As the other commenter already noted, there are few legal restrictions for additional broadband competitors.
In terms of video, it's the cities that assign video franchises. Ironically, while some cities clamor for the right to provide broadband and dial tone because the ILEC is doing a sub-average job, other cities in the same state aren't willing to assign a second video franchise to a wanna-be competitor. Funny how that works. Some states now provide the option for MVPDs to seek franchises at the state level.
We should let each community decide how many different delivery types they want (twisted pair copper, coax, fiber, cellular, wifi, wimax, EVDO, HSPA, LTE, satellite, etc.) and then guarantee the facility provider a cost plus recovery model. (Payable by the consumers and/or the local community government(s))
Cable, entertainment, Internet, phone, and all other service providers would then be required to use one of the locally sanctioned facilities. This would provide a truly free market.
And if businesses won't provide the services, then the local community and government can step in an provide the competition.
I think it can be said there are not enough options. While many the answers lay in the hands of local government. The federal government needs to do what it can to get out of interfering with the local market. States need to do what they can to end the practices of allowing these monopolies.
In Memphis TN there is no broadband option for less than $45 month this is criminal, most options are $60 month....Bring competition to the broadband market.
This is a definite for my area the only broadband band is fixed wireless at 325k on 10 yearold technology and only works 70% of the time and cost 50$ a month. but when there nothing else what are you gonna do? you gonna eat what ever they feed you.
I have been trying to sign up for broadband Internet service at my new apartment for more than a month now, with absolutely no luck. Due to a clerical error on Comcast's part, my address is not listed in their system as serviceable--though almost every OTHER apartment in my building is.
As a consumer, I have no leverage to make them act any faster, because no other broadband services are available in my building.
ALL cable and DSL broadband companies I've ever worked with have been terrible, with nearly non-existent customer service and low-speed, over-priced plans. This is only true because of their legal local monopolies, enforced not just through government franchise but also through exclusivity agreements with apartment complexes and housing developments. It needs to stop.
This post is pretty confusing. Most ISPs are gigantic national companies with little or no responsibility to their consumers. From where I sit the industry is basically an oligopoly, with deep government connections bordering on the corrupt. I would prefer more small local options.
While frnkblk is right, there are few restrictions that prevent broadband competition, the video franchise is what makes entering the market undesirable. The franchise holder is guaranteed the revenue (very profitable revenue) and can then deliver sub-standard services in other areas of their business, but it is not feasible for competitors to break into the market because of the stranglehold the franchise holder has on the local government.
I have seen it happen. I have seen the local cable company complain that a broadband provider could be providing video services over their broadband connection and cause problems for the competitor in getting easements for fiber and other things necessary for opening up a market.
It's not as simple as just saying "compete on broadband" when the sub-par broadband implementation of the incumbent is effectively subsidized by the government's video franchise monopoly.
Revise
Flag
Vote Up
Vote Down
Post New Comment
Close