Type to search

How Big Cable Makes New Yorkers Pay More For Slower Internet

Featured Post National News Politics Top News US

How Big Cable Makes New Yorkers Pay More For Slower Internet

Share
Verizon Fios Truck

As 40,000 Verizon employees clog New York’s streets with one of the nation’s largest strikes in years, and with no end in sight, it’s worth mentioning one thing those strikers are incontrovertibly right about, among many others:

The availability, speed, and cost of New York City’s internet are all pretty dismal.

Take FiOS, Verizon’s high-speed, fiberoptic broadband internet service that, if made available to every home in the city, would finally catch New York up to its most technologically advanced peers around the world.

In fact, Verizon made a deal with the city in 2008 to wire any of its 3.1 million households that wanted an alternative to Time Warner and others, with a completion date set for June 30, 2014. Two years behind schedule, Verizon has no intention of fulfilling their end of the agreement, and large parts of New York City are still without FiOS, even where demand is overwhelming.

Last June, the city’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications released a report excoriating the slow implementation of Verizon’s promises. In 2012, it found, 1.7 million homes were in areas where FiOS could be installed. By the end of 2014, that number was just under 2 million, an increase of less than 300,000.

“Through a thorough and comprehensive audit, we have determined that Verizon substantially failed to meet its commitment to the people of New York City,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio on NY1 in June of last year.

The seemingly intentional slowdown of bringing FiOS to New York falls squarely on protesting workers’ list of grievances. Verizon already wants to cut operational costs by decreasing worker benefits and outsourcing jobs, and any large effort to expand FiOS beyond the current bare minimum of coverage (which happens to be concentrated in wealthy areas) would require hiring new employees, strengthening the union with whom they currently refuse to negotiate.

This is not the Verizon New Yorkers were promised in 2008.

In comments to the New York Times after the deal with the city was made eight years ago, Verizon Telecom president Virginia P. Ruesterholz bragged that “No other provider has said it will build in all of New York […] The other competitors haven’t built everywhere, but just taken their turf.”

Well, that’s all it was: talk.

The practice amongst internet providers of “carving up” service areas, as Ruesterholz described to the Times, is used to minimize competition and keep costs high.

As a result of the increased consolidation brought on by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the city operates with a handful of large cable providers: Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, and Comcast, who are widely reviled by New York’s residents, and a small handful of others.

And while all of these companies repeatedly claim that their various expansions have resulted in increased competition, the reality has been far different. Rather than citywide coverage by — and competition between — all the major providers, New York resembles a mosaic of provider strongholds.

These same companies have led the fight against net neutrality, the notion that Internet service providers should allow open access to any IP address on the web regardless of its source. Without that, one of the governing principles behind the creation of the internet would be lost, and providers would charge customers more for visiting certain websites.

It was a battle Big Cable almost won, with a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission that proved the nation’s tech administrators are woefully under equipped to govern the internet, Comcast Corp v. FCC.

While that decision ended the commission’s use of ancillary jurisdiction, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation described as “a catchall source of authority that amounts to ‘we can regulate without waiting for Congress so long a the regulations are related to something else that Congress told us to do,'” it also opened the door for further challenges to the FCC’s power.

A second challenge, Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, led to the brief death of net neutrality, as the D.C. Circuit court ruled that the FCC chose the wrong legal framework to enforce it. The result was a months-long public commenting period which resulted in 4 million comments by Americans, a triumph of civic engagement in support of net neutrality. The corporations turned petty — Verizon’s response was written in Morse code.

Nevertheless, the cable companies have continued to try to turn the tables in their favor with lobbying efforts and campaign donations. In the 2014 election cycle, Comcast spent $5 million on political donations and $17 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, whose website OpenSecrets.org tracks money in politics. Verizon spent over $2 million in donations and $13 million on lobbying, AT&T spent $4 million on donations and $14 million on lobbying, and Time Warner spent just over $1 million on donations and a further $3 million on lobbying.

In 2012 in New York state, Verizon spent $850,000 on lobbying efforts, according to numbers collected by Long Island publication Newsday,

In Paris, Zurich, Hong Kong, and Seoul, people pay as little as $30 a month for high speed internet that can download high definition movies in under 10 seconds. It’s high time the city’s residents paid less for more, too.

Photo: Flickr user jseliger2.

Tags:

15 Comments

  1. Phil Christensen April 19, 2016

    Cable/Cellular is a leftist’s wet dream with respect to how a business should be run. No choice, monopolistic practices, Brahmans in control, indecipherable rates and regs, and and a metastasized entanglement with government on all levels. If anyone ever wants a hint at what it looks like when the statists complete the circle, just open your bill.

    Reply
    1. JPHALL April 19, 2016

      Yet it was created by the right’s favorites, capitalists.

      1. Phil Christensen April 20, 2016

        You make my argument. Capitalists create. Leftists meddle and ruin.

        1. JPHALL April 20, 2016

          Again you missed the point! Capitalists create then dominate and overwhelm. They are the ones who push the rules that restrict the creativity of others.
          Subject: Re: Comment on How Big Cable Makes New Yorkers Pay More For Slower Internet

          1. Phil Christensen April 21, 2016

            Not missed. Disagree. We probably may also disagree on the definition of a capitalist. Given the unholy alliance between Big Government and Big Business, pure capitalism is getting more difficult to find.
            Here’s an anecdotal example: Microsoft entered the 1990s with zero lobbyists. They thought they were safely tucked away in the pacific northwest and that they would be left alone. Bill Gates, given his leftward bonfires naively assumed that providing thousands of jobs was enough of a “public service.” Wrong, wrong, and… wrong.
            Today they have a staff of over a hundred direct lobbyists, most of whom are former federal employees. If you count the K-street law firms, contractors and sub-contractors, the number of people employed both full time and part-time to keep the government behemoth from wrecking their company number in the thousands, effectively adding to the cost of every computer loaded with their software at the retail level.
            Then there is the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, a vehicle specifically established to legally handle the extortion of the DOJ.
            “They are the ones who push the rules that restrict the creativity of other.” – You and I will find a lot of agreement here. Once businesses reach a certain level, excessive government regulation can be observed and passed on to customers. Meanwhile, the guy working with his soldering pen in his garage will find a myriad of obstacles once he attempts to bring his product to the marketplace.
            So again, no. I got the point exactly. You and I just diverge on our conclusions, but not by a whole lot.

          2. JPHALL April 21, 2016

            More BS. Pure capitalism was destroyed back in the early 1900’s because it was failing America. Remember T. Roosevelt and the anti monopoly movement?
            Subject: Re: Comment on How Big Cable Makes New Yorkers Pay More For Slower Internet

          3. Phil Christensen April 22, 2016

            Your casual dismissal of easily verifiable facts does not speak well of you. We’ve exhausted this thread.

          4. JPHALL April 22, 2016

            Your lack of knowledge on the subject is truly sad but understandable! Read a history book before commenting.Subject: Re: Comment on How Big Cable Makes New Yorkers Pay More For Slower Internet

          5. Phil Christensen April 23, 2016

            My lack of knowledge on the subject of capitalism? Mr. Hall, I have enough successful ventures under my belt to inform me on this subject. Your inability to simply discuss a subject without resorting to personal attacks is beneath you. At least you’d didn’t resort to the usual “we disagree, therefore you must be racist,” nonsense. That’s something.

          6. JPHALL April 23, 2016

            Modern capitalism has little in common with the pure capitalism you were original pushing. As I have said, it is nice to have an opinion, but try to back it up with facts. Pure capitalism was a disaster for American workers and families. We still face the damage from unbridled greed and pollution. Ask the Younger and James families about this.
            Subject: Re: Comment on How Big Cable Makes New Yorkers Pay More For Slower Internet

          7. Phil Christensen April 24, 2016

            What I was “pushing?” That’s just reading into things. You would do well to take your own advice with respect to facts.
            Done here.

      2. Phil Christensen April 20, 2016

        BTW, I have to presume that anyone who uses a Pink Floyd logo for an avatar can be reasoned with, even if we end up disagreeing.

  2. Otto T. Goat April 19, 2016

    This situation is because of government regulations.

    Reply
    1. Daniel Jones April 19, 2016

      You are Bass Ackwards it’s amazing you don’t comment on the morning meal as you leave the bathroom each afternoon.
      The government occasionally paying attention to what people want and forcing companies to comply via *REGULATION* is what has prevented the disparity from being even worse!

      1. Margaret Jones April 20, 2016

        “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc603ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc603:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsTwistedGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc603……….

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.