Who said we were talking about the middle of nowhere? There are plenty of urban and suburban areas where there are only one or two choices (typically the one cable company and DSL).

Which urban area are you referring to? (I do recognize the problem at the local level, where in some part of a city or suburb ISPs seem to agree probably-unlawfully not to compete, but really how often is this the case?)

https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/location-summary?version=jun2...

That map doesn't load.

I can tell you that there are plenty of places in which the only option is a false option between the large carriers. In Houston, for example, my choices are: get fucked by AT&T, get ripped a new one by Comcast, or get laughed at by Windstream.

All of this from companies that have taken tax money and actively fight against community-operated broadband services.

Well, okay. I'm in Silicon Valley. That map lists Comcast, AT&T, and a small local player I've never heard of. Comcast: my current ISP. AT&T: didn't offer broadband service the last time I checked; this has apparently changed since then. (But the map says they offer 75Mbps, but AT&T says only 50Mbps.) They've had accusations of privacy issues (tracking their users via inserting cookies, selling their data for ads unless the user opts-out for a token fee, IIRC) so, not so enthusiastic there, and the last small player offers gigabit (wow!) for $400/mo (dealbreaker).

So, maybe it's a duopoly, but the privacy stuff breaks it for me. Though I'm sure someone's going to point out that Comcast likely isn't any better…

So, I'm highlighted at "3" but really the answer is charitably 2, maybe 1.

Also, you've linked to the map highlighted at 10/1; but my understanding is that the FTC definition of broadband is presently 25/3.

> and a small local player I've never heard of

That's part of your problem; there is a third competitor and you didn't even try to do business with them, because they weren't one of the famously screwy companies you've heard of.

I don't envy your big two choices there, but I guarantee it'd be worse with just Comcast or (shudders) just AT&T.

A family member has a small cottage where just under half of the building is on the other side of the county line. We can only get one fixed provider there, and it's satellite, but over the county line they have Comcast and a couple other terrestrial ISPs. the situation is hilarious.

> Also, you've linked to the map highlighted at 10/1; but my understanding is that the FTC definition of broadband is presently 25/3.

Sorry! I pulled up that search from a bookmark (10/1, excluding satellite), and didn't switch the bandwidth setting back to the default.

> I'm sure someone's going to point out that Comcast likely isn't any better…

Google search: comcast http injection.

Results from 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 ... all of them seem "surprised" about Comcast modifying HTTP stream data...

Comcast even published an RFC for it: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108

Comcast even goes so far as to claim that it's "more" secure: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108#section-10

That broadband map is famously and wildly inaccurate.

In my area, it says I have 6 different options. In reality, I have one.

The issue is these incumbents use local laws to punish new comers. Just look at the poll access issues throughout this country. The regulatory burden of having to wait for a competitor to move their lines to make room for you is just one of many ways incumbent ISPs slow competitive access.

That broadband map isn't very good. At my old place it said I could get fiber for several years before I actually could. Checking my current place it looks like it still incorrectly says I can get fiber. I'm in a major urban area.

Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey. State capital of Washington. 300,000 people in the Urban Growth Area.

Residential options:

Comcast, at up to 400mbps.

CenturyLink, at up to 3mbps, and "for most homes, 1.5mbps".

Here's one. North Seattle, ballard area.

Internet options:

Comcast, cable. 2gbit down, 25mbit up.

Centurylink, adsl, 40mbit down, 0.7mbit up.

....

profit!

Nearby, CenturyLink has synchronous 1 gbit fiber with no data cap for $65/mo.

The government can certainly help here. While they can't force anyone to provide service to a certain location, there are plenty of providers that want to offer service in a building, but don't want to pay the landlord's fee for providing such a service. It's not the ISPs that are driving costs up, it's the lack of transparency around building management companies and their backroom deals with the incumbents. The government can show up, say "you can charge an ISP a maximum of $100 per month for a PoE to your building", and suddenly the Internet is a lot faster and cheaper.

They can absolutely fine and jail those businesses for colluding to only operate in specific markets where other businesses agree not to operate.

The ISP's didn't collude with other businesses, they colluded with governments and got monopoly protections.

Also, notably, the governments colluded with them.

The government didn't collude, the government was taken for a ride, and doesn't have the balls to now go after their $400mil.

The ISPs colluded with one another so that they don't overlap territories and keep their exclusivity in given areas.