Cable's Broadband Monopoly Is Becoming Stronger Than Ever
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
Despite ample lip service to the subject of broadband, huge swaths of United States' broadband markets are becoming less competitive than ever before. Companies like AT&T and Verizon have proven completely disinterested in upgrading huge swaths of their networks, instead pivoting toward content and advertising, as evident by AT&T's $155 billion acquisitions of DirecTV and Time Warner, and Verizon's acquisitions of AOL and Yahoo. CenturyLink and Windstream are following suit, shifting their focus from residential broadband to enterprise service with their respective acquisitions of Level 3 and Earthlink.That's not to say that telcos aren't upgrading their networks at all. Many selectively upgrade customers in markets where fiber is already in the ground and deployment costs are minimal (developments, college campuses), then use marketing magic to pretend these deployments are much larger than they actually are. But in reality most telco execs are now shifting their attention to higher-growth markets like content and advertising, well aware of Wall Street's outright refusal to wait on a return on broadband investment.
As a result, not only are these "broadband" companies incapable of technically offering millions of their customers the FCC definition of broadband (25 Mbps), they're quite actively trying to drive these unwanted customers away with the one-two punch of outright apathy or price hikes for 2003-era speeds.
As a result, phone companies have seen broadband subscriber net losses in five of the last six quarters. In fact, in the first three quarters of 2016, cable companies added about 2,440,000 broadband subscribers, while Telcos lost about 475,000. Last quarter alone the top cable providers added about 775,000 net broadband customers, compared to a net loss of 150,000 broadband subscribers for the nation's telcos:
Obviously this is all wonderful news if you're a cable broadband provider. As telcos back away from the residential broadband markets they don't want to upgrade, cable's monopoly becomes stronger than ever. As a result, cable providers can implement their weapon-du-jour against streaming video providers (usage caps and overage fees), without fear of the competitive repercussions you'd see in a healthy market. There's also less incentive than ever to lower prices, or to shore up what has historically been some of the worst customer service in any U.S. industry.
While some (including AT&T and Verizon) like to claim that fifth-generation wireless will come in and save us from this more powerful cable monopoly, there's absolutely no indication these services will be uniformly available -- or cheap. While 5G technically does provide significantly faster broadband with lower latency, usage caps and overage fees will ensure these services are priced out of the range of many households. And again, with the only competition being either expensive and capped satellite broadband, or expensive and capped cable broadband, the end result won't so much be competition as it will be competition theater.
Keep in mind cable providers are being allowed to consolidate at a faster rate than ever before, at the same time we seem intent on turning a blind eye to letting incumbent ISPs quite literally write awful protectionist state laws that hamstring broadband competition and creative solutions to spotty coverage. Combine that with the early signs that a Trump Presidency will likely focus on gutting net neutrality and other consumer protections, and the writing on the wall for U.S. broadband markets should start to come into focus.
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, cable, competition, fcc, monopoly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The only thing that results from these mergers is less innovation and higher prices. It's not acceptable that the government prevents newcomers from entering the market while letting the incumbents keep merging. Absolutely nothing good comes out of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anti-Trust laws work against regulatory agencies, so that Anti-trust laws are essentially ignored and forgotten. The Government would rather 'regulate and control' the market, not enforce anti-trust laws.
Seriously think about it... do you want Control or not?
Regulatory agency = POWER!
Anti-Trust = Little to NO POWER!
The government WANTS CONTROL! Anti-Trust gives them little power because someone has to do something to cause that engagement. With regulation, you just get to create laws regardless of who is doing wrong or right. And when you get to just create laws without oversight...
[ 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:
TL; DR: regulation is a form of anti-trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18568.htm
It may behoove us to start throwing congress and the President under the bus. I don't remember Obama doing much to prevent this do you? I certainly don't see Trump even giving even the smallest shit either!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obama sure hasn't done crap for anyone other then screw up Health Care for millions of people and dropping lots of bombs, killing a lot of innocent people in the process and really creating ISIS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All I said was I don't see Trump giving a shit and now all we can wait and do is watch and see if my prediction is correct or not.
Trump is already backpedaling on a few things he said during the campaign. How much he backpedals is yet to be seen. On subjects like the FCC and net neutrality, I completely expect to see Trump allow for US businesses to further solidify their Government granted monopolies.
Trump, like most Americans and people working in Government, knows little and understands even less about the Constitution and how the Government is supposed to work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BTW, now that Trump is president-elect, can we start declaring the Trump created ISIS? Or do we have to wait until after the inauguration? That's how it works for you, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"BTW, now that Trump is president-elect, can we start declaring the Trump created ISIS? Or do we have to wait until after the inauguration? That's how it works for you, right?"
Although I think I take your point in general, we'll have to wait to see what endless war horrors Trump's administration has in store for the world. However, the fact remains that the rise of the group they're currently calling ISIS can be directly attributed to the Obama administration. ISIS (as it is currently understood) came into existence in 2012. That's Obama, not Bush, not Trump. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if the Trump admin (like Obama with Bush) simply continues a similar foreign policy.
More to the point is that attribution of ISIS type groups to a particular administration is really a mute point. As creating/facilitating "terror" groups like this has been US (et al.) standard operating procedure for regime change for a very long time. Not only is it a completely immoral practice that goes against most peoples' values, it actually makes all of us much less safe.
Here's a short clip of a news broadcast that will give you all the terminology needed to research the truth about the rise of ISIS if you're interested in finding out more:
Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria - Ben Swann - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1aDciHCejA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bush II & Friends created the conditions for their success. First with their bungled occupation, then with their committing the US to a timetable for pulling out.
If Obama can be "credited" for creating ISIS - as the poster I responded to does - and as Trump himself does - then once sworn in Trump can get credit with equal honesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, what's the difference? Obama clearly continued and expanded on Bush/US-empire foreign policy (not to mention a host of other civil liberty crushing actions). Anyone defending this totalitarian war criminal by suggesting he was somehow a hapless victim of his predecessor's policy is deluding themselves. I voted for Obama twice based on his pretty words of hope and change. Face it man, his pretty words were lies. Obama simply wasn't what we thought he was. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and stop apologizing for the catastrophe that is his legacy.
Also, I get it, you hate Trump. The neocon Republican Party clearly does not represent the best interests of the American people. But the Clinton/Obama neoliberal menace to our society is a terrible alternative. Accept it, NEITHER party represents the best interests of the American people. They represent only the best interests of their wealthy patrons.
Although these issues may play some role, Trump's win isn't primarily about racism or sexism or any of the other wedge issue nonsense the corporate news propaganda tries to fill our heads with. It's about the dire economic situation that most Americans are now experiencing.
If - in the very unlikely event - you're interested in better understanding my point of view (vs. simply acting as an Obama apologist and/or arguing), take a listen to the segment in the video below of the polysci professor who provides some insight into why Trump won (spoiler, it has very little to do with Trump).
Segment starts at about 60 sec. -
Economist Who Predicted Brexit & Trump Brilliantly Explains Capitalism's Collapse -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8bf6dbYt4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hillary Clinton would not have been a good President; she would have continued the country on more or less its current trajectory, rather than improving things which need to be improved. If she had won the Presidency, things would not have gotten better, but they would not have gotten actively worse very quickly.
Donald Trump will be an actively dangerous President; we will be very lucky if he does not do catastrophic damage to our democracy, to our strength as a country, and to the world situation as a whole. With him in office, things will not get better, and will very probably get actively worse.
Between those two choices, it seems clear to me which one is the lesser of the two evils - and it appears that a majority of voters agreed. Unfortunately, the balance of the electoral college fell out differently.
I agree that Trump's victory has very little to do with Trump; among other things (such as the ones indicated by the link you cite), it has more to do with the years of Republican=and-so-forth demonizing of Hillary Clinton, and the long-established Republican drive towards partisan gerrymandering and "soft" voter disenfranchisement.
Unfortunately, regardless of what led to it, a Trump victory does not get us what the voters who picked him actually want; what it gets us is Trump, which is - at best - an incoherent mess, and which will not actually solve any of the problems which led them to vote for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I see an... E... maybe?"
Combine that with the early signs that a Trump Presidency will likely focus on gutting net neutrality and other consumer protections, and the writing on the wall for U.S. broadband markets should start to come into focus.
Given said writing is large enough to be readable from space it's not like it's difficult to read, unless of course you have a financial incentive not to be able to read it, in which case it just looks like a bunch of gibberish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile in Canada
The CRTC had mandated that by last March 1st, cable companies had to offer a so-called "skinny basic" TV package for $25 or less. Individual pick-and-pay channel deals must be available by Dec 1st. The cable companies of course responded with equipment rental fees and raised prices on add-on channels, making the minimum cost much higher.
So now the CRTC has now published a set of "best practices", like not forcing TV subscribers to get their internet from the same company. Those "best practices" are voluntary. The CRTC typically avoids regulating such behavior.
On the other hand the CRTC is sending a message by announcing that it's renewing most TV providers' licences for only one year rather than the typical seven-year term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meanwhile in Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meanwhile in Canada
There's even some anti-monopolistic regulation. For example the well-established MTS not being allowed to offer lower prices until its new competitors reached a certain market share.
Canada has forced the large internet companies to allow 'virtual' ISPs to offer services on top of their networks all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meanwhile in Canada
The UK allows several ISPs to offer service over the same phone lines, and put their kit in the local exchanges. I get around 2MB/s (Bytes) with no caps over DSL, and I am 5 miles out from the exchange, and 3 from the nearest roadside cabinet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
Competition is a fantastic thing...and I love tearing up the weekly "specials" mailer from TWC/Charter knowing I'm getting faster internet and more channels for a lower cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]