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

pgrote 12y ago

For wired connections my zip code shows 4 providers. This was exciting since there is only 1 right now that is equipped for high speed internet. The other 3 are dedicated business telecom companies and do not offer residential service. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't differentiate between residential and business. Looking at the wireless I was excited to see Wimax offered in my zip code according to the site. When I go the provider's map of coverage I only see a small section of the metro area covered and it doesn't include my zip code. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't include the actual wireless coverage provided.

cpitman 12y ago
This is one of the real issues with the FCC's collection of this data. Broadband providers don't report where they have customers they are providing service, they report areas that they "cover", where "cover" may just mean an intention to provide service. It may also mean that broadband (>3Mbps) is available, for the low low price of your first born. There's also a potentially anti-competitive slant to this: There are government subsidies available to provide coverage to unserved areas, which might help a small ISP or competitor move into the area. But if we say we cover it...
broadband432 12y ago
If you give me your zip code or a surrounding zip code, I can assure you that I'll find more than 1 residential broadband provider in your area.
- mhurron 12y ago
  And of course, if one person in a zip code can get it, everyone can. I could give you my old Zip code, it would include a small city that had DSL providers and Cable. Where I lived there was one provider, 3mb DSL. That finally showed up about 4 years ago.
  - gfdgh54yhgf 12y ago
    Even with 3Mbps, that's still sufficient for vast majority of Americans. Netflix, like the guy said, recommends only 3Mbs. Heck it requires only 0.5MBps[1] [1] https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
    - mhurron 12y ago
      That wasn't the point. The user is saying everywhere has multiple providers to choose from, and it is just not true.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  Ooh, that's funny. I guess you've never lived in apartments where your choice is between up-to-100mbit Comcast or 768K DSL from ATT. I guess LTE is also a choice for high speed if you want to use less than 5GB per month.

jdmichal 12y ago

That site has... Interesting data. It seems to be granulated based on zip code. It shows, for mine: 1 cable provider 2 ADSL providers It shows FiOS also, but I can almost guarantee that there is no residence within this zip code that can get it. So, the real question is, how much do you consider ADSL "broadband"?

broadband432 12y ago
What is your zip code? I am quite certain there's just not one residential broadband provider in your area.
tormeh 12y ago
Considering most urban ADSL runs at 15/1Mbps standard it very much is broadband. I guess American providers just like having larger distances and thus lower speed on their wires, but there's nothing wrong with ADSL.
- shmerl 12y ago
  No. A lot of it can't go above 3 Mbps download. 15 is available only if you are very close to the box. So it's definitely not most.

shmerl 12y ago

Something like DSL or satellite service is not comparable with others (it's too inferior). As well as a capped service is not comparable. Discarding all that you get something that is clearly a monopoly. Plus several companies which do offer something substantial but operate in collusion are essentially a monopoly anyway. Real competition is for example Google Fiber or some other small ISP on the scene. That's when you starting getting 1 Gbps for less than $100. But such cases are quite rare still.

broadband432 12y ago
Going by your definition, does Apple have a monopoly on phones since every other phone is inferior? Just because one broadband provider has greater speeds than the others, it doesn't mean it has a 'broadband monopoly'. Again most Americans don't need 100Mbps+. They are fine with 25Mbps. Netflix only requires 3Mbps. Now the "cable monopoly" is a separate issue entirely. Comcast has superior speed in some areas because the municipalities create bottlenecks that keep new wires from being laid (like charging exorbitant fees to do so). See, http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
- shmerl 12y ago
  Apple has a lot of monopolistic (anti competitive) problems, not just in attitude but in practice. A perfect example is their ban on alternative browsers on iOS. So bringing Apple doesn't help your cause. > Again most Americans don't need 100Mbps+. That's a pile of trash and song that monopolists like to sing to justify their unwillingness to upgrade their networks (since if there is nowhere else to turn, their inferior networks will be used for crazy prices anyway - users simply will have no choice). They start singing a very different song when they face actual competition. They quickly forget their previous claims that no one needs more bandwidth and start offering it. Which just demonstrates how sick the current ISP market is. I.e. imagine you are trying to find a transport service, and local transportation company tells you that their horse and buggy service is just fine, because no one needs anything better (didn't everyone use it for hundreds of years already?). And then their competitor actually builds a railroad... You get the idea - that's exactly what's going on with ISPs now.

FireBeyond 12y ago

Ehhh... For my home, 2.5mi from the Capital Building in Washington State, I'm offered four wired broadband providers: 1. Comcast, "advertised 100mbps to 1gbps" (true enough, although you can only get 150mbps, so I'm not sure if that's bracketing) 2. CenturyLink, "25-50mbps" (CenturyLink's own website says "Our systems indicate that our High Speed Internet is not currently available at your service address." I tried several other streets in the area that indicated that none of them had availability either.) 3. Platinum Equity LLC, "10-25mbps" (err, Platinum Equity is an investment firm - oh, one of their portfolio offers "T1 and Bonded T1" lines to businesses) 4. Integra Telecom Holdings, "3-6mbps" (a Vancouver telco that does business fiber). So there's one - Olympia, WA.

broadband432 12y ago
For Olympia, WA, http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olympia,-washington/lat=47.0378741/long=-122.90069510000001/ http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp... There's Comcast, Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and a host of others. EDIT: Facts deserve downvotes?
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Select "wired" and you're back to what FireBeyond said. One provider. As I replied to you earlier in another thread, cellular internet isn't equivalent, nor is it priced comparably. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olympia,-washington/lat=47.0378741/long=-122.90069510000001/wired/ http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp... re: EDIT: I didn't DV you but you shouldn't be surprised. There probably isn't a single HN'er without direct experience shopping for an ISP, and thus few without the knowledge that the many promises of "broadband" service are often mere pie in the sky.
  - gfdgh54yhgf 12y ago
    But the argument here is "broadband monopoly" not "wired broadband monopoly", which municipalities have direct control over on who gets to lay cables. The "broadband monopoly" argument should stop since American consumers aren't limited to one broadband provider. Anyway, one of the wired ones that's listed (CenturyLink) does residential internet from what I can tell[1]. Another wired one that's also listed for residential in Olympia is MegaPath (owned by Platinum Equity, another wired one)[2]. [1] http://www.centurylink.com/home/internet/ http://www.centurylink.com/home/internet/ [2] http://www.megapath.com/services-residential/ http://www.megapath.com/services-residential/

jeffbush 12y ago

In my ZIP, four of the entries are cell phone providers (don't count), AT&T DSL which is listed as 10Mbps+ (I had it; it was only 900kbps), one that is business only (dedicated lines), and a "fixed wireless" provider that is pretty slow and expensive ...and Comcast, which is what I have because it's the only >5Mbps solution available to customers in my neighborhood. I live 15 minutes away from Google's main campus, so it's not like I'm in the sticks or something. I'm looking at the telephone pole near my house and there are only two wires coming off it: one from Comcast and one from the phone company. And the phone lines can't do more than 1mbps.

broadband432 12y ago
Why don't they count? AT&T and Verizon are also broadband providers. They're not dial up services. Isn't that the definition of broadband? The cell providers are listed under "Advertised Speeds Above 3 Mbps Data" or above. Just because Comcast has the fastest service doesn't mean it has a monopoly on broadband services. The vast majority of the American population don't need 100Mbps+ anyway. If they did, there would be more competition in that market.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  The expense and severe limitations of cellular data service rule it out as an equivalent or practical home ISP. It is superior to satellite based service, but that's not saying much.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  >"Why don't they count?" 900kbps from ADSL is not a choice against 30-100+ from DOCSIS

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

Technically, I have four, maybe five choices, only one of which is practical. Wireless - Poor reception, technicians unable to connect to uplink/head-end equipment Cellular - Too expensive, data caps, and poor reception (really). DSL - I used this for four years at my home and was generally satisfied with my private DSL reseller's service. I only left because their service only allowed 1.5Mb, which was no longer satisfactory. Ironically, AT&T now offers 6Mb/s service in my area but DSL resellers apparently aren't permitted to resell "U-verse" even though it is provided via an industry standard protocol, ITU G.992.3 Cable - I have cable now 15Mb, the highest speed they offer. They keep promising to roll out higher speeds, but have yet to do so. Satellite - Does that count as broadband? Not for me. High latency and low uplink speed rules it out, and expense. This is an especially crazy situation for me considering that I live near a major internet backbone corridor (0.5mi from my home). So, strictly speaking there is no monopoly, but the result is hard to distinguish from that of a monopoly/cartel situation.

TheCondor 12y ago

There are loop holes to getting in the database. The wireless providers aren't selling w data rate at every location, they sell a package that can reach that rate in the right locations. Likewise, why are speeds so low still if there is all that competition? Once the wiring is done, it should be fairly inexpensive to upgrade performance and that should be a pretty clear competitive edge. Are they colluding? Or is it really somehow a noncompetitive market? I've been in Comcast country a couple times, as soon as there were even whispers of not renewing their franchise, comcast just magically upgraded everyone's performance, I saw that twice. No fee increase.