https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/nyc-blasts-broadband-competition-shortage-as-it-pursues-suit-against-verizon/

Basically to sum it up, in a large part of NYC over 5 burroughs, there is only one ISP providing broadband. Broadband is defined as 25 down/3 up MINIMUM. In another large part of NYC, there are only 2 broadband providers.

Makes me feel lucky that we have 3, not counting AT&T, here where I live. I guess it's the exception, not the norm.

Brings up the question of how much of an obstacle the city itself is presenting to the problem. Broadband requires running lines and - as Verizon asserts - gaining access to buildings to make connections, and if the city isn't facilitating that process...

For our rural connection, we're in a low-density area that makes it financially unattractive to run lines - even with help from the Connect America Fund (which may have been suspended). That said, this past fall I've seen some trenching work in the area that hopefully hints at fiber coming our way. Closest digging was about 1/4 mile away so we're crossing fingers.

The whole point is that Verizon in particular and telcoms in general got shitton of money not only in federal grants for last-mile rollout, but New York (both State and City) also offered substantial tax breaks and other goodies for them to do the job.

Back around 2005 or so. The money was pocketed, bare minimum of effort was shown (hence the recent lawsuit against Verizon for failing to roll out FIOS as they were supposed to - Verizon in particular got a sweet, sweet deal out of the "investment" money from taxpayers that they used to stuff own pocket with).

The only thing New York could do is attempt to break down the mono- and duo-polies (old Time Warner and Verizon actually "traded" areas with rumored non-competing verbal agreements to make sure people have no bloody say in what they get), but aside from the red part of New York State going bonkers about government interference, current federal setup does not exactly inspire confidence.

Not to mention that all the representatives get serious money from telcos in the first place.

There is a reason that the US, a country that "invented" the internet, is already long behind on quality of service and just basic speeds compared to other countries, even in the largest cities (to avoid the "oh noes we took money to deliver internets to the bunnies but it actually costs so we'll just wringle our hands and pretend we did not already get paid to do the fucking job in the first place" arguments straight from telco PR playbook).

Also, if you read up on other cities trying to set up municipal fiber and sell its use to any company willing to provide service, you'll immediate run into lawsuits from the usual suspects claiming government interference in the Holy Free Market™ and often winning by sheer capacity to out-spend local authorities on court costs.

The city is almost never the problem. In fact one of the biggest changes put into law with the Net Neutrality ruling was that cities were supposed to have fewer restrictions on their ability to provide an alternative for customers. That's what's driving the opposition to the ruling - the big telecoms are in a position to have actual competition for the first time and that, obviously, is a problem for them.

I have the best local ISP of anywhere in the entire world but even that's only because Google rolled up, dropped fiber, and then was like, "Hey, local company, look at all that fiber. Sure would be a shame if someone were to put it to use while we look away."

Anyway, Lukasmik summarized it fairly well, above.

well, I have 1gb from verizon fios also has option for gigabyte timewarner

We have 3 where we live and actually about a year ago we switched from a large cable company to a small local company with way better service and speeds. Very lucky.

Competition is always good in broadband. Four years ago, only 1 state owned corps around in my area. My city is a capital in a a major provinces and new bureaucracy policy is all the customer needed. A new mayor and now there are 4 options available with competitive prices and packages.

Some good points in this thread. I'm in NE Ohio and I don't even know of any place in the nearby area that offers gigabit. Maybe down in Columbus or Dayton with Wright Air Force Base down there?

I'd be in heaven if I could get gigabit for $79.99 a month. I pay $49.99 on a promotion for 100 down/10 up. It's through Spectrum (Formerly Time Warner). There's a company called Wide Open West who provides 100 down for I think $25 a month with a contract, and the other option is Frontier which is DSL, and I don't remember if it qualifies as 25 down or not. I know it has a Fios option for certain markets though.

Then again, Ohio's never really been the place for businesses to compete. We're generally thought of as a bunch of hillbillies and minorities not worth many peoples' time.

It's my understanding most places in the US only have one option.

They have multiple options, just usually not good ones. It's getting better. The main issue is the politicians making deals with brand name companies that want the contracts for the sole purpose of preventing development there from other companies. They then pocket the money and sit on the properties indefinitely with no ramifications for failing to do their part.

If they were threatened with say jail time and fines for not meeting their time frames then we'd have a completely different scenario. But right now the only thing they get is free money and thwarting competition.

So, how about mobile internet? Isn't it an option too? Are there several mobile internet operators available for NYCers?

Here in Helsinki area there generally seems to be pretty good competition between broadband providers, at least the terms seem so good that I presume competition is taking care of it. Like there is definitely no monthly data caps in fixed internet lines and the prices seem quite low, and such. Then again, since our apartment's default fixed internet supplier is one operator (DNA, with a cable modem), I am unsure how I could order a competing internet from e.g. Telia or Elisa companies (those are the three big telecom/internet companies here, Telia, Elisa and DNA). Maybe they are forced to share lines even if originally only one of them built the lines...

The competition is even fiercer in mobile internet lines (4G/LTE mostly at this point, maybe 5G will become available at some point). At best I've seen my 4G mobile internet (phone) reach something like 125Mbit/s speeds, and it costs like 18€/month without any data caps or such (a normal 4G mobile phone subsctibtion), and pretty much unlimited calls and text messages within Finland.

That's what many apparently end up using as their internet here, unless their housing company offers some basic fixed line internet that is included in the housing costs or the rent, but that basic line is quite often still a 10Mbit/s line which according to that article is not considered broadband anyway (yet, it is good enough for me for playing online shooter games and downloading my GOG and Steam games :)).

Thankfully Australia has enough competition (and a regulator with enough teeth) to stop the ISPs from doing any of the crap they do in the USA.

That said, the biggest problem with the internet in the USA as I understand it is that the big media distribution are doing everything they can to prop up their business model of selling linear channels via packages against the onslaught of Internet based content (legal and otherwise)

Rural broadband is another significant problem. Population density is determining where the infrastructure goes, and rural America simply doesn't have that density. The Connect America II Fund is supposed to help alleviate that, with requirements to provide 10Mbps in those areas for which the providers are granted the subsidies. I think the deadline is 2020 for those areas.

For the rural customers now, many are paying for 3Mbps or less about the same monthly price as those getting 50Mbps on up to 1Gbps. The population-dense areas get upgrade after upgrade and the rural customers are essentially ignored once that initial connection is made. The Prez has made some comments in support of advancement in rural coverage but that hasn't yet manifested in anything concrete. We'll see.

If Norway can run fiber to Bumsend Nowhere and still somehow make it profitable for companies to service those areas, I'm somewhat indifferent to any excuse from "US" companies that had already taken money from the government to roll the service out.

Not to mention that we have been paying for years additional "FCC surcharge" on both cells and landlines that was supposed to cover both telephone and internet rollouts everywhere.

The only reason for lack of competition in the US is the fact that pre-existing megacorps managed to lobby out any possibility of it existing. If even Google couldn't compete with the rest of the herd (as far as I"m aware, Google Fiber is dead by now as far as any new rollouts are concerned), without a serious overhaul (and anti-monopoly intervention by the government) there's no fucking way things will get better anytime soon.

And with Mr. "Telecom lobbyist" Ajit Pai at the helm, much less the rest of current administration... yeah. Good luck, America.

Yes, it's treated like a public service (ie water, gas) and a single company has a contract with the city. Here in Charlotte, until just a few years ago, Time Warner had the contract with the city. Other companies had a presence but they were all using Time Warner lines to provide service.