U.S. Broadband Growth Slows As the Profit Party Grinds To A Halt

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

For years we've watched major cable TV providers lose traditional cable TV subscribers hand over fist to cheaper, more flexible streaming alternatives. It was a trend that only accelerated during COVID. Don't feel too badly for companies like Charter and Comcast however; the companies' growing monopoly over faster fixed-line broadband across huge swaths of the country have allowed them to recoup their pound of flesh via broadband fees (or unnecessary usage caps) without much in the way of repercussion.

But there's signs that the cable broadband party could be slowing down. Both Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) reported the usual number of cable TV subscriber losses, but also reported significantly fewer broadband subscribers than usual:

"Charter on Friday reported 25% fewer new broadband subscribers than analysts estimated and said the overall number of new customers would fall back to 2018 levels. Comcast, which had earlier cut its subscriber forecast, reported 300,000 new internet customers Thursday, less than half the number added a year ago."

What's the reason for the slowdown? For one thing, the COVID telecommuting boom had artificially been boosting subscriber uptick as people struggled to work and learn from home. That's ending as people return to something vaguely resembling normal school and work life. Charter and Comcast largely blame a slow down in the new home market, leaving them trying to wring more subscribers out of a fairly saturated subscriber base (they often don't want to expand into new, often more rural areas because it's not profitable enough, quickly enough, for Wall Street).

Consumers also struggling during the pandemic aren't spending as much on services, which means downgrades to slower tiers, or cancelling service altogether and going cell phone only:

"Other factors could include a dropoff in lower-paying customers as government assisted broadband funds dry up. “There’s clearly softness in consumer spending,” said Maribel Lopez with Lopez Research. “They are making choices on tiers and downgrading services.”

This is where it gets interesting. With a saturated market and slowing growth, cable giants like Comcast will be forced to find a revenue boost from somewhere else to satisfy the insatiable appetite for quarter over quarter growth. Streaming isn't going quite as they planned (Comcast took a $520 million loss on its streaming service Peacock last quarter) due to intense competition. That means increased pressure to do a lot of the dodgy shit (arbitrary usage caps, overage fees, prioritizing certain services over others) that got them in trouble in the net neutrality wars.

With the FCC effectively crippled courtesy of the Trump administration, and Comcast lobbyists busy trying to scuttle Biden appointments to mire the agency in perpetual gridlock, I wouldn't be shocked to see Comcast and Charter come up with some aggressively idiotic new nickel-and-dime money making scheme in the next year. When a monopoly's growth gets restricted and Wall Street grows impatient for its blood sacrifice, there's almost always one person who winds up paying the price: the consumer. Especially when there's neither competition nor competent regulators capable of reining in the monopoly's worst impulses.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, growth
Companies: charter, comcast

Data Privacy Is The Price Of The Latest Antitrust Proposals

from the when-policies-conflict dept

In the wake of data breaches at Target and Equifax where hackers compromised the personal information of millions of Americans and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, customers and policymakers are increasingly worried about the privacy and security of our personal information online. Unfortunately, policymakers often confuse these privacy and data security concerns with broader anti-tech fervor against America’s leading technology businesses. But simply put, kitchen-sink anti-tech responses could exacerbate, not ease, concerns regarding data privacy and security.

Sen. Klobuchar’s American Innovation and Choice Online Act proposed in the Senate this month provides a clear example of how “solutions” driven by animosity towards “Big Tech” could undermine consumer privacy. Lawmakers who are currently pushing antitrust proposals to attack tech businesses are creating a scenario where companies might be unable to undertake the privacy and security features that their consumers trust and rely on.

This latest legislation would undermine existing privacy features and lead to more risky sharing with third-parties which has been at the heart of many privacy scandals. By making it illegal for the tech giants covered by the law to “restrict or impede” a business user’s access to data created through the platform or to limit portability, the result is simple—this will likely undermine companies’ attempts to improve consumer privacy such as Apple’s new App Tracking Transparency. In most cases, this bill also requires companies to share their data with rivals, even those that might have ill-intentions against the company, its consumers, or even the United States. 

Thanks to the requirements in the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, malicious businesses, including foreign companies, could exploit its data portability loophole and gain access to user information. It opens up businesses to the very actions at the heart of other previous data privacy scandals and dilutes their ability to respond with what consumers want—better security and privacy options. And as a result, Klobuchar’s antitrust proposal would likely harm users’ privacy online and create more harm to consumers than the current tenuous claims about tech giants' market behavior.

This bill won’t just harm consumer privacy, it’ll harm small businesses to boot. Under the Klobuchar bill, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Apple would not be able to limit the use of data by those with questionable or unethical data practices and would be greatly limited in their ability to remove fraudulent apps or other awful actors from their app stores.

These companies would generally have two options: either accept all sellers into their phones and app stores, regardless of poor data privacy and security standards, distasteful products, and customer service quality, or end these programs altogether to avoid accusations of self-preferencing and significant consequences associated with it under Klobuchar’s bill. 

Both options would mean consumers likely lose the benefits of knowing that only approved apps can access their data, while developers of these apps and other small businesses that use these services would not benefit from the consumer trust these marketplaces currently provide. 

The interoperability requirements of the bill also fail to truly provide the users themselves with the increased options. Instead, they make user data and to whom it can be ported further subject to the decisions of companies and third-parties. New opportunities for data portability between platforms can provide users more control and lower the cost of switching between services. Take the Data Transfer Project, which allows users to choose to transfer certain data like photos between project member services. This gives users more options for where they can choose to keep such information. But the Klobuchar proposal structurally doesn’t help users and would require companies to provide portability and interoperability to other companies,not to the users themselves.

Proponents of Klobuchar’s bill will likely point out that the bill establishes an affirmative defense to avoid these requirements if it would undermine privacy. However, this still would not solve all the concerns. Companies that pursue that route would face a high burden in court and the high costs associated with litigating such a case. As a result, many companies will favor compliance and handing over consumer data rather than risk the penalties if an affirmative defense fails, even if they believe consumer privacy may ultimately be undermined. In fact, the inclusion of an affirmative defense wouldn’t even be sufficient to overcome the additional privacy problems that Klobuchar’s bill would create.

Rather than resolving data privacy concerns, antitrust proposals like Senator Klobuchar’s could make keeping our information safe online an impossible task for tech companies. Policymakers should not have consumers and small businesses pay an unfair price and lose privacy protections just so they can go after big tech companies.

Jennifer Huddleston is Policy Counsel at NetChoice where she focuses on emerging technology issues like privacy, competition policy, and intermediary liability.

Filed Under: american innovation and choice online act, amy klobuchar, antitrust, competition, data portability, privacy

Tired Of Federal Apathy, Oakland Moves To Ban Anticompetitive Broadband Landlord Deals

from the this-stuff-can-be-fixed-if-you-care-enough dept

We've noted for years how corruption and apathy have resulted in the U.S. broadband sector being heavily monopolized, resulting in 83 million Americans having the choice of just one ISP. Tens of millions more Americans only have the choice of their local cable company or an apathetic local phone company that hasn't meaningfully upgraded their aging DSL lines in twenty years. On top of that problem is another problem: ISPs routinely bribe or bully apartment, condo, and other real estate owners into providing them cozy exclusivity arrangements that block broadband competition on a block by block level as well.

While the FCC tried to ban such landlord/monopoly ISP shenanigans back in 2006, the rules were poorly crafted. As a result, this stuff still routinely happens, it's just called...something else (Susan Crawford wrote the definitive piece on this for Wired a few years back).

For example ISPs will still strike deals with landlords banning any other ISP from advertising in the building. Sometimes landlords will still block competitor access to buildings entirely. Or they'll charge building access fees that unfairly penalize smaller competitors that may not be able to afford them. Or, because the rules prohibit ISPs from blocking access to an ISP's in building wiring, they'll just lease these building lines to the landlord, who'll then block access to competitors on behalf of the monopoly ISP (because technically the landlord now owns them). It's just noxious, weedy bullshit, and it's been going on for decades.

While the FCC has recently made a little noise about revisiting the subject, any policymaking there could take years to sluggishly materialize. Like most broadband reform, feckless federal leadership has driven reform to take place at a faster cadence on the local level. In Oakland, for example, the city council just voted to effectively eliminate all landlord/ISP anticompetitive shenanigans to encourage broadband competition:

"Oakland residents shared the stories of their personal experience; a broad coalition of advocates, civil society organizations, and local internet service providers (ISPs) lifted their voices; and now the Oakland City Council has unanimously passed Oakland’s Communications Service Provider Choice Ordinance. The newly minted law frees Oakland renters from being constrained to their landlord's preferred ISP by prohibiting owners of multiple occupancy buildings from interfering with an occupant's ability to receive service from the communications provider of their choice."

The ordinance closely mirrors a similar law passed in San Francisco aimed at ending anticompetitive ISP/landlord schemes. The ordinance kills all kinds of payola nonsense that occurs on this front. If a competitor needs to access the building because a tenant has ordered service, landlords can't block it (within reason, you still couldn't install your own giant tower on the rooftop).

Again it wasn't particularly hard to craft such effective provisions if the willpower is there. But the political influence telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast have on state and federal lawmakers means such willpower is pretty hard to come by. It's an example of how government regulation in telecom isn't inherently evil (a telecom industry propped up bogeyman that has informed conventional wisdom for a generation), especially if it's actively encouraging competition in a heavily monopolized sector where cronyism and corruption are commonplace.

Filed Under: apartments, broadband, california, competition, landlord deals, landlords, oakland

FTC Study Highlights How 'Big Telecom' Privacy Practices Are Even Worse Than 'Big Tech'

from the stating-the-obvious dept

I've noted for a few times that the very obvious dysfunction in "big tech" has proven to be the gift that keeps on giving for "big telecom." While tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook get the entirety of (often very justified) attention for dodgy business practices and terrible judgement, telecom has basically been forgotten in the DC Policy conversation. While lawsuits and Congressional posturing all focus on expanding oversight of "big tech," "big telecom" and "big media" have been able to lobotomize most of the oversight of its own businesses, despite engaging in all the same (and sometimes worse) dubious business practices.

An FTC report on privacy reiterated that forgetting about telecom and media was a mistake. The FTC's latest report on privacy noted largely what most people knew: telecom and cable companies collect an absolute ocean of data on U.S. consumers, then "sell" access to that data to third parties (they usually just call it something else) without being clear about it. They then provide users with opt out and transparency tools that are intentionally cumbersome, if they work at all. This data then bounces around the internet creating potential harm and abuse among countless parties, whether stalkers, law enforcement, people pretending to be law enforcement, or other corporations.

The FTC found that many ISP and cable companies "privacy policies" are utterly theatrical in nature. As in they're designed to be so cumbersome as to deter people from using them (which companies then use as evidence that consumers "don't care about privacy"). Other times the "opt out" tools don't work at all, and in some cases they result in even more user data being collected. None of this is made particularly clear to the end user:

"...rapid consolidation has allowed ISPs to access and control a much larger and broader cache of consumer data than ever before, without having to explain fully their purposes for such collection and use, much less whether such collection and use is good for consumers."

The FTC correctly noted that as network operators, ISPs and cable companies have access to way more data than even tech giants, app makers, or advertising companies. This includes DNS data, browsing data, clickstream data (how long you spend on each site down to the second), behavioral ad information, location data, race and ethnicity data, data on which TV programs you watch, and more. The report is quick to bring up the repeated location data scandals that have plagued the wireless industry, as well as the "zombie cookie" scandals at Verizon (and briefly AT&T) that involved embedding tracker headers in each user data packet to track them around the internet (again without informing them or letting them opt out):

"Unlike traditional ad networks whose tracking consumers can block through browser or mobile device settings, consumers cannot use these tools to stop tracking by these ISPs, which use ‘supercookie’ technology to persistently track users,” the FTC report said.

ISPs and cable companies will usually tell the press, lawmakers, and regulators they don't "sell" access to this data, but they still technically do. They simply call the practice something else.

Like a network security, auditing, or marketing company will get access to "anonymized" (a worthless term) user datasets as part of a broader contract for "security consultation," "marketing and brand awareness," or "strategic consultation." That company will get a bit more money for whatever their broader contract is, while also often being allowed to sell that data out the back door. It's not technically "selling access to your data" because they've actively just called it something else, knowing that U.S. regulators are too feckless and understaffed to dig through a tangled web of intentional complication.

Of course the FTC's report on the terrible privacy practices of the telecom industry is just a report. Actually doing something about the problem is another issue entirely. And every time we've tried to do something about the problem, lobbyists scuttle it in pretty short order (like those FCC broadband privacy rules killed by a heavily-lobbied Congress before they could even take effect, or even a basic federal privacy law). And, more recently, with telecom and media giant lobbying encouragement, the entirety of DC is so fixated exclusively on the problems with tech giants, telecom and media reform has effectively been forgotten entirely.

Filed Under: big tech, competition, consolidation, ftc, privacy, telcos
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

So for years I've noted if you really want to understand why U.S. broadband is so crappy, you should take a long, close look at Frontier Communications in states like West Virginia. For decades the ISP has provided slow and expensive service, routinely failed to upgrade or repair its network, and generally personified the typical bumbling, apathetic, regional monopoly. And its punishment, year after year, has generally been a parade of regulatory favors, tax breaks, and millions in subsidies. At no point do "telecom policy leaders" or politicians ever try to do much differently.

Case in point: Frontier, fresh off of an ugly bankruptcy, numerous AG and FTC lawsuits over repair delays, and repeated subsidy scandals, is positioning itself to nab yet more subsidies from the state of Wisconsin. Frontier is asking the state of for $35 million in additional grants, despite the fact Wisconsin was just one of several states whose AGs recently sued the company for being generally terrible. Folks familiar with the company argue it shouldn't be seeing a single, additional dime in taxpayer resources given fifteen years of scandal:

"I hope the state will seriously consider the track record of companies to understand which ones have a long record of meeting the needs of residents and businesses,” Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative, a Minnesota-based think tank supporting communities’ telecommunications efforts, said in an interview with The Badger Project.

"Frankly, Frontier’s record suggests it should not receive a single additional dollar from any government,” he added. “Local companies, communities, and cooperatives have proven to be much better at turning public subsidies into needed networks."

Keep in mind Frontier has been accused of taking state and federal subsidies on several occasions, misleadingly billing the government extra, then basically just shrugging when asked for the money back. To date nobody has done much about any of it. Also keep in mind Frontier routinely lobbies for (and often ghost writes) state laws banning towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. They're also directly responsible for the gutting of state and federal regulatory and consumer protection authority. Facing little real competition and feckless oversight in most states, nothing much changes. By design.

Historically, state politicians and regulators ignore these kinds of problems, because, it should be made clear, they're corrupt. Regional monopolies find it immensely easy to throw a few bucks at state leaders in exchange for just mindless rubber stamping of whatever goal they're interested in (merger approvals, new subsidies, the gutting of consumer protections, tax breaks, zero accountability). That this strategy continually results in terrible, substandard, and expensive service never seems to enter into the picture. It's just rinse, wash, repeat in a long line of states.

The Wisconsin State Public Service Commission is expected to grant or deny Frontier's request by the end of the month. The company is also first in line to grab new federal broadband funding from the Biden FCC. It will be curious to see if just a parade of unprecedented scandal reduces Frontier's ability to have millions in additional taxpayer money thrown at it in the slightest. My guess is it doesn't. At all.

There are two, indisputable reasons U.S. broadband generally sucks: regional monopolization and the corruption that protects it. But when you see news articles, regulators, many think tankers, or politicians talking about broadband, notice how many are capable of even clearly acknowledging that fact, much less genuinely interested in actually doing anything about it.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, dsl, fcc, subsidies, telecom, upgrades, west virginia, wisconsin
Companies: frontier

Broadband Data Caps Mysteriously Disappear When Competition Comes Knocking

from the funny-how-that-works dept

We've noted for years how broadband data caps (and monthly overage fees) are complete bullshit. They serve absolutely no technical function, and despite years of ISPs trying to claim they "help manage network congestion," that's never been remotely true. Instead they exist exclusively as a byproduct of limited competition. They're a glorified price hike by regional monopolies who know they'll see little (or no!) competitive or regulatory pressure to stop nickel and diming captive customers.

The latest case in point: Cox Communications employs a 1,280 GB data cap, which, if you go over, requires you either pay $30 per month more for an additional 500 GB, or upgrade your plan to an unlimited data offering for $50 more per month. While Cox's terabyte-plus plan is more generous than some U.S. offerings (which can be as low as a few gigabytes), getting caught up in whether the cap is "fair" is beside the point. Because, again, it serves absolutely no function other than to impose arbitrary penalties and additional monthly costs for crossing the technically unnecessary boundaries.

And, mysteriously, when wireless broadband providers begin offering fixed wireless services over 5G services in limited areas, Cox lifts the restrictions completely to compete:

"With unlimited home wireless broadband from T-Mobile and Verizon starting to take a dent out of Cox Communications’ customer base, the cable operator is shoring up a defensive position by waiving its arbitrary data cap for existing customers signed up for gigabit speed service in select areas...The fact Cox is willing to waive its own arbitrary data cap for marketing and competition reasons further demonstrates that artificial limits imposed on internet service have nothing to do with congestion, “fairness,” or network management."

The problem, of course, is that 5G wireless competition isn't consistently available, and won't be for millions of Americans deemed too unprofitable to adequately serve. 83 million Americans live under a broadband monopoly that sees no competitive pressure. And whereas in a functioning market regulators would then step in to either regulate prices or embrace policies that drive more competition to market, the U.S. generally suffers from regulatory capture (aka doing whatever the regional and politically powerful telecom monopolies want). As a result, the U.S. remains mired in mediocrity in nearly every meaningful broadband metric except one: we exceed at charging U.S. consumers way more than the global developed nation average.

Like net neutrality violations, privacy violations, high prices, and terrible customer service, arbitrary, confusing, and punitive broadband usage caps are just another symptom of limited competition. But the majority of both U.S. political parties not only haven't been doing anything to fix that problem, it's fairly rare you can get anyone to admit the very obvious problem is even real. Instead, we get some nebulous hand waving about the "digital divide," billions more in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors thrown at entrenched regional monopolies, and little substantive change.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, data caps, network management

Charter Spectrum Threatens To Ruin Potential Customers Over Debt They Don't Owe

from the class-act dept

There's a reason U.S. cable and broadband companies have some of the worst customer satisfaction ratings of any companies, in any industry in America. The one/two punch of lagging broadband competition and captured regulators generally mean there's little to no meaningful penalty for overcharging users, providing lackluster services and support, and generally just being an obnoxious ass.

Case in point: a new Charter (which operates under the Spectrum brand) marketing effort apparently involves threatening to ruin the credit scores of ex-customers unless they re-subscribe to the company's services. It basically begins with a letter that threatens ex-users that they'll be reported to debt collectors unless they sign up for service. It proceeds to inform them the letter is a "one-time courtesy" allowing them to sign up for cable or broadband service before the debt collector comes calling:

"A well-established credit history will more likely allow you to qualify for lower mortgage rates, better chances for obtaining credit cards and approvals for home rentals,” the letter says, suggesting that Schklair’s finances could be in serious trouble unless he returns to the Spectrum fold. "You have worked hard to build a great future for yourself and your family,” it says. “We look forward to welcoming you back.”

Maybe it’s just me, but that has a Sopranos-like ring of “You’ve made a nice life for yourself. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

The catch: the people being targeted with this latest dumb marketing ploy say they don't owe Spectrum any money:

"I asked if he owes Spectrum any money.

“No,” Schklair replied. “It’s been years since I was their customer, and they’ve never said anything about my not paying any bills.”

No notices of missed payments?

“No.”

No warnings about adverse reports to credit agencies?

“No, nothing like that.”

Leave it to a U.S. cable company to think up a marketing strategy that involves threatening the livelihoods of folks who don't actually owe it any money. My assumption is this kind of threat is levied heavily against lower-income communities where the constant fear of debt collection prods folks who may not even owe Spectrum to re-subscribe for fear of getting into trouble. Charter being Charter, of course, it tried to frame this as an "effort to reconnect":

"A Spectrum spokesperson confirmed the letter’s authenticity and called it “an opportunity to reconnect” with the cable company."

83 million Americans currently live under a broadband monopoly, usually Comcast and Charter. Between a lack of competition and captured regulators there's fairly consistently zero real repercussions for idiotic behavior like this, which is why historically things don't really change much. Increased competition in streaming TV has helped drive some improvements on that side of the coin, but the largely broken U.S. broadband market is a problem we don't seem intent on seriously addressing anytime soon--in part because we refuse to even acknowledge the core problem (monopolization and the corruption that protects it).

Filed Under: broadband, competition, cord cutting, debt collection, threats
Companies: charter spectrum

If Your Takeaway From Facebook's Whistleblower Is That Section 230 Needs Reform, You Just Got Played By Facebook

from the that's-what-it-wants dept

Here we go again. Yesterday, the Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee. Frankly, she came across as pretty credible and thoughtful, even if I completely disagree with some of her suggestions. I think she's correct about some of the problems she witnessed, and the misalignment of incentives facing Facebook's senior management. However, her understanding of the possible approaches to deal with it is, unfortunately, a mixed bag.

Of course, for the Senators in the hearing, it became the expected exercise in confirmation bias, in which they each insisted that their plan to fix the internet would solve the problems Haugen detailed. And, not surprisingly, many of them insisted that Section 230 was the issue, and that if you magically changed 230 and made companies more liable, they'd somehow be better. Leaving aside that there is zero evidence to support this (and plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite is true), the most telling bit in all of this is that if you think changing Section 230 is the answer Facebook agrees with you. It's exactly what Facebook wants. See the smarmy, tone-deaf, self-serving statement the company put out in response to the hearing:

Today, a Senate commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives -- and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question. We don't agree with her characterization of the many issues she testified about. Despite all this, we agree on one thing; it's time to begin to create standard rules for the internet. It's been 25 years since rules for the internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act.

Facebook has been blanketing Washington DC (and elsewhere, but mostly DC) with ads saying that it's time to update internet laws that haven't changed since 1996. And that message is very clearly talking about Section 230.

Earlier this year, also in front of Congress, Mark Zuckerberg came out in favor of Section 230 reform. The company's plan really isn't all that different than what some elected officials are now proposing in a variety of short-sighted bills: increase liability on the companies for failure to have "best practices." But as we've noted, what's clear is that Facebook is one of the few companies that can afford that liability. Facebook can afford the expensive lawyers to go to court and show that their system of dealing with this stuff (which we already know doesn't work very well) is a "best practice" leading them to get these cases dismissed.

Smaller companies are going to be bankrupted by this. And those that aren't bankrupted are going to end up turning to Facebook to handle their moderation, so that they can rely on Facebook's legal might. It's going to entrench Facebook's power position, limit competition, and wipe out more innovative approaches. Of course Facebook supports this nonsense.

So for those who are still supporting changes to Section 230 and even pointing to Haugen's testimony: congrats, you got played by Facebook. You're advocating for exactly what Facebook wants.

I forget who I've heard say this (perhaps it was Cory Doctorow?), but, paraphrasing, the statement was that of course a company would prefer no regulation, but the 2nd best thing to no regulation is being heavily regulated, because as long as you're at the top of the heap and know you can deal with the regulators, you've got a massive advantage that no other company can deal with. And, for a company that is so paranoid about competition, and is unsure how to continue winning against upstarts, leaning on the US government to "regulate" the space is a godsend. It's exactly what Facebook wants, and those supporting it are playing into Facebook's hands.

Filed Under: competition, congress, frances haugen, intermediary liability, section 230, whistleblower
Companies: facebook

The 'Digital Divide' Didn't Just Show Up One Day. It's The Direct Result Of Telecom Monopolization

from the can't-fix-what-you-don't-acknowledge dept

We've noted for a while that the entirety of DC has a blind spot when it comes to discussing the U.S. broadband problem. As in, U.S. broadband is plagued by regional monopolies that literally pay Congress to pretend the problem isn't happening. That's not an opinion. U.S. broadband is slow, expensive, patchy, with terrible customer service due to two clear things: regional monopolization (aka market failure), and state and federal regulatory capture (aka corruption). That the telecom industry employs an entire cottage industry of think tankers, consultants, and policy wonks to pretend this isn't true doesn't change reality.

But notice when regulators, politicians, and many news outlets discuss the problem, it's usually framed in this nebulous, causation free way. About 90% of the time, the problem is dubbed the "digital divide." But the cause of this broadband divide is always left utterly nebulous and causation free. It's almost pathological. Seriously, look at any news story about the "digital divide" in the last three months and try to find one that clearly points out that the direct cause of the problem is regional telecom monopolies and the corruption that protects them. You won't find it.

This phenomenon again showed up this week in a CNET interview with Jessica Rosenworcel, who appears to be the top candidate in the Biden Administration's glacial pursuit of a permanent FCC boss. In the article, CNET talks repeatedly about the U.S. broadband problem without once mentioning that telecom monopolies exist, and are the primary reason U.S. broadband is painfully mediocre:

"According to a study last year by the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, the US has the highest average monthly internet prices when compared to other countries in North America, Europe and Asia. On average, the monthly bill in the US is $84.37, which includes $68.38 for internet service and $15.99 for equipment rental fees.

"What's become clear is that affordability is a really big issue in the digital divide," she said. "And we're going to need programs like the EBB to help solve it."

Again, please notice how expensive, shitty broadband is just this thing that exists for some nebulous reason. That Comcast, Charter, Verizon, and AT&T have lobbied for thirty years to create a favorable policy environment that harms competition and prioritizes their bloated revenues doesn't even get a sentence. It's just this bizarre act of omission driven by, you'd have to imagine, a fear of upsetting sources and advertisers. Or in the case of politicians and regulators, powerful telecom lobbyists that can make or break your career.

Please notice the word "competition" isn't even used once in an interview with a top U.S. telecom regulator about the state of U.S. broadband, where the primary issue remains a lack of competition. The article almost acknowledges the U.S. telecom monopoly problem when it discusses "digital redlining," or the documented tendency of regional telecom monopolies like AT&T to refuse to upgrade low income or minority neighborhoods (while simultaneously lobbying for laws preventing them from building their own broadband networks). But even here the problem is addressed in this causation-free, nebulous way:

I think the fact that we're having a conversation about digital redlining is a good thing. We've got communities in this country that for too long have been overserved or underserved and overlooked. We've got to figure out how to address that.

Clearly and accurately calling out regional telecom monopolies is just viewed as...impolite in DC and much of the "he said, she said," access-motivated U.S. press. But you can't fix a problem you refuse to even acknowledge. And when it comes to regional telecom monopolization and the corruption that protects it, we're not even beginning to ask the right questions, much less acknowledge the real origins of the problem.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, digital divide, regional monopolization