The Worst Internet in America

[Megalith]

These authors analyzed every county’s broadband usage using data from researchers at the University of Iowa and Arizona State University and found that Saguache County, Colorado, is the worst place to be for reliable broadband: only 5.6 percent of adults in the area have it. Part of it has to do with the mountains and the isolation they bring, and it has sparked discussion about how the federal government should step in to improve access in rural areas.

...Saguache County’s students are expected to take their state assessments online even though an administrator at one school that houses K-12 students told me that until last year, the internet often went down for a couple of hours or even all day in the building. The tide long ago turned from paper to digital in American life, and yet the disparities in access to the internet in parts of the country can be stark. Rural communities often face logistics problems installing fiber-optic cable in sparsely populated areas. In Saguache, internet problems are both logistical and financial; the county is three times the size of Rhode Island, while 30 percent of residents live below the poverty line.

 

[sparks]

its been on your bill forever. Rural area has gained at&t billions in tax payer dollars (you know bribe a senator) and none of the money goes anywhere. Its not a secret.

it was probably the providers that started this bs post. Need more money to expand. Waste of time and money

 

[Mohonri]

Question: why should it be up to the highest, largest, and most inefficient level of government to address what is really a very local issue?

 

[sparks]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MONEY

 

[Master_shake_]

Question: why should it be up to the highest, largest, and most inefficient level of government to address what is really a very local issue?

because the fun starts when the municipalities try to implement their own solution.

https://arstechnica.com/information...iber-to-the-home-internet-after-court-ruling/

https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit

seriously funny shit.

 

[Dead Parrot]

Based on the map about 2/3 of the way down in TFA, what is going on in North Dakota? They have better Internet then most of the rest of the country. Did they spend some of that oil money on it?

 

[Domingow]

because the fun starts when the municipalities try to implement their own solution.
seriously funny shit.

True, but (one more Colorado example) the town of Lafayette Co was able to implement their own muni-broadband.
Here is hoping that Erie Co is not far behind. There are talks and something is slated to be on the next local ballot.

 

[Exavior]

because the fun starts when the municipalities try to implement their own solution.

https://arstechnica.com/information...iber-to-the-home-internet-after-court-ruling/

https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit

seriously funny shit.

the fun part is the side you don't get to see. Even when there is no issues like those two it turns into a train wreck for other reasons and doesn't help anyone in most cases. I am involved in a few of these now and not a single one of the cities have any business doing this as they have no idea what they are doing or trying to do. They aren't going to help people really in the long run.

 

[Master_shake_]

the fun part is the side you don't get to see. Even when there is no issues like those two it turns into a train wreck for other reasons and doesn't help anyone in most cases. I am involved in a few of these now and not a single one of the cities have any business doing this as they have no idea what they are doing or trying to do. They aren't going to help people really in the long run.

i'd like to hear the argument against municipal owned broadband.

 

[Stiler]

i'd like to hear the argument against municipal owned broadband.

it'll hurt the smalltime monopolies like AT&T because you know, the billions they have already taken to "expand" their internet to rural areas is really paying off now....


I know people that are literally 20 minutes from me that can't get any kind of high speed internet still, just 56k or satellite. They have no access to cable or anything.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

the best I can so is 3mbs DSL where I live now

 

[Crosshairs]

it's been on your bill forever. Rural area has gained at&t billions in taxpayer dollars (you know bribe a senator) and none of the money goes anywhere. Its not a secret.

it was probably the providers that started this bs post. Need more money to expand. Waste of time and money

Yup.....and Verizon took (stole) millions from PA many years ago and still hasn't done what they were supposed to...

 

[Deleted member 93354]

But I don't understand. Didn't those internet companies like Comcast tell us our outrageous cable fees was supposed to be used for install internet in rural areas now they have paid off the infrastructure off in the really profitable areas?

/Sarcasm

Isps can suck it.

 

[Krazy925]

I'm going to move to the middle of nowhere and complain about shitty internet.

Might not be the best use of money...

My internet has always worked as well as everywhere else in populous/semi populous areas.

 

[jedijeb13]

I am 5 miles out from town and the best I can get is 1.5M ATT DSL. Just got that about 6 years ago, before that it was dialup. A mile past me is dialup only, and I am near a town of 20k people. My parents live 20 miles from the nearest town of 2k population and they get DSL starting at 2M service from a small local phone company. ATT and the other big companies took the money they were supposed to spend on upgrading the wired networks in rural areas and upgraded the cell network in urban areas. There was a lawsuit about it at least 10 years ago if I remember correctly. The only outcome was the government just promised them more money to replace what they already spent stuff it wasn't meant for.

Our local government here turned down a federal grant to provide money for a county wide wireless network, because they would have to be considered a rural county. With a county 40 miles across and one city of 20k people, why would they be so arrogant to think we are not a rural county. Big shots just want to be Bigger shots I guess when they get into government.

 

[deaedius]

True, but (one more Colorado example) the town of Lafayette Co was able to implement their own muni-broadband.
Here is hoping that Erie Co is not far behind. There are talks and something is slated to be on the next local ballot.

The city of Longmont also has its own Gigabit broadband service.

 

[Exavior]

i'd like to hear the argument against municipal owned broadband.

Ok.

In my experience what I have noticed is that they (the city) don't understand ahead of time what is truly involved in building an ISP from the ground up and struggle with that. Even when partner with a local ISP or IT company they still don't fully understand what they are doing. The projects take far longer than they expect due to this lack of understanding of what is required to do any work and to build a core network. The cities that I have direct experience with only care about large business, they are only building their networks with the mindset that they care about 20 - 30 businesses and everyone else can just fuck off. One actually actively made it harder for the operator of the network to build out to the residential areas on their own dime to keep them only caring about the business areas. The other is a dark fiber network that is very expensive to lease fiber to which you then have to make a deal with somebody else to actually get bandwidth once you get between two points in their city. Making an internet connection cost you about $2000 / month for fiber alone plus the cost of your bandwidth from one of that top tiers once you get to them somehow.

Some will try to do it right and actually build a proper network and do it all correctly. But the 8 projects that I have seen in the past year all butt one seem to only care about business and that is it. They map out their largest businesses and try to figure out how do they get a fiber network to service them, and maybe if they feel like doing it the people right around them. I have only seen 1 place want to build out to residential to actually help their people, they were only looking at getting fiber to a township in their are that had crap service and only cared about those people. Most are only looking at how do we make more money. On top of that their prices haven't been any better than the competition and in many cases are going to be higher than any other option the person might already have.

If done right it can work out great, although the ones I have direct experience with haven't been done right and when done are going to have little real impact on the residents compared to anyone else just coming in to service the people.

 

[c3k]

Some farmer in northern England (maybe even Scotland?) ran her own fiber to her neighbors because Brit Telecom was such a bunch of asshats. She set ip her own service...using farm gear to trench the fiber, etc.

 

[Skylinestar]

I've read the whole article and nothing mentioned about the median download speed.
I'm from Malaysia where anything faster than your old school dial up is considered broadband. GPRS (that O logo on the top of iPhone, if you're lucky to see one) is still the best internet in the poorly developed areas. Capped speed of 64kbps internet is still the norm here.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

i'd like to hear the argument against municipal owned broadband.

It's tax dollar funded and you still have to pay out of pocket for it. Now, if the city as in it's population agree and WANT this, that is their choice, assuming they can fund it with their own tax dollars, but in most cases they want the fed and state to pay for it with tax dollars. Outside of that, if they can fund it on their own there is not much of an issue outside of lack of reason for anyone else to ever try and support the area due to being at a disadvantage. But in cases where there is no internet service to start with the city is probably to small to attract that sort of business anyway.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Some part of me really doesn't care about a place where the population density is 1 person per 1/2 square mile, where as the city I live in has about 9000 times that density, and still the only broadband I have options to is Comcast, which yes I did my deal with the devil because the other alternative is a bevy of DSL resellers where I can get a whopping 5Mbps.

That said the article shows a picture of farmland, not sure if it's just put in for flavor but that population density wouldn't surprise me, my in-laws have a farm in the middle of nowhere California, they basically rely on Hughes Net for their internet, fun!!!!

 

[Balthazar2k4]

True, but (one more Colorado example) the town of Lafayette Co was able to implement their own muni-broadband.
Here is hoping that Erie Co is not far behind. There are talks and something is slated to be on the next local ballot.

I'm in Longmont, CO and am fortunate enough to have NextLight Gigabit. Paying $50/month for real symmetrical 1gbps internet with no data caps is utopia.

 

[dgingeri]

It's pathetic that people think the government needs to step in on this. That's absurd. The people there can either live with it, pay for getting it themselves, or move to a place that has better internet. It's not the government's responsibility for such things.

 

[dgingeri]

I'm in Longmont, CO and am fortunate enough to have NextLight Gigabit. Paying $50/month for real symmetrical 1gbps internet with no data caps is utopia.

You may be paying $50/month on your bill, but there's a lot of tax money in that project as well, so you're paying higher taxes for it as well. Don't get too delusional thinking you're paying less. You aren't. You're paying the same, for now, and in ten year, you'll be paying more. That's what government does.

 

[Balthazar2k4]

You may be paying $50/month on your bill, but there's a lot of tax money in that project as well, so you're paying higher taxes for it as well. Don't get too delusional thinking you're paying less. You aren't. You're paying the same, for now, and in ten year, you'll be paying more. That's what government does.

Ironically, my local taxes are similar to Houston, but my property taxes are about 1/3rd as much. I paid three times as much for 1/3rd the speed in Houston and had a data cap to boot. Sorry, I am still ahead here even with the state income tax.

 

[Dr. Righteous]

because the fun starts when the municipalities try to implement their own solution.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit
seriously funny shit.

What is sickening is that lawyers that work for cities are liberal, roll over and rub my belly types. The threat to sue the city regardless of how groundless it is they roll over.
Reminds me of the city of Maryville TN. They had a yearly Christmas celebration that involved a reading of the account in Matthew of the birth of Jesus. A few years ago some atheist
complained to the city and threatened to call the ACLU. The city lawyers rolled over. They barred the reading of the bible at a celebration of an event that is recorded in THE BIBLE.

 

[w1retap]

It's pathetic that people think the government needs to step in on this. That's absurd. The people there can either live with it, pay for getting it themselves, or move to a place that has better internet. It's not the government's responsibility for such things.

But I want to live in fantasy land with 10Gbps internet at my cabin in the middle of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

 

[Stiler]

I'm going to move to the middle of nowhere and complain about shitty internet.

Might not be the best use of money...

My internet has always worked as well as everywhere else in populous/semi populous areas.

Umm, maybe you don't know about this but:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

TLDR: Government has paid billions to companies to expand internet to rural areas, which most of them have simply ignored/abandoned and pocketed your tax dollars.

It's pathetic that people think the government needs to step in on this. That's absurd. The people there can either live with it, pay for getting it themselves, or move to a place that has better internet. It's not the government's responsibility for such things.

I am sure you feel the same way about electricity and other modern utilities correct?

Some of us wouldn't complain if:

1. The isp's actually competed with each other.
2. They actually did what they said they were going to do and expanded their networks to rural areas (of which they've been paid giant piles of tax money already for)
3. They weren't monopolies.

It's tax dollar funded and you still have to pay out of pocket for it. Now, if the city as in it's population agree and WANT this, that is their choice, assuming they can fund it with their own tax dollars, but in most cases they want the fed and state to pay for it with tax dollars. Outside of that, if they can fund it on their own there is not much of an issue outside of lack of reason for anyone else to ever try and support the area due to being at a disadvantage. But in cases where there is no internet service to start with the city is probably to small to attract that sort of business anyway.

Do you still pay for your electricity? What about water? Just because they use tax money to build it up doesn't mean you get it for free....

 

[Krazy925]

Umm, maybe you don't know about this but:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

TLDR: Government has paid billions to companies to expand internet to rural areas, which most of them have simply ignored/abandoned and pocketed your tax dollars.



I am sure you feel the same way about electricity and other modern utilities correct?

Some of us wouldn't complain if:

1. The isp's actually competed with each other.
2. They actually did what they said they were going to do and expanded their networks to rural areas (of which they've been paid giant piles of tax money already for)
3. They weren't monopolies.




Do you still pay for your electricity? What about water? Just because they use tax money to build it up doesn't mean you get it for free....

Maybe you don't realize it but Saguache, CO has a population of 488 people, I don't consider it a priority.

I'd rather see more populous areas get the improvements you know where it helps more than 500 people actually live. Complaining about internet speed in a remote area with no population is stupid. Do they have municipal sewage there? How about municipal water? It's not cost effective.

I didn't get good internet when I lived in Sitka either zomg!

 

[Stiler]

Maybe you don't realize it but Saguache, CO has a population of 488 people, I don't consider it a priority.

I'd rather see more populous areas get the improvements you know where it helps more than 500 people actually live. Complaining about internet speed in a remote area with no population is stupid. Do they have municipal sewage there? How about municipal water? It's not cost effective.

I didn't get good internet when I lived in Sitka either zomg!

Just because they live in a rural area doesn't mean they shouldn't have access to decent internet in this modern day and age. They pay taxes the same as anyone else and EVERYONE in the country should have access to something that'd widely considered a necessity.

If the companies actually used the billions they already got to do what they promised to do we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

You are thinking with the same mindset as telecom companies, high population = lets get them service cause profits>people.

 

[Krazy925]

Just because they live in a rural area doesn't mean they shouldn't have access to decent internet in this modern day and age. They pay taxes the same as anyone else and EVERYONE in the country should have access to something that'd widely considered a necessity.

If the companies actually used the billions they already got to do what they promised to do we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

You are thinking with the same mindset as telecom companies, high population = lets get them service cause profits>people.

Maybe, but I'm also realistic. When money being spent somewhere isn't spent somewhere elsewhere you are making decisions about what infrastructure helps which people. I value helping more people. 488 people spread out over a few miles just isn't that important. Sorry man.

I know communities in North Carolina that are miles down the road that don't always have complete coverage. You know neighborhoods with more people than than 488. Much more important than some jerk water town in Colorado. It's a numbers game.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Do you still pay for your electricity? What about water? Just because they use tax money to build it up doesn't mean you get it for free....

And that makes it better how?

You seem to think because one is that way that it is by default the best or better way. Not all utility is owned by government monopoly, many are privately owned, however in areas that are controlled by government almost no one ever enters into as it is supported with tax dollars along with the monthly bill people pay, resulting in payment for something you might not even use for living in the area and makes the full total cost hard if not impossible to see without some serious research. Many government monopoly has been handed over to private business because the locations were publicly owned and it was found the private business could offer higher levels of service for cheaper. This has been the case from trash pickup to power and water, in some locations only part was given over, such as power generation given over to private, while the lines were still public and about any variation you can think of in between.

The unseen cost is without a doubt a negative, as is the restriction of the market, as even if someone could enter a market that is supported by tax dollars and be competitive, they are not allowed to, by law. Even though we see the same government spouting almost daily now about the evils of market monopolies that formed by being the best/cheapest option, that is by choice. But when it is under the force of law, everyone flat out ignores it.

With that said, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all with the last paragraph, not saying it is good or bad, only the people living under can speak to that. If they feel it is the best option and they can pay for it with their own tax dollars, then it is indeed the best option for them. However everything has drawbacks, to pretend other wise does not help anyone making a decision on the matter or looking for information on it, such as the person I quoted.

 

[tacos4me]

Who would have thought, rooms full of penny-pinching shareholders don't deliver the best results to consumers.

Time to neuter Ma again.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Who would have thought, rooms full of penny-pinching shareholders don't deliver the best results to consumers.

Time to neuter Ma again.

Assuming you mean Ma Bell? If so you might want to do some research there. They grew to their size because the government made it illegal to compete with them, they were a 100% government enforced monopoly, after that was dropped and the market allowed to do as it wished, their market share dropped and within a year had hundreds of competitors. The history of POTS is quite an eye opener to most people on just how little freedom our free market has.

 

[tacos4me]

Assuming you mean Ma Bell? If so you might want to do some research there. They grew to their size because the government made it illegal to compete with them, they were a 100% government enforced monopoly, after that was dropped and the market allowed to do as it wished, their market share dropped and within a year had hundreds of competitors. The history of POTS is quite an eye opener to most people on just how little freedom our free market has.

Different situation, same result.

If you can look at the current state of telecoms in the US, and think to yourself the free market is doing a good job providing service to consumers.. I don't really care to continue a discussion.

Nobody likes the big, bad hand of government mucking around their lives, but these companies clearly need policing. I personally don't consider the internet a luxury anymore, especially when you consider the tax breaks we've specifically given these guys to provide a standard of service to everyone.

 

[entropism]

Nobody likes the big, bad hand of government mucking around their lives, but these companies clearly need policing.

The whole foundation of a capitalist society was that the companies would be making ethical decisions, and NOT fucking over society. If they did, customers would turn to the competition and run the unethical companies out of business.

Nobody had the foresight to see the unethical giants buying out the competition, or swinging to even more unethical practices, to run that competition into the ground.

Capitalism is much like "true" communism. It works great in theory. In real life, not so much.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Different situation, same result.

If you can look at the current state of telecoms in the US, and think to yourself the free market is doing a good job providing service to consumers.. I don't really care to continue a discussion.

Nobody likes the big, bad hand of government mucking around their lives, but these companies clearly need policing. I personally don't consider the internet a luxury anymore, especially when you consider the tax breaks we've specifically given these guys to provide a standard of service to everyone.

You do understand current ISPs are in the position they are in because of government enforcement right? You do know that government took control of ROWs to stop a single business from buying up all the land and refusing to allow others to install lines on that land? You do know that it is now government that refuses to allow others to install into it? Which is why many locations only have a single provider choice. Or in best case a duopoly? You do understand Google fiber has not expanded like it wanted to because of this very issue? Where Google in some cases has spent YEARS dealing with local government to allow them to lay last mile fiber to peoples homes? When you have to please lots of people (customers) it is hard to if not impossible without force to become a monopoly, but when you have a single person (regulator) to capture (buy out), it is FAR easier to control a market, NOT harder. When an ISP comes into a market they sign contracts with the local city and government which gets kick backs, in most cases city buildings get free internet/phone/cable, along with other payouts to be the exclusive provider. It is considered a "free market" because there is no actual law stopping or stating only this ISP can lay cable, however no other ISP will ever get approval for those areas to lay cable having the exact same effect.

To call this market, which is one of the most controlled and regulated, free, is well....Just not the case.

Google just bought a whole wireless internet tech company for this very reason, as they are planning on going around this regulation by sending data wireless for the last mile to the home, going around the use of the utility ROW. They have tried to deploy this in a few locations and have already been sued and tuned into local regulators for it stating because they are using telephone poles (but not going into the ROW) they should still be considered and regulated as such. In other words they use the regulators and government to strong arm competition, Google has made as much head way as it has because they also have DEEP pockets, but think of the smaller ISPs that would like to start in a city, there is no chance, at best you will find resellers, but nothing more. Google in the locations they have entered have seen huge price drops and speed increases, even in locations where the ISP had stated before they were bandwidth capped, Google shows up and over night they seem to have found more bandwidth at cheaper prices. THAT is what a free market without government lock ins looks like.

It is also worth noting that this is well known by government and they have responded to it a number of times and their reasoning is "economies of scale", that being if a single provider controls the whole market, it allows for them to provide cheaper prices, the fact this has been proven to not be the case with ISPs, they just ignore.

 

[tacos4me]

You do understand current ISPs are in the position they are in because of government enforcement right? You do know that government took control of ROWs to stop a single business from buying up all the land and refusing to allow others to install lines on that land? You do know that it is now government that refuses to allow others to install into it? Which is why many locations only have a single provider choice. Or in best case a duopoly? You do understand Google fiber has not expanded like it wanted to because of this very issue? Where Google in some cases has spent YEARS dealing with local government to allow them to lay last mile fiber to peoples homes? When you have to please lots of people (customers) it is hard to if not impossible without force to become a monopoly, but when you have a single person (regulator) to capture (buy out), it is FAR easier to control a market, NOT harder. When an ISP comes into a market they sign contracts with the local city and government which gets kick backs, in most cases city buildings get free internet/phone/cable, along with other payouts to be the exclusive provider. It is considered a "free market" because there is no actual law stopping or stating only this ISP can lay cable, however no other ISP will ever get approval for those areas to lay cable having the exact same effect.

To call this market, which is one of the most controlled and regulated, free, is well....Just not the case.

Google just bought a whole wireless internet tech company for this very reason, as they are planning on going around this regulation by sending data wireless for the last mile to the home, going around the use of the utility ROW. They have tried to deploy this in a few locations and have already been sued and tuned into local regulators for it stating because they are using telephone poles (but not going into the ROW) they should still be considered and regulated as such. In other words they use the regulators and government to strong arm competition, Google has made as much head way as it has because they also have DEEP pockets, but think of the smaller ISPs that would like to start in a city, there is no chance, at best you will find resellers, but nothing more. Google in the locations they have entered have seen huge price drops and speed increases, even in locations where the ISP had stated before they were bandwidth capped, Google shows up and over night they seem to have found more bandwidth at cheaper prices. THAT is what a free market without government lock ins looks like.

Uh huh, and who do you think these regulations actually come from?

 

[nutzo]

Some part of me really doesn't care about a place where the population density is 1 person per 1/2 square mile, where as the city I live in has about 9000 times that density, and still the only broadband I have options to is Comcast, which yes I did my deal with the devil because the other alternative is a bevy of DSL resellers where I can get a whopping 5Mbps.

I'm in the middle of a city of 100,000, which is surrounded by more cities, in southern Orange County California. I can't even get DSL. Only choice is COX Cable, and of course their high prices.

That said the article shows a picture of farmland, not sure if it's just put in for flavor but that population density wouldn't surprise me, my in-laws have a farm in the middle of nowhere California, they basically rely on Hughes Net for their internet, fun!!!!

Wife has friends who live in a remote area of northern California. Last time we where there, they still used dialup, and it was a toll call
No cell service either. The small town about a mile from their house had limited cell coverage, voice but no data.

 

[tetris42]

Nobody had the foresight to see the unethical giants buying out the competition, or swinging to even more unethical practices, to run that competition into the ground.

Except, you know, Adam Smith, back in the 1700s, and every left leaning school of economics since then.

Maybe you don't realize it but Saguache, CO has a population of 488 people, I don't consider it a priority.

If we were literally talking about 488 people, you would would be right. The number of people without access to affordable broadband (and are still on dial-up) is more like 9.4 million in America. Considering how essential internet is now, focusing on making things better for the majority who are already better off with regards to internet while ignoring the sizeable minority who don't have it just leads to further stratification of society. With this sort of reasoning, people in rural areas shouldn't have been considered to have phone lines, electricity, paved roads, or mail either. Afterall, that's money that could have gone elsewhere.