dslreports logo
 story category
Baltimore Officially Tired of the Verizon, Comcast Duopoly

Baltimore is one of a number of cities that Verizon skipped over when deploying FiOS, leaving most city residents with only the uncomptitive option of either sluggish Verizon DSL or Comcast (if they're lucky). They're also one of the countless cities who begged for Google Fiber attention to no avail.

Baltimore's now hoping to take matters into their own hands, and have hired a consultant to explore a number of possible ideas ranging from reworking their protectionist citywide franchise agreement with Comcast, to possibly building some or all of the kind of network nobody else wants to:
quote:
"Baltimore is still in the exploratory stages of the initiative but the city will likely build out some of its own fiber infrastructure that it will use to lure new competitors to the area. Jason Hardebeck, the executive director of the Greater Baltimore Technology Council, tells the Business Journal that the city may also consider making its own municipal Wi-Fi network that will be run more like a public utility."
Of course paying a consultant $157,000 is certainly no guarantee anything gets accomplished, but it's interesting how the one-two punch of Google Fiber and Wheeler's criticism of state protectionist broadband law has seriously reheated a subject that for a decade had largely flown under the radar.

Most recommended from 38 comments


JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

5 recommendations

JPL

Premium Member

It takes two...

... to tango. Look, I know the CW is that Verizon cherry picked. They intentionally stayed away from the poor city. Nonsense. Verizon attempted to make inroads into the cities. They pushed to get into Boston, and NYC, and Philly, and Baltimore, and Wilmington, DE. And in each case, the cities either dragged their feet (Philly) or put up ridiculous requirements on Verizon (Boston). Now, the cities have their right to do that. Likewise, Verizon has the right to push for their own considerations - each side in a negotiation gets to define its own terms. If the sides can't come together, then a deal doesn't happen. That's basically what happened here. There were cases that were flagrantly political - there was a burb around Philly which wouldn't give Verizon a video franchise because of one assemblyman. Some just got wrapped up in the traditional bureaucracy that happens in cities (the 'studies' for cable competition in Philly and Wilmington dragged things on for months).

Some of the cities eventually decided to negotiate (Philly, NY). Some... waited too long. Case in point is Wilmington, DE. They basically photo-copied what Philly was saying early on - making the same comments about their concerns. The only difference between the two cities, though, is that Philly eventually changed their tune, and Wilmington was too slow to moderate their position. Point is - Verizon eventually decided that they didn't want to do any more deployments. These cities weren't skipped because they're cities. They were skipped because they couldn't come to terms with Verizon before Verizon decided to pack up and go home. So, these cities decide to play political games to get as much as they can out of Verizon, and before they could really negotiate Verizon decided to walk away. That's their prerogative. Some of the cities waited too long before coming to the table, and those cities got left out. They weren't excluded because they're cities. They were excluded because they took too damn long to decide to negotiate.

I've never really understood the arguments about cherry-picking, anyway. It's not like these neighborhoods don't have cable. They do. It's also not like Verizon was charging more than the cable companies when they rolled in FiOS (their costs were on par with Comcast around here - heck, they were cheaper). Why would anyone think that they wouldn't get demand in the cities? I think that's a ridiculous stereotype.