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.
Comments
3 Responses to “It costs more”
Got something to say?
when big tele and cable can influence the democratic process to the extent of impeding the construction of publicly owned fiber optic systems, it’s defacto fascism - subversion of local municipal government to the will of selective private corporate power
under a ruse of bastardized applications of “competition” and “subsidy”, the propaganda against public municipal broadband goes far beyond the usual context of whether economic efficiency is best achieved through private or public means and ventures instead, deeply into the essence of the collective democratic process itself - how dare a group of elected officials carry out the wishes of its electorate …
except of course when using local franchising authority to establish exclusive rights for big cable … followed by an exception to the exception when big tele challenges the original exception in order to carve out more of the duopoly market to itself as big cable kicks and screams … and how about the earlier exception which allowed cable to piggyback on electric facilities in the first place … does “competition by exception” lead to effective competition?
no, not when the big players “compete” with each other for access to a customer base so captive they can double or triple the effective rate for broadband through forced bundling, conveniently cast as a “subsidy free” proposition of the “free market” … but when a local municipal government enters the fray as a third major competitor which can dramatically reduce cost and price while increasing quality with controlled universal buildout to specific standards of unbundled access and use, financed by willing buyers of municipal bonds, it’s no longer competition - even as a new exception - because the big players refuse said terms and conditions, and the entire proposition is strategically transformed into a socialized, communisto munifesto conspiracy that undermines private “competition” with public “subsidies”
meanwhile, the real competition - that which flows over the broadband network, is stifled at huge economic cost as broadband deployment is held in limbo
Also from the Ip list comes further news of anti-competitive behavior by the incumbent. and, in this case, it’s backed by the Bush Administration.
On Jun 23 the Supreme Court agreed to review a California suit where Linkline, an ISP, had accused AT&T of charging so much for wholesale access that the ISP could not compete. AT&T argues that they are under no obligation. An appeals court found for Linkline. The Bush administration persuaded the Supreme Court to review the case.
The outcome has serious inferences for access competition in the nation.
The Bush Administration’s Office of U.S. Solicitor General sided with AT&T, maintaining that federal antitrust laws don’t cover the LinkLine claims.
In urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit opinion, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement said: “Such a theory of liability could not be reconciled with this court’s modern antitrust jurisprudence.”
The FTC, remarkably, has filed a statement in opposition of AT&T’s position.
More info & links : http://isoc-ny.org?p=284
[…] - bookmarked by 1 members originally found by andrezera on 2008-08-06 It costs more http://scrawford.net/blog/it-costs-more/1203/ - bookmarked by 3 members originally found by […]