Austin Begins To Show Us What Broadband Competition Was Supposed To Look Like
from the unfamiliar-territory dept
As we've stated more than a few times, so many of the problems that plague Internet and telecom markets could be remedied if we simply had healthy competition between broadband operators. Net neutrality, for example, would rarely be a problem in a market where broadband ISPs were seriously afraid that their subscribers could actually leave. However, what most markets usually have is "wink wink, nod nod" non price competition between two incumbent operators (if you're lucky), with little to no incentive to excel on price or service -- or even upgrade the network or improve customer service.While Google Fiber may never be a nationwide broadband presence, the company's entry into a handful of markets has at least given us a hopeful glimpse at what healthy broadband competition should actually look like. In Austin, for example, Google Fiber expects to start connecting users later this year, offering symmetrical 1 Gbps connections for just $70 a month. They also offer a free (what a concept) 5 Mbps tier if you pay a one-time $300 connection fee. Google's market entry in turn prompted AT&T to promise $70 1 Gbps connections in order to save face. More recently, a cable operator by the name of Grande Communications joined the fun, promising 1 Gbps lines for $65. Even Time Warner Cable, not known for aggressive or even pro-active deployments, is now offering 300 Mbps in Austin.
The result is a market that in fairly short order should show us what actual broadband competition in the United States was supposed to look like:
"Grande's entry suggests it isn't only large, national businesses that can compete when it comes to offering high-speed broadband. Austin is fast becoming the site of an arms race among broadband providers at a time when many U.S. communities are dominated by one or perhaps two companies. But there's a good reason for that: The city is already known for its forward thinking. Thanks in part to conferences like SXSW, university students and big health-care centers, Austin has become "a mecca for creative and entrepreneurial people," according to Google."Granted this isn't all sunshine and roses. It should be noted that at the moment nobody in Austin is actually signed up for a 1 Gbps connection yet. This being AT&T, their version of competition (since it's so unfamiliar to them) is also a little, uh, creative. The company will only offer you that 1 Gbps line for $70 if you agree to be snooped upon by AT&T's "Internet Preferences" deep packet inspection technology, which monitors and monetizes all of your browsing data. Otherwise you'll pay $100 a month, which AT&T amusingly insists is a "$30 savings." AT&T's 1 Gbps connections are also actually 300 Mbps connections until upgrades are finished later this year, and they're mostly being aimed at higher-end developments under the pretense of a broader deployment.
That leads me to the fact that while Google Fiber has resulted in some real competition in the very-limited number of locations they operate, they've also spawned a new phenomenon I've affectionately labeled "fiber to the press release." That's where a company proudly crows that they're offering 1 Gbps lines in a press statement, without actually saying where, when or to how many users. Our press being as they are, nobody bothers to actually ask those questions. This effectively has resulted in several companies proclaiming they're investing in cutting edge networks without actually, uh, doing much of that. The announcements are a bit theatrical in nature but tend to be entirely ambiguous when it comes to hard data (the branding for these phantom services, however, is usually lovely).
At the same time the 1 Gbps mark seems to have captured the nation's imagination, even if most people have no idea what to do with that much speed (which is a good thing). Still, Austin's going to see more robust broadband competition than 90% of the nation, and it's all thanks to a search engine that was pissed off about the state of broadband competition and decided to do something about it. Hopefully there are a few more deep-pocketed dreamers out there that are unwilling to settle, because the country needs a lot more help lighting a fire under all-too-comfortable mono/duopolies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: austin, broadband, competition, isp, texas
Companies: at&t, google, time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
That If a company/person was not using a piece of property to its BEST ECONOMIC ability, that they could take it, and MAKE more money with it..
Dont know if its still in use, as many wanted to take the Governors mansion and convert it to business venture..
fOR some reason(i WONT POINT FINGERS) to many companies are NOT competing..
Is there NO competition?
HOW does 1 company take over WHOLE areas..as in the OLD phone companies..
Wouldnt it ne interesting, that IF' another company WANTED to come into an area, and SOMEONE had already installed the infrastructure, that THEY COULD JUMP ONLINE with that SAME infrastructure?
YES, its mean, and would upset companies..THEY had installed MILLIONS into an area, and an UPSTART takes over parts of it..for little or nothing.
But ISNT that whats KINDA happening now..Companies selling themselves BACK and forth, and we PAY for the bills they MADE in the purchase prices?? with no improvements on OLD CRAP??
To them its a tax deduction, and to US its a higher BILL..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the capital I pay ~$25 for 60Mbit + TV (~100 channels) + landline + cellular (240 minutes free between the two).
US "broadband" is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I can say is it seems competition works in driving down costs and while still providing more. Go figure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But 5 minutes down the road and its a different story. Hopefully that alone is enough to keep them in line lest the other ISPs take over their fringe areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Average salary in the USA: $ 3693.
Average salary in Poland: $ 1380.
So my $65 broadband costs me about the same as your $23 broadband.
I'm sick of people in Europe that make half to a third of what I make telling me that I'm getting ripped off because I pay 2 to 3 times as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're not getting ripped off because you're paying 2-3x as much, you're getting ripped off because you're paying 2-3x as much for 1/4 the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want Competition AND Net Neutrality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Want Competition AND Net Neutrality?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in -20-states/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this illegal? ... price fixing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing#Legal_status_in_the_United_States_and_Canada
http://w ww.billboard.com/articles/news/74008/cd-price-fixing-suit-settled-for-143-million
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget satellite!
They forgot about satellite internet, a broadband option for everyone in America! Unless you need low latency, or you live in an apartment building, or you don't have line of sight... or it's raining.
Three providers - now that's real competition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget satellite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlike Google; at least AT&T asks first....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed is useless when you have caps.
Caps are such bullshit. At least make it 2000gb or something. That will take care of the 1% who "abuse"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've lived through dial-up, Southwestern Bell DSL (now AT&T, which they are trying *SO* hard to finish killing) and Time-Warner before switching to Grande. Paying about $50/mo for 50mbps. Service has been rock solid, through two moves.
I just hope with their aggressive expansion and attempt to crack the Austin market they stay the good regional ISP they've been thus far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"How do we offer 1 Gbps without actually offering 1 Gbps?"
"How do we get people to pay for something we actually don't have to deliver?"
"Customer service? Isn't that where customers serve us?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is going to the wrong cities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is going to the wrong cities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously though, anyone who was willing to sign up for the spy tier needs to be quarantined and put through a battery of tests, as they've somehow managed to make it through life without a functioning brain, and something like that really needs to be investigated and studied(as a bonus, they've already indicated that they don't mind extensive and invasive surveillance, so they probably wouldn't care as long as you gave them $10-20 every so often).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As an example, on a slow 56K connection, sites/services like youtube, Netflix and other steaming sites would be all but impossible, whereas today they're insanely popular and just getting more so, so even if you can't think of what a 1G connection could be used for currently, you can be assured that something would pop up to take advantage of it in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"With AT&T Internet Preferences, what types of information are you collecting?
The web pages you visit, the time you spend on each, the links or ads you see and follow, and the search terms you enter.
We will not collect information from secure (https) or otherwise encrypted sites, such as when you enter your credit card to buy something online or do online banking on a secure site."
That's not what I call "deep packet inspection". You probably get that for free (barring encrypted traffic) whatever you pay :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Deep packet inspection means looking at the payload of a data packet, rather than just the headers. To perform the sole function of the internet -- routing data between systems -- the only thing that is required is to look at the headers. Those headers do not contain links, ads, search terms, or anything of the sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paraphrase of performance review
"Capable of moderate competitiveness and customer service when under constant regulatory scrutiny or cornered like a rat in a trap by real competition."
I don't waste a lot of ponders fuming about how bad things are when competition is eliminated, but neither will I forget if/when I have a choice again.
So go ahead... Think no farther ahead than this quarter's profits. Your demise will be cause for celebration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/
"Up to 1 gigabit (1,000 Mbps) upload & download speed"
This is consistent with the industry definition of "symmetric" links.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1Gbps symmetrical means 1Gbps each way not split and a single Fibre can handle both upload and download. Heck a single Fibre can handle hundreds of times that speed depending on the equipment at the ends. There would be no good reason to use two unless your looking to have redundant links.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]