It costs more
In Ann Arbor, Michigan, the “regional duopoly” story of internet access seems to prevail. It’s AT&T or Comcast.
I applied online for AT&T DSL, and for most of the process I was convinced that they were going to let me buy internet access *without* having an AT&T landline phone. No go. Little red type showed up on the screen [paraphrasing]: Please tell us your existing AT&T number. You can’t get DSL alone.
I called Comcast, and the company’s representative said:
Internet access all by itself? $57.95 per month. But you can’t get our fastest download speed (6MB) without also buying some cable service.
So I ask the natural followup question: How much would the really fast speed internet access cost with a basic cable package?
That’ll be $34.99/month for the first six months.
Although I guess it’s gratifying to have my basic thesis supported - that the cable companies are actually competing with the internet, and don’t want to have people hooked on internet access - this was irritating.
So I got a landline phone from AT&T (that I won’t use) plus their DSL service.
Meanwhile, this headline today, via Dewayne Hendricks and Dave Farber:
Telecoms Sue Over High-Speed Links
Telecommunications companies are suing cities around the nation to stop the construction of publicly owned fiber optic systems to bring high-speed Internet, telephone and cable television to communities far from metropolitan centers.
This line seemed particularly apt:
Many involved in the issue see a typical clash of viewpoints in the litigation embroiling Monticello, Minn., a town near Minneapolis, and TDS Telecom, a subsidiary of Bridgewater Telephone Co.
. . . A motion for dismal is scheduled to be argued on July 18. Bridgewater Telephone Co. v. Monticello, No. 86-CV-08-4555.
Dismal indeed. Of course the existing incumbents don’t want to see government intervention in internet access services - even though government intervention and the creation of a whole host of policies and subsidies supporting broad internet access brought the internet into widespread use in this country.
—–
Update: Helpful reader comment suggests that AT&T’s site is misleading, and that you can order naked DSL. At least you can in San Francisco. So I got back in touch with AT&T’s online customer service - and the answer is: No DSL available at my address in Ann Arbor. After 45 minutes on hold, I was able to cancel the entire AT&T order. Thanks to a helpful emailer, I learned that AT&T Uverse is available in Ann Arbor. But not at my address. Down to one choice: Comcast.