By Doug Dawson, Sept 18, 2019 | Original Pots and Pans article here.
The National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) recently asked the FCC to investigate the practice of digital redlining, where big ISPs only bring the best technology to more affluent neighborhoods while ignoring poor ones.
The NDIA has statistics to back up it’s claims. They used the FCC’s data in 2017 to look in detail at how AT&T had deployed DSL in Cleveland. Years ago, AT&T deployed the first generation of DSL almost everywhere in the market. However, the company became far more selective in where they upgraded to faster DSL.
NDIA mapped where AT&T had deployed VDSL and later DSL technologies in Cleveland and found that the company had deployed faster DSL mostly in affluent neighborhoods and in the suburbs while leaving older downtown neighborhoods with the older DSL.
- VDSL offers speeds of at least 18 Mbps, up to nearly 50 Mbps when deployed using two copper pairs.
- NDIA found that the 55% of the census blocks in downtown Cleveland still had DSL speeds of 6 Mbps or less
- NDIA found that 22% had speeds below 3 Mbps,
- NDIA found that the rest was as slow as 768 Kbps.
It’s likely that AT&T marketed all versions of DSL the same, advertising ‘up-to’ speeds that described the fastest product in the market.
The AT&T deployment in Cleveland is not an isolated incident and the same is true in communities across the country. It’s not just AT&T that’s done this. Verizon deployed its fiber FiOS product in a similar manner and largely ignored northeast downtown in favor of serving suburbs. We also tend to think of cable company networks being deployed ubiquitously in cities, but there are pockets in every major city that don’t have cable broadband.
In the industry, this practice is generally referred as cherry-picking (aka redlining). It means deploying a new network in the places where the costs are lower or the expected penetration rates are higher — ignoring the parts of a market that don’t fit a desired financial profile.
Historically, the Big Telcos weren’t allowed to cherry-pick or redline. AT&T was still largely a regulated company when the first DSL was deployed. But the trend over time to deregulate telephone providers has led to laxer regulation, and obviously in Ohio and many other states the telcos were not required to build later generations of DSL everywhere.
One of the reasons we see so much cherry-picking is that many states have adopted statewide cable franchising. Cable franchises were historically negotiated in each community, and cities insisted that a cable provider build to the whole community as a condition for getting a franchise.
However, AT&T and other broadband companies lobbied hard for statewide franchising rules, using the storyline that they wanted to deploy fast DSL to bring cable service. The statewide franchises generally give a cable provide the ability to build anywhere in a state. The Telcos argued that the cost of negotiating with every community was killing innovation and deployment of faster broadband. What these companies really wanted was the ability to cherry-pick with no obligation to serve whole communities.
The practice of cherry-picking is still common today and most commercial fiber over-builders engage in it to some degree. Most over-builders have limited financial resources and they deploy fiber or other broadband technologies in those places where they get the best return for their investment. Many communities have seen fiber built to businesses and to new subdivisions while ignoring the rest of the town.
It’s hard to fault smaller fiber over-builders for maximizing the return on their fiber investment. On the flip side, there are few communities that don’t want fiber everywhere. However, most communities are realistic and know that if they always insist on getting fiber everywhere they might not get it anywhere.
Communities that really care about good broadband everywhere are the ones that are building fiber themselves or trying to attract a partner that will build the whole community. However, there are 26 states that hinder or prohibit communities from building broadband networks, and many other cities find the costs to build new networks to be prohibitive. The majority of communities must rely on the good behavior of the incumbents, and unfortunately they don’t always do the right thing.