Major New Google Fiber Expansion Shines Massive Spotlight On Lack Of Broadband Competition

from the sign-me-up dept

While Google Fiber will never likely see a full-fledged national deployment, we've noted repeatedly how the effort is worth its weight in gold for the way it draws attention to the lack of competition in the broadband marketplace and elevates what can often be an immensely inane conversation about telecom policy. While incumbent giant ISPs have feebly tried to argue that consumers don't really want faster, cheaper speeds, the thousands of cities screaming for better broadband burns a hole right through all-too-common flimsy defenses of the status quo.

This week Google Fiber announced a major new expansion effort that's sure to shine an even brighter spotlight on the nations stumbling, bumbling broadband duopoly. According to a Google blog post, the company has chosen Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Atlanta as the next cities in line for the Google Fiber's symmetrical 1 Gbps broadband offerings. What's more, Google says that Portland, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, San Antonio and San Jose will be getting Google Fiber at a later date.

As with previous Google Fiber launch markets of Austin, Kansas City and Provo, users have the choice of a 1 Gbps symmetrical line for $70, a 1 Gbps symmetrical line and TV service for $120, or a 5 Mbps offering that's free after you pay a $300 installation fee (either all at once or in installments). That's compared to the 100 to 300 Mbps top speeds offered by many ISPs for around four to five times the price. That's if you're lucky -- recent FCC data suggests that three quarters of the U.S. can't get anything more than 25 Mbps from just one ISP.

That said, it's a shame Google Fiber didn't stick to the company's original promise to run Google Fiber as an open access (other ISPs can come in and compete on top of Google's offerings). And while promising, these deployments are slow going and highly selective; Google Fiber is five years old and only has an estimated few thousand actual customers in Provo, Austin and Kansas City. Still, Google knows the effort not only shines a bright light on broadband competition issues, it's helping to expose the lame protectionist laws ISP lawyers have written to help keep their cozy little fiefdoms protected from the winds of change.

Google Fiber's launch target areas in North Carolina, for example, fall under a state protectionist bill lobbied for by Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink that was passed in 2011 after three previous failed attempts. That bill hinders towns and cities from being able to make their own choices on broadband deployment, and while it could have been vetoed by then North Carolina Governor Bev Purdue, she chose not to put up a fight. For good measure those ISPs also passed a bill lowering the definition of broadband in the hopes of obfuscating market failure. These companies have made every effort to ensure states like North Carolina remain broadband backwaters. Google Fiber now setting up three locations in their backyards is well deserved.

While Google Fiber isn't going to magically cure the nation's lack of broadband options, it continues to not only elevate the policy conversation about broadband, it's inspiring many communities to demand something better. Another bit of good news? Google is about to try the same thing with wireless.

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

Hey, Just A Silly Thought: Maybe It's Time We Stop Letting Comcast And AT&T Write State Telecom Law?

from the red-vs-blue-vs-grey dept

As we've noted a few times, one of the biggest obstacles to getting real next-generation broadband networks deployed in the United States is the protectionist broadband laws large ISPs have written and lobbied for nineteen states. These laws erode local rights by prohibiting or hindering towns and cities from building their own broadband networks (or in some cases even partnering with a private company) -- even in cases where nobody else will.

In a sane world, most of us would normally agree that letting AT&T or Comcast write self-serving state law that tramples citizen rights is bad for everyone. But like so many technology issues in the United states (like net neutrality), municipal broadband has somehow fallen victim to partisan nitwit disease, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. That shouldn't be the case; most municipal broadband networks are actually voted on and built in Conservative leaning areas (since it's more rural areas that tend to have less competition and need the most help). As with net neutrality, if you actually sit people down and talk to them most people actually tend to agree. "Why yes, I would prefer it if my rights weren't curtailed by a Comcast lawyer, thank you very much."

But instead of acknowledging we agree and moving forward to carve out the best solution possible, money in politics has polluted the discourse well. As a result, we all get to live in a badly-written dystopian novel, where giant companies write the law, and loyal politicians like Martha Blackburn defend protectionism by pretending they're only really concerned about the little guy.

I've written about this issue for fifteen years, and for most of that time it wasn't a sexy enough of a subject to get the attention of technology news outlets, much less the mainstream press. As such, it was relatively easy for carrier lobbyists to get these laws passed. In the last few years, however, things have been changing; efforts like Google Fiber and municipal broadband builds in places like Lafayette, Louisiana, Wilson, North Carolina, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, have shown a bright spotlight on the lack of competition and the precise reasons why. As such, protecting broadband duopolies through greased-palm legislation has gotten a tiny bit harder.

Yet we still can't seem to cure partisan nitwit disease. Take for example, the recently re-introduced by Cory Booker Community Broadband Act (pdf). A rehash of truly bipartisan efforts attempted in both 2005 and 2007, the bill has been brought out and dusted off to try and kill off these awful state laws. The proposal's wording is clear:

"No statute, regulation, or other legal requirement of a State or local government may prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting or substantially inhibiting, any public provider from providing telecommunications service or advanced telecommunications capability or services to any person or any public or private entity."

Of course the law is most likely going nowhere, because giant ISPs have, like most companies, poured gasoline and campaign cash on partisan divisions to ensure partisan gridlock. As such, Republicans will mindlessly fight the measure under the pretense of just being super concerned about states' rights and the poor American taxpayer. The point may be moot. On February 26 (the same day it's slated to vote on net neutrality), the FCC will vote to consider pre-empting the restrictive provisions in these state laws under its Congressional authority to ensure broadband is deployed in a "reasonable and timely basis."

That's the first time in fifteen years the FCC could be bothered to even look at this relatively common sense issue, much less engage it on the policy front. That suggests progress -- even if we're still looking for a cure to the pandemic that is partisan nitwit disease.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, cory booker, fcc, federalism, marsha blackburn, muni broadband, municipal broadband, states
Companies: at&t, comcast, time warner cable