DSL Users Still Can't Get Advertised Speeds They Pay For, Nation's Telcos Couldn't Care Less
from the underwhelming-you-is-our-forte dept
Every year the FCC is mandated by Congress to release a report detailing the status of the U.S. broadband industry. The good news? This year's edition of the creatively-named "Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report" (pdf) notes that speeds have by and large tripled since 2011. The bad news? That's really only for those who have cable broadband (where DOCSIS upgrades are relatively inexpensive) and the few people living in an area getting wired with fiber to the home. If you're a phone company customer with a DSL connection, unfortunately, many of you are still lucky to get 12 Mbps downstream:" Largely spurred by the deployment of enabling technologies such as DOCSIS 3, the maximum advertised download speeds offered by ISPs using cable systems increased from 12-20 Mbps in March 2011 to 50-105 Mbps in September 2014. However, popular maximum DSL speed offerings have not kept up with that growth. While average DSL consumer speeds have increased, popular maximum DSL speed offerings have stayed largely stagnant since 2011, with most DSL providers offering maximum download rates of 12 Mbps or less."And that 12 Mbps mark is rather generous. There are tens of millions of DSL customers who are lucky to nab 3 Mbps downstream on a good day, thanks to phone companies that face no serious competitive incentive to upgrade. Worse, some of these companies (like AT&T and Verizon) are actively trying to drive these unwanted customers away with apathy and price hikes so they can focus on more-profitable wireless. Others, (like Frontier, Windstream and CenturyLink) are buying these aging assets up, but wind up being so saddled with debt meaningful upgrades aren't possible (assuming they had competitive incentive to do so).
For a few years now the FCC has taken to naming and shaming ISPs that fail to deliver advertised speeds as part of the report. And for a while, it paid dividends. Cable companies singled out in the report one year for poor performance (like Cablevision) would return the next having notably upgraded provisioned speeds for fear of bad PR. Even notoriously awful satellite providers, motivated by 4G wireless, have been improving things with new Ka-band deployments. But proudly, consistently, the nation's DSL providers continue to under-deliver in terms of both overall speed...
The result (despite a lot of hype surrounding gigabit deployments) is a huge swath of the country that will likely be stuck on last-generation DSL for the better part of the next decade. And while a lack of real broadband competition is the obvious culprit, these same companies will be sure to blame everything from net neutrality to rogue yeti for their miserable failure to provide even the barest semblance of mediocre service.
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: broadband, broadband speeds, cable, competition, dsl, fcc
Companies: at&t, centurylink, frontier, verizon, windstream
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Government Regulation
FCC is STILL a paid WHORE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government Regulation
Also, what do you think the situation would be if there were no regulation at all? Do you think you would be better or worse off, and why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government Regulation
Not that it matters for this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government Regulation
What I am saying that the FCC being the way that is is, is pretty much State Sanctioning these little monopoly cut-outs. Are they TRUE monopolies according to the SEC definition, maybe maybe not, but it is clear the that FCC has absolutely created this problem.
I don't disagree with sensible regulation, but regulation that mettles with the free market is bad, which is typically the type of regulation that most people are wanting!
The day I ever see anyone asking for regulation that also asks for the correct one is probably the day we all die because the world is going to be fucking unbelievably shocked!
There is just no END to the number sheeple stupidly asking for regulation after regulation from agencies PROVING beyond the shadow of any doubt that they will only create regulation that benefits the very people they are to be regulating! But they sure will decorate that regulation in such a way that it appears to be good.
That is just how stupid everyone is on it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government Regulation
I don't think it matters if there's no regulation or if there's tons of regulation. This half-ass regulation is worse than both. If there were no regulation, there would be more competition so it would be better. If they were forced into competition, or forced to act as if they had competition at the very least, it would be better.
The truth, in my opinion, is that it doesn't matter which way the pendulum swings. It just needs to get moving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Government Regulation
A bad law is worse than no law.
"Doing something is better that nothing..." is the logic of a fool!
Bad Metrics are worse than NO metrics.
NO Government is better than a CORRUPT ONE!
Bad Regulation is worse than NO regulation.
Setting up an agency that does not face sunset every 4 years will become corrupt easier and faster!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Karl,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Karl,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, It Was Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, It Was Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, It Was Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, It Was Bad
And its the highest speed offered. There is no cable, we live 5 miles out of their "area" and our county has no other cable provider than Comcast who is not planning on expanding internet offering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, It Was Bad
I guess I should be happy that I at least get close to what they advertise and it's not as bad as zero or Carlie. Sure don't feel happy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, It Was Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU! EU! EU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU! EU! EU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EU! EU! EU!
But hey, why invest when you can make money by doing nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon DSL here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am in the wrong business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly one correct answer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Neighborhood Getting Updated
Google is building a giga shack two blocks away. The choices are abundant now. The giga line is going to be $70.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Darkness of Night-side makes them stronger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From 300bps in the 70's to... what is going on?!!?!
I as many of you have worked with the "baby bells", remember when 2400bps was as lightning? Sure, just text. 9600bps, and one could dl pics, university data, etc. (Sometimes I am even nostalgic for the era.)
LONG time user the the ATT/Bells/ATT, I guess I was considered a 'very good' customer, or that was the speal, soon after I started with 6mbps. I could stream well via Wi-Fi to Netflex/Hulu when after a time a minimal increase selected 24mbps @ $60. No noticeable improvement.
Six months later I was reviewing my bill when a remarkable deal was offered: 50mbps d/l ($40, no taxes/fees) for less than the 24, and only slightly higher than the original 6! I inquired, and "Oh, yes, you are just such a wonderful long time customer...
I fell for it. Soon, streaming to my TV was not possible, being so below buffering the streaming services would simply give up! For the "heck" of it, I ran a CAT5 to the TV, and now it streams at the original 6mbps.
No more than I really stream video, I'm thinking I may be able to cast from phone/tablet for less.
BTW: ATT U-Verse DSL is now "ATT High Speed." Go figure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]