Competition/Antitrust

The tussle over "network neutrality" started 20 years ago in Portland (OR). Today, Portland and its region are poised to be Ground Zero for resolving the real issues behind public concern over “net neutrality”—the stagnant, uncompetitive, hopelessly outclassed state of internet access in America. Portland is taking seriously the idea of a publicly overseen dark-fiber network over which private providers could compete to offer cheap, ubiquitous internet access.

The lion’s share of discussion around the digital divide has centered around access, but the prices rural consumers are paying for the services available to them are worth paying attention to as well. According to our research, roughly 146 million rural Americans do not have access to a low-priced plan for wired broadband internet. That’s nearly 45 percent of the US population. We define “low-priced” as a broadband plan with a monthly cost less than or equal to the 20th percentile of all plan prices, or around $60 per month.

New research from Parks Associates finds 22 percent of US broadband households have a service speed of 100-999 megabits per second (Mbps), the most common service tier, although 39 percent of US broadband households do not know their broadband speed. The report, Modern Broadband: Competition and Retention at Gigabit Speeds, notes only 6 percent of US broadband households have gigabit-speed services and interest in upgrading to that speed of service has declined over the past two years.

Google has agreed to pay the Louisville Metro Government $3.84 million over the next 20 months to repair the damage caused to the city by its ill-fated Google Fiber service. The money will be used by local authorities to remove the company’s infrastructure from the city’s roads and to repave areas where needed after the service ceased operation April 15.

The surprising role of the rural co-ops in providing high-speed internet mirrors an important chapter in US history, and sheds light on the financial challenges of connecting rural America, where residents say the lack of high-speed internet makes them feel left behind. After hearing requests, the Tri-County Rural Electric Cooperative in Mansfield (PA), surveyed its members to see if they wanted the co-op in the broadband business. The response was a resounding yes.

A Q&A with Harvard professor Susan Crawford. 

Nearly half of the US population (45%) lacks access to a low-price wired broadband offering, according to a new broadband affordability report from BroadbandNow, the organization that maintains a detailed database of broadband offerings throughout the US. The research also showed that people in rural areas pay higher prices and that, ironically, people in areas with higher average income pay less for service. Other key findings from the BroadbandNow research:

From Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Santa Monica, California, hundreds of communities in the U.S. have been able to provide consumers and businesses with affordable broadband over locally owned and controlled fiber and coaxial networks. But San Francisco, the epicenter of the digital revolution, can’t match the success of these smaller municipalities, many with far fewer resources and civic wealth. San Francisco is not alone.

Benton Foundation Senior Fellow Jonathan Sallet's remarks at the Federal Trade Commission's hearing on Consumer Protection Issues in US Broadband Markets:

As the Federal Trade Commission considers the actions it can take to further broadband competition, I believe that it should consider three important points:

The issue of overbuilding got a lot of attention in a Senate Communications Subcommittee hearing on "The Impact[s] of Broadband Investments in Rural America." Overbuilding existing commercial service with government money has long been one of Internet service providers biggest issues with how government broadband subisidies are administered. Subcommittee Chairman John thune (R-SD) said with both the US Dept of Agricutlure and Federal Communications Commission providing broadband funding, he could see how the money could be "inadvertently used" to overbuild. He asked whether Congress should