Ask HN: Do you think ISP should be allowed to duopolize a community?

[informationslob]

So I am trying to get internet service for my dad. He stays in South Florida. The community he lives in doesn't have internet and everyone has to use mobile Hotspot or hubs, internet service through towers as opposed to fiber optics. The area is congested so the internet speed reminds me of dial up. I've talked to the front office and asked what service is provided here, and they said ATT. I call ATT they say Xfinity and ATT are the only ones who provide service to that area but for some reason not the community. XFINITY says that two other companies own the area, Spectrum and Atlantic Broadband. I go to their websites and they both redirect me to Xfinitys website and have me search there to see if service is available. The Xfinity representative told me Spectrum or Atlantic isn't owned by Xfinity, and as I suspected, they aren't owned but they clearly work together at least on a level that deals with web coding. So these companies control the area and are also unable to service here, yet right across the street they used to have Xfinity Representatives trying to sell their services in Wal-Mart. Are companies legally lower to do this? Force people onto mobile networks and Hotspots, not allowing high-speed internet?

[WarOnPrivacy]

So your 4 potential wireline providers are XFinity(Comcast), AT&T, Spectrum(Charter)and Atlantic(Cogeco).

Some things I'd try. I'd ask all 4 ISPs to send someone to do an on-site review for service availability because serviceability addresses can be wrong.

If that doesn't help, there is a good chance one/all of those providers have received government funds in the past or near future [1] for deployment. They may be willing to deploy to this neighborhood but need a nudge to do so. I don't specifically know how to do that but the local public service commission might.

Also worth contacting are the FCC and the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NIST). The latter is overseeing the fund disbursal from the recently passed broadband infrastructure program. They should have a broad understanding how those dollars become deployments. More importantly, they may have sway with the ISPs or know who does.

I get that calling the feds might seem like a hail Mary, but I've had good experience (and education) from reaching out to the feds directly.

Elected representatives are another worthwhile consideration.

[1]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46780

[informationslob]

On-site exam may be needed because three of those point to xfinity and att&t told me sorry they can't do anything.

[informationslob]

I called. My local government , hopefully I will get a response, no one answered but I left a message.

[News-Dog]

'Ask the White House' https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[toast0]

Is your dad's place in a city? If so, your city may have a franchise agreement with local telecom providers that compel them to service any residential address in the city. If he's not in a city, there may be a county franchise agreement, although those are less likely to compel service at every address.

When you say the community he's living in, if that's an apartment community or some senior living community or condominum etc, those may be setup with a company or group ownership of the land and some of the structures, in which case it's really up to that management as to what telecom companies they accept and can get to provide services and under what terms.

But no, there's no general compulsory universal service for internet. You're closer to that for telephone and electricity. I don't think there are any areas in the US where there's competitive residential telephone wiring and there are few places with competitive cable wiring; it's capital intensive to network an area and it's hard to get a return on investment unless it attracts a lot of customers and it's hard to get people to switch if their current service is ok (or will be updated to be ok in response to another network overbuilding)

Depending on the size and composition of the community, it might be sensible to get a commercial internet connection and share it within the community, but that's probably a sizable effort as well.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> But no, there's no general compulsory universal service for internet.

The Universal Service Fund has been supplying funds for broadband deployment for decades. However, ISPs have a long history of pocketing those funds without the promised deployments (eg:Frontier@WV,Verizon@PA) - usually w/o meaningful consequences, due to regulatory capture.

[informationslob]

This is what I was thinking. I thought they were supposed to provide service within a certain range. I mean the apartments around have internet, McDonald's has it and so does everyone around me. I feel like they just don't wanna serve here.

[informationslob]

Its a trailer park, full of Spanish people so its neglected. In a honesty I heard someone was stealing cable internet by splicing the cables with trailers that did have internet. And now they refuse to serve there. Thats what I'm hearing when I ask the residents.

[PaulHoule]

Xfinity is Comcast’s brand name. Usually it is used to describe their cable service. If you can get Comcast cable you are in luck it is a quality, if premium-priced, product.

Comcast also resells mobile internet from Verizon, I thought they mainly targeted people who were already cable customers, not provide fixed wireless.

[informationslob]

I dont even think they provide TV services here anymore, but they used to not too long ago. TV is done by direct TV and dish, but if I had internet, I wouldn't need a TV service provider like that, there's alternatives like YouTube TV and Hulu Live.

[icedchai]

Can he get cable TV? Do any of his neighbors have it? That would at least be a starting point if you wanted cable internet.

[informationslob]

0.2 mbps download and upload speed...