Tag: "fcc"

Posted July 31, 2018 by lgonzalez

For years, national cable and telecom companies have complained that they work in a tough industry because “there’s too much broadband competition.” Such a subjective statement has created confusion among subscribers, policy makers, and elected officials. Many people, especially those in rural areas, have little or no choice. We wanted to dive deeper into the realities of their claim, so we decided to look at the data and map out what the large carriers offer and where they offer it. In order to share our findings with policy makers, local elected officials, and the general public, we’ve created a report that includes series of maps to illustrate our findings and our analysis, Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom.

Download the report.

Choice: The Ultimate Prize

Whether it’s a brand of breakfast cereal, a model of car, or an Internet Service Provider (ISP), those who purchase a good or service know that when they have more options, the options they have are better. The FCC defines "broadband" as connectivity that provides speeds of at least 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload; our report fouces on service where ISPs claim to offer this minimum threshold. 

When it comes to ISPs, subscribers often have a faux choice between unequal services, such as one telephone company offering slow DSL and one cable company that offers faster cable Internet access. People in rural America often have even slimmer options because cable ISPs don’t provide broadband in less populated rural areas. In other words, the market has spoken and the market is broken.

In this analysis, we examined Form 477 Data from ISPs and submitted to the FCC. While the data paints a grim picture of where competition truly exists, those who read the report should remember that Form 477 Data breaks down information into census blocks. As a result,...

Read more
Posted July 13, 2018 by Hannah Bonestroo

In his recent article written for NBC News, journalist Phil McCausland examines the impacts broadband access can have on rural communities and the challenges that persist in bringing coverage to these isolated areas. Reliable high-speed internet access can spark economic development in some of the United State’s most cash-strapped areas, but a lack of dependable data makes acquiring funding difficult.

McCausland explores how high-speed Internet access is becoming increasingly essential for communities’ economic growth. He spoke with Roberto Gallardo, the assistant director of the Purdue Center for Regional Development, who explained how having broadband access today “is analogous to the installation of a railroad 100 years ago or a highway 50 years ago.”

Bringing Broadband to Rural Areas

McCausland investigates the specific case of Lake County, Minnesota, an area home to 10,000 people that spans 3,000 square miles in the far northeast part of the state. Our 2014 report, All Hands on Deck: Minnesota Local Government Models for Fiber Internet Access, describes how the Minnesota legislature set a goal in 2010 to achieve universal access to high speed broadband throughout the state by 2015, including in Lake County. Many of Minnesota’s local governments stepped up to try to accomplish the goal. Local leaders in Lake County decided that they needed high-speed internet in order to take part in the growing digital economy. McCausland found that after nearly eight years of planning and an investment of over $80 million dollars, the area is seeing the economic benefits of high-speed Internet access. Coverage has boosted tourism and allowed for lifestyles that involve working remotely, as well as becoming essential to the growth of local businesses. 

logo-lake-county-mn.png While conclusive data on the exact economic outcomes are yet to come, McCausland’s interviews in the area reveal that many local residents already feel a direct impact. Local sawmill owner, Greg Hull, has seen an increase in business since receiving broadband coverage. He now has an improved website that “made [his company’s] whole Internet presence a lot more viable, which has in turn opened...

Read more
Posted June 19, 2018 by lgonzalez

As of June 11th, federal network neutrality protections formally expired, thanks to Chairman Ajit Pai and the other Republican Commissioners at the FCC. In the months leading up to the vote, Pai has continued to press the talking point that the market will protect consumers. Now is a good time to pull out our infographic from last year, "The Market Has Spoken. The Market Is Broken," to remind Chairman Pai that a broken market isn’t much protection.

Is a Broken Market Able to Protect Anyone?

If people Americans aren’t satisfied with their current ISP, they should just switch, right? That’s why we have a competitive market — so subscribers who are unhappy with one Internet service can switch to another, right? Sounds great, but when there is no competition where you live, “you’ll take what you git and you won’t throw a fit.” At least, that’s what monopoly providers expect.

Our infographic addresses national ISPs that deliver services in both urban and rural areas. Time and again, consumers report that they’re dissatisfied with companies such as Comcast, AT&T, and CenturyLink, but with no options in many areas, there is no recourse. Now that we know approximately 177 million Americans live under the shadow of ISPs that willingly offend network neutrality policies, the faulty market is a more important issue than ever.

National ISPs know the monumental task ahead of new entrants, but also know that if subscribers get a taste for something better, big companies will lose their advantage and subscribership. In order to keep their position at the top of the heap, they invest millions of dollars each year into lobbying at the state and federal level. By advancing legislation that effectively blocks smaller players and municipalities from developing new and better services, Comcast, AT&T, and others can maintain their monopolies.

Our infographic looks at some hard numbers and offers examples of solutions. When communities find a way to get past the big telecom and cable industry stranglehold, they can thrive with local control and accountability.

Check out a larger image here.

...

Read more
Posted June 15, 2018 by lgonzalez

In response to the FCC’s decision to end federal network neutrality protections, California and other states have introduced bills to fill the gap left by the Commission. Local communities who had flirted with the idea of publicly owned Internet infrastructure in the past have now taken a second and more serious look to counteract the FCC’s harmful policy shift. Assembly Member Ed Chau’s AB 1999, making its way through the legislative process, is opening possibilities for local communities to invest in their own Internet infrastructure. Chau recognizes that publicly owned networks are an option for more than network neutrality protections, especially in rural communities.

Attitude Adjustment

Our Christopher Mitchell travelled to California in May to testify about the bill as it worked its way through the committee process. AB 1999 could indicate that big telephone and cable companies now have less influence in state Capitols around the U.S. than in past years. We recently wrote about a New Hampshire bill that gives us similar hope — a piece of legislation signed by the Governor there that removed restrictions on local investment in broadband networks.

Like New Hampshire's SB 170, AB 1999 allows communities where big national providers don’t want to invest have more control over how they improve local connectivity. If passed, the bill will give California's community service districts the ability to develop public broadband networks and offer services. The language of the bill also requires that any networks developed by community service districts adhere to network neutrality rules.

Rural Communities Serving Themselves

Community service districts (CSD) are independent local governments created to provide services in unincorporated areas of a county. CSDs are...

Read more
Posted May 30, 2018 by htrostle

The definition of “broadband” has changed over the years to reflect the way we use the Internet. From a mere 200 kilobits per second (Kbps) in download speed in 1996 to 25 megabits per second (Mbps) in 2015, it’s also important to remember that download speed is only part of the definition. While lobbyists for big ISPs argue the 25/3 standard is too high,  25 Mbps (download) and 3 Mbps (upload) is a reasonable minimum standard for broadband in 2018.

#1 /Turn off that video! I need to make a phone call!/ 
Back in the day, we used to accept that accessing the Internet meant we couldn’t make phone calls. Technology has advanced, and now that seems ridiculous. In 2018, general household Internet use requires at least a 25 Mbps download capacity so that we can all use the Internet without disrupting each other. 

Here’s the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) handy chart:

 

...
  Light Use
(Basic functions: email, browsing, basic video, VoIP, Internet radio)
Moderate Use
(Basic functions plus one high-demand application: streaming HD video, multiparty video conferencing, online gaming, telecommuting)
Read more
Posted May 21, 2018 by lgonzalez

Network neutrality protections are scheduled to disappear on June 11th. In an effort to reverse the FCC’s decision that will put millions at risk by eliminating market protections, 52 Senators voted in favor of a Resolution of Disapproval on May 16th. The vote was enough to pass the Resolution and send it on to the next step under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

Heading to the House

In addition to the full roster of Democrats, Republican legislators, Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John Kennedy of Louisiana, voted in favor of the bill. Last February, citizen groups in Louisiana joined together to show support for network neutrality, staging rallies in four cities and visiting Senator Kennedy with thousands of signatures on a petition urging him to support the Resolution.

Now that the measure has passed in the Senate, it faces a tougher time in the House, however, where passage requires more votes to obtain the necessary majority. Advocates are busy organizing citizens, businesses, and entities to express their support for the policy and demand that Representatives take the same route as the Senate.

“We will continue to fight for net neutrality in every way possible as we try to protect against erosion into a discriminatory internet, with ultimately a far worse experience for any users and businesses who don’t pay more for special treatment,” said Denelle Dixon, chief operating officer at Mozilla.

The Congressional Review Act

Unlike in the Senate, there is no fast-track option from the House Committee to the House Floor. If the House Committee fails to report, however, a majority can force a vote. Like in the Senate, a simple majority in favor of the Joint Resolution is required for passage — 218 votes in the House.

Let your Representatives know that you support...

Read more
Posted May 17, 2018 by lgonzalez

Vermont was one of the first states to take decisive action to try to curb the harmful consequences from the repeal of network neutrality. It’s only fitting that Senator Bernie Sanders recently released a video on network neutrality featuring one of the country’s experts on connectivity — our own Christopher Mitchell.

The video details how the FCC’s decision to eliminate federal network neutrality protections will harm rural America. Christopher describes the lack of competition as it exists today and how services and prices will change to the detriment of subscribers if we move forward without network neutrality in place. 

“We can’t expect competition in rural areas, [they] are, in many cases, only going to have one high-quality network provider,” says Mitchell. “Losing net neutrality means that the cable and telephone companies are going to be able to set up toll booths and charge more money on the networks they’ve already created.”

Check out the video and share it widely:

Trying to Fix The Mistake

When FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and the other Republican Commissioners voted to repeal network neutrality last December, advocates mobilized. The decision put more than 170 million Americans at risk of losing market protections. By using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Democrats in Congress hope to reverse the Commission’s decision. The repeal formally goes into effect on June 11th.

On May 16th the Senate voted to reverse the FCC decision, 52 - 47; the next step in the process requires the House to take up the measure. Groups such as Fight for the Future are prepared and have started campaigns to convince the House to vote on the same issue. You can sign their...

Read more
Posted May 16, 2018 by lgonzalez

It’s May 16th and today is the day the Senate will vote on whether or not to reverse last December’s repeal of network neutrality rules by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and other Republican FCC Commissioners. As a reminder, we thought this was a good day to pull out the maps we created that illustrate how that decision to repeal the federal policy put at least 177 million Americans at risk. Without network neutrality protections in place, these folks are limited to obtaining broadband Internet access only from providers that have violated network neutrality or have admitted that they plan to violate network neutrality tenets in the future.

Visualizing the Risks

Back in December 2017 when the current FCC made it’s misguided decision, we decided to take a look at the data and create visualizations to paint a picture of what they had done. We used Form 477 data, which tends to overstate coverage, so the problem in the field is likely more severe than the maps indicate. The results aren’t pretty.NationalMap_Legend_2017_12_Updated_1.png

 

At least 129 million people have only a single provider from which they can subscribe to broadband Internet access. The FCC defines broadband as 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 million must turn to a company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and continues to do so.

In some places, the situation is a little better. There are 146 million Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, but 48 million of those Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating network neutrality.

For a larger image, download this version [18 MB png]. 

Download Net Neutrality Repeal By The Numbers, U.S.A. Edition, fact...

Read more
Posted May 7, 2018 by htrostle

The Rocky Mountains are beautiful, but they make Internet access difficult -- that’s the long and short of our research on Colorado. While community networks are making some headway in providing much needed connectivity, much of the state still may only have access to fixed wireless or Satellite service.

Internet Service by Technology

We investigated Internet access in Colorado using the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Form 477 data. Many of the most rural areas of the state do not have any form of Internet access other than satellite or fixed wireless services. For our analysis, we exclusively looked into wireline Internet service because it is less weather-dependent than satellite or fixed wireless. We added county subdivisions onto our map to help readers differentiate between more urban and predominantly rural areas.

Colorado internet service

Broadband Service

That map, however, shows only Internet service availability across the state; it does not show broadband service. The FCC redefined broadband as 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload in 2015. Earlier definitions of broadband included speeds as low as 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload.

DSL service, while widely available, often cannot support this latest definition of broadband. It relies on copper telephone lines, and the actual speeds customers experience are often not as fast as advertised, "up to" speeds. Cable can provide broadband speed, but its actual speed can vary in times of peak traffic, such as the early evening. Fiber is the most reliable form of Internet service. In some communities, fiber networks are providing speeds of 10 Gbps (400 times the speed of broadband).

Colorado broadband service

Community Networks

Colorado is one of the many states that erect barriers to community networks. The state law, colloquially known as SB 152, requires public entities to hold a referendum on whether they can even study the possibility of building a community network. About 100 public entities in Colorado...

Read more
Posted May 4, 2018 by lgonzalez

At this year's Broadband Communities Summit in Austin, Texas, the Coalition for Local Internet Choice (CLIC) hosted a special program on April 30th. As part of the program, Blair Levin presented the keynote address. His comments focused on the process used by the FCC's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) as they examine connectivity in the U.S. and make recommendations on the best ways to expand deployment.

Levin is a strong, open minded advocate for universal broadband access. He's currently Non-Resident Senior Fellow from the Metropolitan Policy Project at the Brookings Institution, but he's also Executive Director of GigU and advises both private and public organizations. Levin has held past stints at the Aspen Institute and the FCC where he oversaw the development of the National Broadband Plan; he's filled many other roles throughout his career. Levin's many years in public, private, and academic sectors have given him experience and an understanding of a wide range of challenges. He’s also obtained a keen insight into possible outcomes. In his keynote address, Levin predicted that the current BDAC process needs to be improved or wealth will find its way to private enterprises with nothing to gain for the public.

In his speech, Levin noted his own experiences with both local and federal governments and that the former were typically “responsive, pro-active, effective and respected in building communities that improve the lives of their residents.” He goes on to state that he believes that local governments need more authority and freedom if we are to move the country forward.

Levin believes that the BDAC is a good idea — bringing multiple stakeholders in the conversation on how we can deploy broadband faster in the U.S. After all, whether we rely more on wireless solutions or FTTP, we need to deploy more fiber and do it faster and more efficiently. He also believes that it’s important to achieve a balance when considering best practices due to the intimidating economics of network deployment. He also goes on to note that there has been some value achieved from BDAC, including the recommendation that states adopt one touch make ready policies.

In his speech, Levin addressed in detail what he...

Read more

Pages

Subscribe to fcc