dslreports logo
 story category
Pricey Broadband Has Resulted in Lagging Southern Adoption

The Washington Post notes that Southern States have among the lowest adoption rates in the nation, thanks in large part to lower incomes and expensive broadband service. Historically, opponents of shaking up the status quo like to argue that these people are disconnected by choice, though the Post notes that data points to income and expensive service (courtesy of limited competition) as the reason Southern adoption rates lag.

More than half of Americans in households making less than $25,000 live in a home without broadband, compared to about 5% of those in homes making $150,000. The Post notes that Misssissippi "wins" the booby prize:

quote:
Mississippi, the state with the lowest rate of broadband use, also has the lowest median household income in the country: just below $38,000. Other Southern states with low connectivity rates ranked near the bottom when it came to incomes, too. States with higher incomes in the Northeast and on the West Coast report higher median household incomes -- and higher levels of home broadband use.
Fixing broadband competition is one obvious solution, though Southern States tend to be more likely to more strongly support the GOP, and therefore more likely to have passed telecom laws written by incumbent ISPs that restrict towns and cities from getting into the market themselves (or in some instances even partnering with a private company). That's a shame, since as we've noted repeatedly, protecting local rights and opposing letting duopolies writing the laws should be something both Progressives and Conservatives would normally support.

In this case, waiting for the miracles of the free market to manifest appears to be taking significantly longer than the defenders of the status quo promised.

Most recommended from 60 comments



rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

6 recommendations

rebus9

Member

Conservative not eq Anti-Competitive

This is one of the reasons I dropped out of the Republican party and went independent. I'm conservative but believe in a FREE market, not one where big corporate writes their own laws to maintain its [mon|du]opoly. Monopoly, duopoly, even triopoly, will collude to keep prices high and services low. Whether this collusion is by design, or monkey-see monkey-do, the result is the same.

When you have a sufficiently large number of competitors, one of them will act as a disruptor. But you can't have this as long as protectionist laws are rubber-stamped by politicians who are WAY too cozy with the industries they're supposed to be governing.

So while the SHORT TERM answer might be to classify ISPs under Title II, you will never get a HEALTHY competitive market that way.

What we need are the protectionist laws wiped from the books, and an environment that fast-tracks approval (rights of way, pole attachment, etc.) for upstart ISPs wanting to wire our communities with next-generation networks.

If you legislate a solution, you'll only have muddy waters and reluctant players. A free market where disruptors flourish is ultimately the best choice.

Think about the good old days of dial-up ISP service. You could choose ANY provider you wanted. Didn't even have to be in the same state if you were willing to pay long distance charges. Providers had to EARN your business, and if they didn't, all you had to do was put a new telephone number into your winsock/dialer and use someone else.

We need to get BACK to those good old days where you can switch to any copper, coax, or fiber provider you want-- because they are FREE to operate in your town without being attacked by the incumbents via legislation that prevents competition.

michieru
Premium Member
join:2009-07-25
Denver, CO

3 recommendations

michieru

Premium Member

?

"This suggests that the biggest barrier to someone having access to the online world is cost."

Seriously?

No cost of living expenses per area, no real comparisons or facts, living on 25K apparently means your starving on the street corner. Just a garbage pet theory to meet the current agenda just because someone wants to pop shots.

Most people pay more in auto insurance, cable TV, cell and other luxuries rather than having internet access per year because they see higher value in those items. I am going on my fishing boat on the bayou and fill up my 40gal boat with REC90 fuel. But dang that internet is just so darn expensive.....