Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SpiceySlade t1_iw2yi5r wrote

Baltimore has a noncompete deal with Comcast. There really isn't a better option.

15

No-Lunch4249 t1_iw388xl wrote

Not entirely accurate. Exclusivity in franchising agreements was outlawed nationally decades ago. But at that point Comcast already had its claws in Baltimore, and the simple fact is that the startup cost on the infrastructure to provide city wide internet is so much that it doesn’t really make sense for a new company to try and wedge in.

This is why pursuing neutral host infrastructure legislation, where the city or a third party owns the fiber, or providing a municipal option (see Chattanooga) is the only real route forward.

13

dopkick t1_iw3bcl2 wrote

The municipal fiber thing sounds amazing based upon communities that have successfully implemented it. Then I consider Baltimore's track record at just about... everything. Sigh!

6

[deleted] t1_iw3cqli wrote

Chattanooga’s had it for like 15-20 years and apparently have had like 1gb that whole time. Which is insane because Baltimore was lucky to get 1% of that 15-20 years ago

5

dopkick t1_iw3etu5 wrote

I think Baltimore's only had 1 gbps (now 1.2 gbps) for like 4-5 years. And the upload is still a fairly slow ~50 mbps. So much for the free market delivering better services at a lower price.

3

No-Lunch4249 t1_iw3g0bu wrote

Yeah…

Did some research into Chattanooga’s once upon a time and it seemed pretty incredible, symmetrical up/down 1GB for like $100 a month

2

No-Lunch4249 t1_iw3c1dj wrote

Yeah I think a lot of places that pursue this have a publicly owned electrical provider, so while it’s public it’s not really directly controlled by the city

Choptank Electric Co-Op on the eastern shore is pursuing this also, but that’s very rural and it’s a bit of a different challenge

1

[deleted] t1_iw3ckvr wrote

AFAIK comcast has or had a noncompete in Baltimore for cable tv, which meant no one else was going to lay fiber for internet since they wouldn’t be able to sell tv too

1

No-Lunch4249 t1_iw3efd6 wrote

Fairly certain that the cable TV franchising agreement is also non exclusive, but they do have the effect of dampening competition because the government (in this case Baltimore City) is basically saying “this is our preferred provider.”

IIRC Verizon and the city couldn’t come to a deal on a franchise agreement that would have coexisted with Comcast’s, and that’s why FiOS in Baltimore died

1

todareistobmore t1_iw3m0az wrote

No, it's really just the natural monopoly. The buildings that have FIOS service in Baltimore get TV through FIOS too. The problem is that Comcast already provides service to every residence in the city, and their network rollout is long since paid for.

2