Comcast Thinks Having Basic Broadband Privacy Protections 'Irrational'

from the we're-angels dept

Last week the FCC announced that it would be imposing some relatively new basic privacy protections on broadband. While the full rules will be hashed out after extensive public and company input (meaning if anything they'll get weaker), FCC boss Tom Wheeler's proposal (pdf) is fairly basic: ISPs should alert customers when their data is stolen, ISPs should be totally transparent about what they're collecting, and ISPs should provide users with working opt-out tools for any data collection service the ISP employs. None of these requirements are particularly onerous, and most ISPs will find that they're already adhering to them.

Given that an informed and empowered customer that opts out of snoopvertsing means less money earned, it's no mystery that ISPs have been whining about the FCC's proposal. After all, as wireline and wireless subscriber growth has become saturated, companies like Comcast and Verizon have turned to advertising as their next great growth market (thus Verizon's $4.4 billion AOL buy).

Obviously Comcast can't just come right out and say it's solely worried about losing money, so top company lobbyist David Cohen (apparently the company hates it when I call him that) has coughed up a new company blog post in which Comcast tries to argue that having some basic, new broadband privacy rules is an "irrational" move that creates an "unjustified set of regulatory shackles." Shackles that would, apparently, prevent consumers from enjoying all of the marketing Comcast intends to throw at them:

"Beyond blocking ISPs from competing in the online advertising marketplace, the FCC proposal will have other spillover effects. One example of the extreme nature of the FCC’s proposal and how it would negatively impact competition and consumers relates to cross-marketing of our competitive products and services to existing ISP customers. Under the FCC proposal, Xfinity Internet customers could miss out on learning about lower prices for taking bundles of services like Xfinity Home Security. Today, consumers are benefitting from competition in these new and expanded services, and they expect to receive these offerings from their broadband provider. The proposed FCC’s rules would unjustifiably make that much more difficult."

That's really just an overlong, alternative way of saying that Comcast is worried they won't be able to upsell you as much unnecessary shit as they otherwise would. But again, with transparency and opt-out consent the cornerstones of the FCC's plan, the FCC has made it clear that there's really nothing that will prevent ISPs from upselling their own, or anybody else's services. Despite hysteria in the telecom sector there's no indication the FCC's panning anything more elaborate or "difficult," with the primary focus being letting consumers opt out -- with no hard focus on requiring consumers opt in (much preferred by many privacy advocates).

ISPs have been pushing funded studies for months stating privacy rules aren't necessary because ISPs don't really collect much about you (just flatly incorrect) and VPNs and encryption means consumers have tools to protect themselves already making further action unnecessary. But as studies like this one from Team Upturn have noted, ISPs collect an ocean of data on users via multiple technologies. Most Internet of Things and other household traffic isn't encrypted, and ISPs still track and monetize user behavior by studying DNS records and other network footprints.

Still, Cohen tries to pretend that there's no reason for the FCC to get involved in privacy because nothing bad has ever happened on the broadband privacy front:

"There is no evidence of any problem with ISP privacy and security practices: research published by the Harvard Business Review and the Pew Research Center shows that consumers trust their ISPs just as much, if not more, than other providers in the Internet ecosystem. And there have been very few ISP-related privacy or data security issues under the FTC regime, even while the FTC has taken numerous enforcement actions against others in the Internet ecosystem. "

Cohen has a short memory. You'll recall that one of the key reasons the FCC is even pursuing new broadband privacy rules was Verizon's abuse of so-called "stealth cookies," which involved embedding wireless user packets with unique header identifiers that let Verizon track consumers and build detailed online profiles. Verizon was using this tracking technology for three years before security analysts even noticed. Consumers were never informed. It took another six months of public pressure and an FCC investigation before Verizon allowed customers to opt out. The FTC never raised a finger, which is why you'll generally see ISPs argue for leaving some telecom enforcement in the hands of said agency.

Again, ISPs had spent the last decade arguing that a "self-regulatory regime" was all that was needed to protect consumer privacy -- but when push came to shove it simply couldn't do it. Between Verizon's stealth cookies and AT&T's decision to make opting out of snoopvertising a steep monthly premium, the lack of broadband competition has meant ISPs could consistently ignore customer privacy rights without repercussion. In an ideal, competitive market you might not need net neutrality or privacy rules, but as anybody held hostage by the nation's dynamic duopoly knows, that's just not the reality most broadband consumers live in.

Filed Under: broadband, david cohen, fcc, isp, privacy
Companies: comcast

Cable Company Totally Unsure What Neighborhoods It Serves, Wants $117,000 For Broadband Service

from the bungled-and-the-botched dept

Here's a tip if you're looking to move or building a new house: get your ISP to write you a letter confirming that they service your new address. While you're at it, get three copies of it from three different executives, have it notarized, and force the ISP to swear a blood oath, because even then you may find yourself without service at your new address. As we've noted a few times, users often assume ISPs actually know what neighborhoods they service, only to later have a Kafka-esque introduction to the U.S. broadband industry's blistering incompetence and dismal customer service.

The latest example comes via a Wisconsin resident who planned to build a new home on a lot both Frontier Communications and Charter Communcations said they were able to service. To be sure, the user double and triple-checked with Charter before beginning the build process:

"Despite not being in a densely populated area, Marshall said the lot was advertised as "cable-ready." Before committing to the purchase, Marshall said, “I looked on Charter’s website, and I typed in the address of the lot, and it said, ‘yep, we can service you.’" Just to make sure, Marshall said he looked up the addresses of neighboring homes and got the same answer. Just to make extra sure, Marshall said he called Charter “and gave them the address, and they said, ‘yup we can service that lot.’" Construction on the house began in November 2014 and finished in June."

The user did everything right short of getting the promise in writing. And guess what? Charter wasn't able to service that lot. Worse, after admitting error about its own network coverage, the cable operator informed the user it would cost him a whopping $117,000 to provide service:

""Once my house was built, I called [Charter] to set up service, and that’s when they told me they made a mistake. I was too far away from their network," Marshall said. In June, a Charter construction coordinator told him he’d have to pay $117,000 to cover all labor, materials, and permitting for a network extension to serve the home. Marshall would have to pay the entire $117,000 up front before Charter would begin construction, and the price would not go down even if other homeowners signed up for service.

The user got the same runaround from Frontier Communications, who originally promised it was able to deliver 24 Mbps to that address, only to later admit it could only provide around 3 Mbps -- at best (and which will likely be force-bundled with an expensive legacy voice landline the user won't want). The kicker is that both of these companies have lobbied to erect state barriers to community broadband, which is often an organic response to this kind of dismal coverage and customer service. So again, this is a market where you've got lumbering ISPs with absolutely no incentive to expand or improve service, literally writing state law ensuring that nobody can do anything about it.

Fortunately the FCC has finally started to attack these state laws so communities can improve their own broadband in cases of market failure, but it's a contentious fight with states busy pretending that it's their god-given right to erect duopoly-protectionist laws written by AT&T and friends. Meanwhile, our national broadband map, which cost $300 million to build, often doesn't help matters. Plug your name into the government mapping apparatus, and it will often not only hallucinate broadband providers in your area, but it will utterly fabricate available speeds. That's because it relies largely on the word of ISPs eager to pretend that the U.S. broadband industry is awash in competition, with much of the data never fact checked.

And good news, everyone! Charter Communications is on the cusp of buying both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks (in a $79 billion merger), and Frontier is busy gobbling up AT&T and Verizon's unwanted DSL territories. In other words, there's a pretty good chance this exact brand of incompetence could be coming to your neighborhood very soon.

So if you're moving to a new area and an ISP claims they offer broadband, get it in writing. Wander the neighborhood asking neighbors what services they can get. Get sixteen company executives on tape insisting they provide service. Because most U.S. ISPs not only don't know the physical footprint of their network, it's abundantly clear they have absolutely no interest in accurate data, customer service, or being accountable for false promises. When you're the only game in town, you quite frankly don't have to give a damn. And when you're the one buying and writing state telecom law, it's remarkably easy to keep it that way.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, isp, wisconsin
Companies: charter communications, frontier communications

Canadian Police Chiefs: 'RESOLVED: The Warrant Requirement For ISP Subscriber Data Makes Our Job Harder. Please Fix.'

from the WHEREAS-whine-complain-bitch-moan dept

Canada's law enforcement agencies are still enduring the growing pains of having to respect the privacy and civil rights of Canadian citizens. It's apparently killing them.

At the peak of their power, Canadian law enforcement agencies were asking for ISP subscriber data every 27 seconds. Nearly 1.2 million requests were made in in 2011 alone. That number likely increased over the next couple of years before a Supreme Court decision brought this harvesting to a halt with the introduction of a warrant requirement in 2014 . Prior to that, the only thing keeping Canadian cops from requesting data at an even faster rate was the "five minutes of paperwork" occasionally demanded of them.

Since the warrant requirement went into effect, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have adopted two tactics to deal with the additional stipulations:

1. Complaining about it (using graphic child abuse imagery, of course).

2. Tossing cases.

Can't win. Won't try. That's the indomitable law enforcement spirit officials are always praising when asking for donations and votes.

The Canadian law enforcement community is now deploying the third prong of its attack on the inconvenience of securing warrants: a strongly-worded resolution backed by the collective power of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. (h/t Jordan Pearson at Vice)

According to the CACP, the government owes Canadian law enforcement immediate access to subscriber information at all times. The resolution begins with this assertion, which everyone is apparently supposed to treat as an long-acknowledged fact.

WHEREAS law enforcement requires real-time, or near real-time access to basic subscriber (customer name and address) information (BSI) as it relates to telecommunications’ customers for investigative reasons…

It then points out what the Supreme Court decision changed (officially recognized Canadian citizens' privacy interest in their own subscriber data) before complaining that ISPs are getting all uppity with them when they show up without a warrant.

WHEREAS since the Spencer decision, the telecommunications companies refuse to provide any basic subscriber information (BSI) in the absence of an exigent circumstance, or a judicial warrant or order, even where there exists no reasonable expectation of privacy…

Well, gee, if we leave the decision of where the "expectation of privacy" lies in the hands of law enforcement, we get what we already got: subscriber data requests every 27 seconds. So, we know law enforcement can't be trusted to make that decision.

And it's not the ISPs place to make "expectation of privacy" determinations. These companies should do what they're doing: demand warrants and court orders. But law enforcement views this as a form of obstruction, albeit a form supported by a court decision.

The resolution's next "WHEREAS" tosses out another assertion everyone's just supposed to agree with, because who's more trustworthy than a group of cops?

WHEREAS there exists no lawful authority designed specifically to require the provision of basic subscriber information, and the problems posed by this gap in the law are particularly acute where there exists no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information.

This complaint/assertion is basically: "We can't make ISPs do anything the law no longer compels them to do." That's kind of how laws are supposed to work. So, the problem is the ruling... and the solution is a legislative undoing of the court's ruling.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the creation of a reasonable law designed to specifically provide law enforcement the ability to obtain, in real-time or near real-time, basic subscriber information (BSI) from telecommunications providers.

BE IT RESOLVED: legislative time machine. Law enforcement wants to go back to its pre-Supreme Court decision form, where demands were made (and met) quickly and with a minimum of paperwork or privacy considerations. Nowhere in the in-depth explanation of its "problem" and proposed resolution does it discuss a more limited framework for warrantless requests. The CACP wants the legislature to undo the terrible wrong it has suffered at the hands of the Supreme Court. There are no compromises offered. Canadian cops simply want to be able to freely demand subscriber info without having to jump through any privacy-protecting hoops.

Filed Under: canada, isp, law enforcement, metadata, privacy, subscriber info, warrants

DailyDirt: Space-Based Telecommunications

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The idea of space-based telecommunications seemed so promising in the 1980s, but the delivered services didn't quite live up to the dream of ubiquitous global communications. Al Franken's one-man satellite reporting didn't really address the latency issues associated with geosynchronous satellite orbits, but the future of satellite communications was still a bad joke. Perhaps after a few decades, we're ready for another try?

• Elon Musk's SpaceX intends to create a constellation of 4,000 small/cheap satellites to provide high speed internet all over the world. Billionaires have tried this concept before, but maybe this time, the economics of cheaper satellites and rocket systems will make it a more feasible venture. [url]
• Iridium is the usual example of a global satellite network that was supposed to provide an always-on telecom network anywhere in the world. Iridium Next is actually set to replace the original aging Iridium satellites -- launched from SpaceX rockets in the largest commercial launch contract ever signed in 2010. The original business wasn't exactly a success, and given some of the lackluster specs of the planned replacement satellites, the next revision might not be much better. [url]
• OneWeb is looking to build around 900 satellites to deliver internet connections all over the world. If all these plans actually pan out, it'll be a bit strange to see more competition in the satellite internet industry than in the terrestrial wireline internet business. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: al franken, cubesats, elon musk, geosynchronous orbit, iridium next, isp, oneweb, satellites
Companies: iridium, oneweb, spacex

Chinese ISP Sued By User Over Censorship Of Google Services

from the very-bold,-but-how-wise? dept

We wrote recently about evidence that China was deploying a sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack against Google for users of the country's education network. That's a reminder that for everyone else there, Google is just blocked completely. You might think there's not much ordinary people can do about that, but an Internet user in China has taken the unusual step of suing his ISP, China Unicom, because of his inability to access Google services, as the New York Times reports:

Wang Long, a 26-year-old legal worker and activist in Shenzhen, said he brought the suit in July because he was unable to access products including Google Maps, Translate, Calendar and Scholar.

While many friends told him he was unlikely to win a case over state-directed censorship policies, Mr. Wang says that regardless of the outcome, the effort will draw attention to the restrictions and encourage others in China to push for greater access to online services.

As that points out, the censorship is mandated by the Chinese government, which places the ISP in an awkward position:

when a judge asked about the access problems, an attorney for China Unicom bashfully said he wasn't certain if he could say anything, evoking laughter from supporters of Mr. Wang's in attendance.

However, the worry must be that the relevant authorities might not find Wang's decision to draw attention to online censorship in this way quite so funny. Let's hope he doesn't end up paying for his bold move over and above his legal costs.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, china, filtering, isp
Companies: google

Why Does South Korea Want To Turn Australia's ISPs Into Hollywood's Copyright Cops?

from the what-a-coincidence dept

Techdirt has been covering for a while how iiNet has doggedly fought attempts to make Australian ISPs liable for copyright infringement on their networks, and how Hollywood has been pressuring Australia's (relatively) new Attorney General into making that happen. The latest development, reported by Gizmodo Australia, is that KAFTA, the free trade agreement between Australia and South Korea, signed in April this year, mentions iiNet in the following section concerning its implementation (pdf):

Consistent with Australia's existing obligations in the Australia-US and Australia-Singapore FTAs, and to fully implement its obligations under KAFTA, the Copyright Act 1968 will require amendment in due course to provide a legal incentive for online service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in preventing infringement due to the High Court's decision in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd, which found that ISPs are not liable for authorising the infringements of subscribers.

As that makes plain, this is specifically about overturning the court case that iiNet won, and forcing Australian ISPs to act as copyright police. That would be really terrible for iiNet, after all the effort and money it has put into fighting precisely this outcome, and bad news for the Australian public, which would doubtless find ISPs erring on the side of caution and taking down perfectly legal material.

But the interesting question has to be: why on earth does South Korea care about this? It seems unlikely that there is enough piracy of South Korean music or films going on Australia to justify the Korean government demanding a change to Australia's copyright laws as part of a free trade deal. The fact that this implementation requirement just happens to match exactly what Hollywood has been demanding for some time must raise the suspicion that the US has had a hand in this on behalf of its copyright industries. That's yet another reason for demanding real transparency during trade negotiations, so that such shabby deals can be exposed before it's too late to do anything about them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, copyright cops, hollywood, isp, kafta, south korea, trade agreements
Companies: iinet

This Week In Techdirt History

from the broadband,-tv-and-rats dept

Time for another walk down Techdirt memory lane. Let's get started:

Five Years Ago...

In 2009, the digital world was grappling with a lot of the same issues it is now. Piracy, always a hot topic, was being hashed out throughout Europe, with France gutting 'three strikes' and Germany declaring "accidental" file sharing to be legal. Meanwhile, the head of UK ISP TalkTalk was sending a clear message to the recording industry: you can't beat pirates. This was also the week of an infamous copyright claim you may remember: an Australian publishing firm claimed that Men At Work's "Down Under" was a ripoff of the 1930s children's song "Kookaburra". Sadly, less than a year later, a judge would find that the song did infringe and award the publisher a bunch of royalties. Another year after that, the high court would refuse to hear the band's appeal.

Online gambling was another big concern in 2009, and its status was still unclear. The same week that the feds started freezing the funds of online poker sites was the week that Minnesota backed down from its plans to block gambling sites.

Also this week: judges were still divided on the question of whether students could be punished for off-campus speech on social media, e-voting machine glitches were continuing to pile up, the Canadian patent office rejected software and business model patents, and we asked whether ICANN should dump the idea of generic TLDs. Finally, this week featured a post that I always keep bookmarked, since the quotes therein are fun and frequently apposite: a round-up of people damning new things, ranging from video games through telephones and all the way back to the waltz.

Ten Years Ago...

UK ISPs made an appearance this week in 2004, too — but this time it was because they were trying and/or being asked to help filter porn. ISPs worldwide, meanwhile, were realizing that customers were starting to care about upstream speeds as well as downstream ones. Tech observers, on the other hand, were realizing that very few companies secured their Wi-Fi networks. Researchers were realizing that computers can help pre-school development, the video game industry was realizing that people outside the "typical" gamer demographic were the next big market, and we were hoping the advertising industry would realize the problems with pay-per-click models (limited progress on that front).

The world of TV was rapidly accelerating towards the cord-cutting, Netflix-loving reality of today: TiVo announced plans to bring more internet integration to its platform, and a European survey showing people sacrificing TV time for internet time underlined the need for the former to better incorporate the latter.

Also, we saw a singular incident in favor of cellphone use while driving: a South African man's life was saved when his phone stopped a bullet destined for his head.

Fifteen Years Ago...

I honestly wouldn't have guessed it was this long ago, but this week in 1999 is when Amazon first started taking baby steps into downloadable music, laying the groundwork for what has become one of the largest digital music stores — though, at the time, it was free music as a strategy to boost physical CD sales. Of course, all the way back then, we were also already noting that sales numbers go up when piracy goes up.

Also in 1999: the Palm VII was being snatched up by early adopters, eBay was struggling to keep its servers running, and chess master Gary Kasparov agreed to take on the entire internet in a chess match (he won in 62 moves, but said he expended more effort on it than any other game in his life).

450 Years Ago...

1564 is the year of the first recorded report of the still-quasi-mythical Rat King. Anyone who enjoys such middle-ages folklore should check out this children's novel by Terry Pratchett, which plumbs surprising philosophical and existential depths for a book with such a goofy title.

Filed Under: broadband, isp, look back, tv

Google Fiber Teases 34 More Cities With Actual, Honest-To-Goodness Broadband Competition

from the this-could-get-interesting dept

One of the interesting things about Google Fiber is that it isn't just people getting shiny new 1 Gbps connections for $70: it's a network data collection exercise, a marketing experiment, a testbed for new services and ads -- but first and foremost it's a massive public relations fire under the posteriors of the nation's all-too-comfortable, government-pampered, uncompetitive broadband ISPs. Google Fiber isn't really even available to all that many people (a few thousand, probably), yet its impact on the national discourse has been massive. Also impressive has been the sheer volume of free marketing Google gets for the service as cities -- dissatisfied with existing broadband ISPs -- climb on top of and over one another to be first in line to be next in line.

Google's first call for a potential city (before they picked Kansas City) resulted in an unprecedented nationwide media frenzy. Four years later with just two (Kansas City and Provo, barely) markets launched and a third planned (Austin), its pretty clear that Google Fiber won't be coming to most of us anytime soon. Still, Google recently cleverly teased some 34 cities in 9 metro areas with the faint possibility they could be next in line. From a Google blog post:

"We aim to provide updates by the end of the year about which cities will be getting Google Fiber. Between now and then, we’ll work closely with each city’s leaders on a joint planning process that will not only map out a Google Fiber network in detail, but also assess what unique local challenges we might face....While we do want to bring Fiber to every one of these cities, it might not work out for everyone. But cities who go through this process with us will be more prepared for us or any provider who wants to build a fiber network. In fact, we want to give everyone a boost in their thinking about how to bring fiber to their communities; we plan to share what we learn in these 34 cities..."

In short, Google's again creating free media coverage for themselves while drawing attention to the ignored competitive problems in the country's broadband market. Cities that won't get Google Fiber (and I'd bet only one or two of the 34 actually will) will at least benefit from the experiences Google and other cities have learned as they attempt to navigate installation pitfalls and disrupt the status quo.

Google Fiber's selection of these 34 cities also indicates they want to start a broader conversation about the bills ISPs have gotten passed in a number of states that hamstring town and city efforts to wire themselves with broadband -- even if nobody else will. The Carolinas in particular have been a real hotbed of protectionist legislation crafted by the likes of Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink, and by focusing on the Raleigh-Durham area and Charlotte, Google pretty clearly wants to bring the focus on these awful bills into the foreground.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fiber, isp
Companies: google

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.

Filed Under: austin, broadband, competition, isp, texas
Companies: at&t, google, time warner cable