Harvard Study Shows Community-Owned ISPs Offer Lower, More Transparent Prices
from the when-in-doubt,-ban-it dept
We've routinely noted how countless communities have been forced to explore building their own broadband networks thanks to limited competition in the market. As most of you have experienced first hand, this lack of competition routinely results in higher prices, slower speeds, worse customer service, and massive broadband deployment gaps. And thanks to telecom industry regulatory capture (taken to an entirely new level during the Trump administration), countless well-heeled lawmakers make it a personal mission to keep things that way.
Needless to say, the threat posed by angry users building or supporting their own networks is a major reason ISPs have lobbied (read: literally bought and written) laws in twenty-one states banning towns and cities from pursuing this option. In some states, towns and cities are even banned from striking public/private partnerships, often the only creative solution available to the traditional broadband duopoly logjam.
Not too surprisingly, a new study out of Harvard details just what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) are afraid of.
The study found that averaged over a four year period, service offered by community ISPs tends to be significantly cheaper that broadband service made available from privately-owned alternatives. In some areas, the researchers couldn't directly compare community-owned broadband with private service, either because the private ISP in question couldn't even offer the FCC definition of broadband (25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream), or because ISPs went to great lengths to prevent users from seeing their actual prices. But in 23 out of 27 cases, the community option provided lower prices:
"When considering entry-level broadband service—the least-expensive plan that provides at least 25/3 Mbps service—23 out of 27 community-owned FTTH providers we studied charged the lowest prices in their community when considering the annual average cost of service over a four-year period, taking into account installation and equipment costs and averaging any initial teaser rates with later, higher, rates."
What's more, the study found that the community options tended to offer prices that were more upfront with the end user, and less reliant on misleading promos or hidden fees:
"While community-owned FTTH providers’ pricing is generally clear and unchanging, private providers almost always offer initial "teaser" prices and then raise the monthly price sharply. This price hike in the communities we studied ranged between $10 (20 percent) and $30 (42.8 percent) after 12 months, both imposed by Comcast, but in different communities. Only one community-owned FTTH provider employed this marketing practice for a data-only plan."
It's worth noting the study was only able to directly compare stand alone broadband prices, since ISPs often obfuscate broadband pricing via the use of bundles and promotions. Often these bundles "promise savings" to users to combine broadband with TV and phone service, though in reality users are routinely and severely financially penalized for ordering just standalone broadband service. Even then, the study is quick to point out how ISPs go to great lengths to make direct price comparisons "extraordinarily difficult":
"In general we found that making comprehensive pricing comparisons among U.S. Internet service plans is extraordinarily difficult. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not disseminate pricing data or track broadband availability by address. Additionally, service offerings follow no standard speed tiers or definitions (such as the specifics of video or phone service bundles)."
ISPs also routinely lobby the government to ensure the FCC doesn't collect and share pricing data, lest somebody figure out the connection between limited competition and high prices. That lobbying influence is one of the major reasons this country spent $300 million on a broadband availability map that not only over-states broadband availability and speeds, but fails completely to even mention pricing. ISPs and lawmakers paid to love them will often focus on empty promises to "expand broadband availability," intentionally ignoring the role competition and pricing plays in that equation.
Again, these towns and cities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if they were happy with the services being provided by the likes of Comcast. And again, Comcast could quickly nip these efforts in the bud by offering better, cheaper service. But time after time it's clear that Comcast, AT&T, and other incumbent ISPs would prefer to instead file lawsuits, spread disinformation, and buy laws banning communities from making their own decisions on local infrastructure. Whatever it takes to avoid having to directly compete.
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, community owned broadband, competition, fcc, municipal broadband, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
Why publish it at all when it says nothing of value?
Bode claimed 22 million people told the FCC to keep regulating the Internet under Title II. Doesn't he need a fact-checker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
See https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d345pv/harvard-study-shows-why-big-telecom-is-terrified-o f-community-run-broadband
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
Given his citation for that claim, I'd like to see one for the "utterly destroyed by careful analysis" claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt rerunning old posts now?
Remember, Lysol keeps the demons at bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: utterly destroyed by careful analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: utterly destroyed by careful analysis
The Berkman report is embarrassingly bad. Averaging its findings - which exclude AT&T, Verizon, and shows the average community network is $10/month cheaper and 7 Mbps slower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: utterly destroyed by careful analysis
Bode also wrote about it on DSLReports, so this is your new super trolling triple-play package.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: utterly destroyed by careful analysis
Is this the report you refer to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: utterly destroyed by careful analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: utterly destroyed by careful analysis
"As discussed in Section 2, the methodology used in the report is problematic – much more so than the authors admit. Moreover, as detailed in Section 3, the report omits critical details about the underlying conditions influencing the GON prices studied. The authors attempt to brush these failings aside as they call on private ISPs to be more forthcoming about their terms and conditions of service.9 This is pure deflection. The surface-level findings in the Berkman report should not be viewed as dispositive vis-à-vis municipal broadband offering “better” service than private broadband. Accordingly, policymakers should view the report’s findings as flawed (the authors admit as much) and endeavor instead to ask hard questions about its methodology and other aspects of the analysis. Doing so reveals a number of key shortcomings that undermine the report’s takeaways."
Any questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “the report omits critical details about the underlying conditions influencing the GON prices studied.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: “the report omits critical details about the underlying conditions influencing the GON prices studied.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You mean, like the actual prices quoted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You mean, like the actual prices quoted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you miss the part where "higher" and "lower" mean you need to have at least two things to compare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did you miss the part where "higher" and "lower" mean you need to have at least two things to compare?
Why don't you take a look at the report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
You mean the ones whose Ts&Cs forbade such use of their pricing information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
Here is the start of a handful of helpful Arsians calling Dick out for trying similar bullshenanigans in the comments of Ars's article on this study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
Oh wait, Richard actually is on the Broadband Deployment Advisory Council. I feel like that puts everything he says and does into quite the interesting perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[For the record: I don't speak for the FCC, nor do I speak under any kind of orders, suggestions, or coordination with the FCC. Anonymous Coward suffers from paranoid delusions of persecution.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the prices of AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that Harvard Study any good?
That Harvard Report has indeed been cited/discussed here in the TD comments in recent weeks; not sure when Report was first introduced here. Oddly, that report only cites "2017" as its publication date.
The Harvard Report itself has a rather casual methodology, unsuitable for drawing any statistically valid conclusions about the general population of Community ISPs in U.S.
There are hundreds of such ISPs, but the study non-randomly selected 40 communities (later reduced to 27)... based purely on the "convenience" to the Harvard researchers of collecting readily available pricing data. The prime conclusions addressed only "entry-level" price comparisons for fiber optic home service, ignoring a host of other relevant comparisons. Government tax subsidies to Community ISPs were ignored by the study. The Report is chock full of disclaimers about "missing data" and "difficulties in obtaining important data".
From a professional Survey Research viewpoint, that Harvard Study had many significant defects. The Harvard researchers seemed to have a strong bias in all aspects of their study. It is a low quality study of little value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unsuitable for drawing any statistically valid conclusions about the general population of Community ISPs in U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dump Harvard
other various web data and commentary available ... giving a broader (less biased) view of Community ISP's. For example:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/339232-the-false-promise-of-municipal-broad band-networks
"The false promise of 'municipal broadband' networks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The false promise of 'municipal broadband' networks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When we get "real NN" then I will all for those regulations but we can't have "real NN" without destruction of the regulations that secure those monopolies. And unlike many in your group I am not willing to compromise on being partially screwed.
There is far more freedom and liberty in communities being able to build local networks than there is in the FCC or local administrations granting little monopoly fiefdoms here and there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
NN will not even be needed if we can get the protectionist regulations out of the way.
Solving one problem automatically solves the other.
"The only thing removing NN does for my state is allow the ISP to financially rape its customer base"
That is not correct, people were still getting financially raped when NN was in place and before NN even happened, TD even had stories about those while NN was in effect before and after.
NN just does not protect you financially, does not remove caps, and still allows slow lanes provided they are compliant with Zero Rating loopholes.
"There are already laws in place that prevent any new startup from happening unless they can spend millions of dollars on infrastructure first. That barrier is too high for pretty much everyone."
And those are the laws I want destroyed but everyone here says I am asking for anarchy when I do. I agree that barrier is too high but NO ONE WANTS TO FIX IT! They just "claim" they want to do that. The moment the word deregulation is mentioned, even if it is bad regulation the nuts come out of the wood work. Do you have a way to keep the crazies out of the conversation? I don't. The telco's even give money to minority support groups to shill for them and TD has written about those too.
I want infrastructure to be restored to the public sector, I want the protectionist laws to be destroyed, I want the anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws to be strengthened or expanded. I want the FTC to get off its ass and wreck the fuck out of ISP falsely advertising unlimited internet and bill suffing. I want the DOJ to absolutely fuck over the cities and ISP's finding ways to build monopolies and conduct anti-trust activities that are giving these ISP's the power to financially rape you.
But both the left and the right are stuck in their Political Churches treating each side like the enemy. We can't win because they have been tricked into fighting a war that does not exist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What federal-level regulations and/or laws do you think are restricting entry into the market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Infrastructure is a natural monopoly, and is is an economic waste for two providers to fully duplicate the infrastructure so that they can compete for customers. Where it exists, the cable DSL duopoly is an accident of history dating back to when analog ruled the roost, and phone and cable TV system were incomparable with each other. Now with digital, and phone, TV and Internet all use the same underlying technology for fixed connections. Cellular systems are not a direct competitor to fixed system, but rather enable mobile use but with bandwidth limitations compared to fixed installation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Getting rid of those regulations would not require getting rid of net-neutrality rules, however, since rules requiring that the network be neutral would not serve to secure or entrench the monopolies.
Also, even in the absence of monopolies, network neutrality would still be essential - and while we might not need rules mandating it, they could hardly hurt. (Especially given how hard it's proving to get those rules put in place to begin with.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it would just make them pointless. My position is I don't care if NN stays or goes, I am just saying its a wasted effort and will ultimately make no real difference, we have much more problematic issues to deal with! Let's go get after those and stop dicking around with NN weaksauce laws!
"Also, even in the absence of monopolies, network neutrality would still be essential"
Supposition, if companies are allowed to compete in a market that has a low barrier to entry then anyone offering a contract to people where they will not spy, will not create fast lanes, and will not bill stuff your shit hole every month will get the customers. Will they get them all, no, but more than enough to take a hell of a chomp out of the ISP incumbents budgets and coffers they buy your politicians with.
The problem is getting politicians to let this power go, and since they get paid by the ISP's for keeping this power, what do you think is going to happen?
That's right... you are going to lose no matter what you do until that part changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if that happens, then by the very fact of it happening, the network (as provided by those companies) will be neutral.
There may not be rules requiring the network to be neutral at that point, but the network will still be neutral, and that is what matters.
And if market forces are going to lead companies to do an inherently good thing anyway, what's the harm in having rules requiring them to do it?
(Particularly when - as we've already learned is the case, from our current experience - the market conditions which lead to those market forces are fragile, and could easily collapse back into (near-)monopoly conditions.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, treating a thing as a monopoly and regulating it as such when it is one due to lack of competition is not bad regulation. Regulation securing monopolies (blocking others from the market) are bad, and i don't see anyone arguing against that.
Dumping on everyone because a positive rule doesn't do all the other things you want, which are in different categories and should also be addressed, certainly, makes no sense. So yeah, people will dump right back. See the thing is, both the bad things you don't like, and the better goals you want both occur by getting an initial toehold in one thing, then proceeding from there. Because you aren't impressed with the previous NN rules (which were not entirely great, but a positive step anyway) doesn't make other people stupid.
Otherwise, i am not sure why people who speak as authority and tell everyone else they are stupid get dumped on sometimes. Is mystery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cities and towns are incompetent
Many of these ill-begotten munis end up owned by Google, so you always have that to look forward to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cities and towns are incompetent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cities and towns are incompetent
Getting more talking points from Pai, are we? How droll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cities and towns are incompetent
There's actually a story out there centered on this point. It tells of a poor couple who live in a one-room hut and keep animals outside. As best I recall, when they go to the headman/wise man/what-have you to complain about the cramped conditions and ask for advice, he tells them to take the chickens into the hut; when they go back to say it's worse and complain again, he tells them to take the pig into the hut; et cetera. Eventually, after they've worked their way up to the horse, he gives them the OK to put one of the animals back outside, and one by one they work their way back down to where it's just the two of them in the hut without any of the animals - and then there seems like so much space, and it's such a relief!
The moral of the story is presented in its title: "It Can Always Be Worse".
(The flip side of "it could be worse" being a general truth is that pointing it out doesn't really have much weight as an argument.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cities and towns are incompetent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cities and towns are incompetent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ars Technica's article - by Brodkin - is garbage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Berkman hid behind an obvious misreading
I’m not sure how you are supposed to (mis)interpret things like:
Please tell me what dictionary you are using to look up phrases like “systematically collecting and using” and “authorized use is limited”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Berkman hid behind an obvious misreading
Berkman author Danielle Kehl did that several times for the NAF "Cost of Connectivity" reports.
You're chopping off the relevant text of the phrases you quote: "**systematically** collect[ing] and us[ing] any Content including **the use of any data mining, or similar data gathering and extraction methods**"
No researcher has ever been sued for taking prices from ISP websites for purposes of comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No researcher has ever been sued for taking prices from ISP websites for purposes of comparison.
You don’t wait for the lawsuit, just the potential threat of a C&D is enough. Particularly when the Ts&Cs are pretty clear that this kind of activity is prohibited.
Remember, when you are dealing with corporates whose legal budget is bigger than your employer’s entire operating budget, you tread carefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Berkman hid behind an obvious misreading
A Shill's wet dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ars Technica's article - by Brodkin - is garbage
Good thing is most or us here recognize you as a troll and shill you have always been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't Kehl's first rodeo
You're pretty credulous if you believe Berkman's claim. In any event, you can't claim a < b if you don't have the values of a and b regardless of your excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looooool. Shooting yoursel in the foot much?
Shill, please gtfo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self Esteem
It's enlightening to hear you align yourself with such individuals. Really puts things into perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
Dick, you could be a girl and the comment would make sense. The FCC could identify as a girl and the comment would make sense. You're in a willingly subservient relationship with the garbage Pai puts out of his orifices, and you think nobody notices.
And regarding your claim that it's a TD thing, That Anonymous Coward is staunchly gay. And he's very much respected in the community. Being a part of the group that puts copyright trolls to justice will do that.
How about this alternative if you feel your sensibilities have been triggered: you have your tongue firmly rammed up the non-gender specific rectal cavity of the FCC, and you do so willingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
What an impressive group intellect TD has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self Esteem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]