“Monopoly” may be a fun family night activity, but if you live in a place where you have little or no choice for Internet access, it’s not fun and it’s not a game.

According to FCC data, most families don’t have a choice in Internet access providers, especially providers they like. Nevertheless, the biggest companies keep reporting increasing revenues every year. People aren’t happy with the service they’re receiving, but companies like AT&T and Comcast continue to thrive. What’s going on?

In a recent State Scoop piece, Christopher wrote: 

[T]he market is not providing a check to AT&T or Comcast power. They are effectively monopolies — and as we just saw — can translate their market power into political power to wipe out regulations they find annoying.

At the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, where we work to support local economies, this broken market is a major problem. Cable monopolies are bad for local businesses, which become less competitive from paying too much for unreliable Internet access. Communities cannot thrive without high quality Internet access today. 

We created this infographic to present the evidence showing that the market is broken. This resource also discusses why creating more competition in the current market is such a challenge. An effective way to overcome this broken market, however, is to consider what hundreds of local communities are already doing - investing in publicly owned Internet infrastructure. Our infographic offers a few examples of different models, each chosen to suit the communities they serve.

Get a larger version of the infographic here. 

Get a larger version of the infographic here.

Kudos to intern Kate Svitavsky who created the infographic.

Stay up to date on community networks with our newsletter.

This is episode 241 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. John Bergmayer from Public Knowledge joins the show to talk about the "bundle" in the cable industry. Are cable bundles a bargain as advertised? What do customers want? Listen to this episode here.

John Bergmayer: You know the structure of the programing industry and the structure of the cable industry means effectively they're not being served. They’re getting ripped off I believe.

Lisa Gonzalez: This is episode 241 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast from the Institute for Local Self Reliance, I'm Lisa Gonzalez. Cable subscribers often complain about bundling. Being forced to choose from video packages that include channels they don't want in order to get access to the content they do want. Why are we stuck in this model? And what are the ramifications for service providers? Especially now that so much content is available via the Internet. What are some of the concerns smaller cable providers encounter when negotiating for content? This week, Christopher talks with John Bergmayer, Senior Counsel from Public Knowledge who explains why Comcast and Time Warner Cable and other cable companies are so in love with the bundle. They discuss why it's difficult to move past this model and whether or not bundles are a bargain, as they are described in advertising. Or something quite different. Now here's Christopher and John Bergmayer, Senior Counsel at Public Knowledge, discussing unbundling and the world of cable.

Christopher Mitchell: Welcome to another edition of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. I'm Chris Mitchell. Today I'm speaking with John Bergmayer, Senior Counsel for Public Knowledge, a non-profit organization in Washington, DC. Welcome to the show!

John Bergmayer: Yeah, thanks for having me Chris.

Christopher Mitchell: John, can you tell us a little bit about what Public Knowledge does for people that haven't been around to hear past interviews with Chris Lewis and Harold Feld and other great people that you have on staff?

John Bergmayer: Sure, you know, we're a DC based public interest organization, or consumer group. We fight for consumer rights in a number of areas such as, telecommunications, cable TV, copyright...

If you’re like much of the country, you may be stuck in a bad romance with your Internet Service Provider. In the spirit of the holiday, the writers at MuniNetworks.org reimagined three of the biggest providers as their sweeties and, you guessed it, things weren’t all wine and roses.

Comcast - “The Creep”

by Kate

All across the U.S., Internet subscribers are settling for Comcast when there’s no one else to date. After the excitement of a new relationship in the form of low price introductory rates disappears, you are left with nothing more than slow, inconsistent speeds and jacked up service fees. What had been a steady relationship quickly hits rocks when Comcast becomes lazy, realizing that you will never break up with them because there’s no one else in town to date. When you finally can’t stand Comcast’s high costs, added fees, data caps, and inconsistent speeds, you decide to take a break but just like a bad date, Comcast refuses to take “no” for an answer. What can you do when your only other choice is DSL? You’re trapped by “The Creep.”

AT&T - “Darth Vader”

by Hannah

AT&T is the empire of telecom.  The empire will control everything and everyone through the power of the Death Star or, in AT&T’s case, through lobbyists and high prices. AT&T’s willing to put in a minimal level of support in rural areas: just like the empire maintains a small outpost on Tatooine but doesn’t care that the rural planet is full of smugglers and run by a mob of Hutts. Personified, the company is most certainly Darth Vader: manipulative, secretive, and powerful. He will only help you if there’s something in it for him. He doesn’t actually care about your feelings, only that he maintains power over you (it's just like paying AT&T not to spy on you). Don’t date Darth Vader – you can’t trust him.

CenturyLink - “The Old Geezer”

by Lisa

...

Seattle hasn’t given up the possibility of fast, affordable, reliable connectivity for all.

The city has long struggled with how to improve Internet access for residents and businesses. They commissioned a feasibility study in 2015 to learn more about the cost and potential for a citywide broadband utility, but the hefty estimated cost - $480 million to $665 million - subdued the conversation. The City Council, however, is taking steps to ensure the city doesn’t lose site of the idea of Internet access as a utility.

Keeping The Dream Alive

Council Member Rob Johnson introduced an amendment to the Mayor’s Comprehensive Master Plan to keep the concept of ubiquitous high-quality connectivity in the city’s future. Johnson’s amendment, which passed at a September City Council meeting, added Municipal Broadband to the list of potential future discretionary projects in the Mayor’s Comprehensive Master Plan. The plan addresses the city’s long-term growth vision. 

The fiscal analysis, or Green Sheet, puts the price tag at $303,000 in 2017 and $137,000 in 2018. The funding would cover the cost of a full-time staff person in the city’s IT department and the cost to develop a business plan for a city-owned municipal broadband utility. The funding did not make it into the final budget, but with municipal broadband in the Master Plan, a future budget may see the addition.

Christopher has visited Seattle to talk munis with the Seattle Citizens' Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board and local reporters consulted with him on the results of the 2015 feasibility study. The interest in a community network...