SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's no secret that ISPs can make more money from network upgrades in wealthy neighborhoods than low-income ones, and a new analysis of Cleveland, Ohio, by broadband advocacy groups appears to show that AT&T is following that strategy. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) and a Cleveland-based group called Connect Your Community alleged in their report today that "AT&T has systematically discriminated against lower-income Cleveland neighborhoods in its deployment of home Internet and video technologies over the past decade."
Last year, the NDIA brought attention to AT&T's refusal to provide $5-per-month Internet service to poor people in areas where the company hasn't upgraded its network. When the Federal Communications Commission approved AT&T's purchase of DirecTV in 2015, the FCC required AT&T to provide discount broadband to poor people as condition of the merger. But the condition apparently allowed AT&T to charge full price in areas where maximum download speeds were less than 3Mbps. After the NDIA spoke out, AT&T announced it would stop exploiting the loophole and instead provide discount Internet to poor people in all parts of its network.
Today's followup report from the NDIA and Connect Your Community analyzes FCC data on AT&T Internet deployments in Cleveland, where many residents were initially declared ineligible for the discount broadband service.
"Specifically, AT&T has chosen not to extend its 'fiber-to-the-node' VDSL infrastructure—which is now the standard for most Cuyahoga County suburbs and other urban AT&T markets throughout the US—to the majority of Cleveland Census blocks, including the overwhelming majority of blocks with individual poverty rates above 35 percent," the report said.
In the Ohio suburbs, AT&T customers routinely get speeds of at least 18Mbps and sometimes up to 1Gbps, while high-poverty neighborhoods in Cleveland are stuck on speeds of 768kbps to 6mbps, the report said. The FCC defines broadband speeds as 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream.
"When lending institutions have engaged in similar policies and practices, our communities haven't hesitated to call it 'redlining,'" the advocacy groups wrote. "We see no reason to hesitate to call it 'digital redlining' in this case."
Source: ArsTechnica
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:17AM (4 children)
Can't say I agree with this kind of hidden wealth transfer. Everyone else should pay $70/month while poor people pay $5/month? AFAIK, internet access is a luxury and mainly used to waste time, which poor people should be doing less of.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lx on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:52PM (1 child)
It may be a luxury where you live, but in parts of the western world it's become a necessity.
No internet means no means of reaching your government or banks. It means less chances for education, getting cheap second-hand appliances or finding a job.
It's about time you stop with the lazy poor line. You're hurting hard working people trying to escape the poverty trap. Of course it's always easier to kick those below you while kissing the ass of those higher up the ladder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @10:49AM
99% of these subsidised internet connections are going to be in urban areas where there are also bank branches within reach. People can still go to their public libraries to access the internet. Speaking of libraries: books are also essential for education. Do we need to send cheap books to poor people, too?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ben_white on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:53PM
Internet access is no more a luxury than any other utility in the modern world. In many markets most job postings are on the internet, I know my company hasn't used dead tree advertising for job openings in nearly 10 years. All job apps are online, I guess you could print them out, but ... wow ... you would need a computer, internet access and a printer to do that. We manage a small apartment building and require background and credit checks on applicants, guess what, that's online, as is the app for the apartment.
Access to the internet is not optional in the modern economy. It is a utility and should be regulated as such, especially in markets with no real competition.
--
cheers, ben
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @09:12PM
Blame the victims! It is their own damn fault they are broke!!
So, if it is a poor person's fault for being born into a bad situation and they must work to pull themselves out of it, then what should we do with the spoiled brats who are given everything? Elect them president?
Your world view is too narrow to even be discussing anything on this site.