Latest news with #ISPs
CNET
a day ago
- Business
- CNET
Should You Buy Your Own Router? Here's How It Can Cut Your Internet Bill
US households pay a monthly median of $63 for internet, and that doesn't include the extra fees you get charged for equipment or maintenance. Not to forget, this cost only goes up over time because of price hikes, according to a CNET survey. One easy way to save on your monthly internet bill is to buy your own internet equipment instead of renting it from your provider. CNET's experts are always looking to find ways to help you save money, get a faster internet connection and make sense of all the confusing terms on your home internet bills. Looking to save some money on your broadband service in the long run? You might want to consider cutting out that monthly equipment fee by buying your own modem or router, which means saving on your monthly and yearly internet costs. Can you buy your own router? Nearly 70% of households rent routers from their ISP, and that figure makes sense once you factor in confusing internet bills and terms of service. While some internet providers provide the equipment for free, others won't let you skip the rental -- meaning, you must use the internet provider's equipment even if you already have your own router. Though most ISPs will let you use your own router and modem, it can be confusing to navigate those service policies. The bottom line is that buying your own router is a simple way to future-proof your home while trimming down potential extra fees on your bill. The up-front cost of internet equipment may seem pricey, but you'll find that paying for everything at once actually saves money: You can reduce your monthly internet bill by as much as $15 and save hundreds of dollars over the years, like CNET's Joe Supan who decided to stop renting internet equipment from Xfinity. Plus, you may even find that a new router improves your internet speeds -- especially if you're on a cable internet plan with slow upload speeds. If you have hesitations about the high up-front costs, know that plenty of decent modems cost less than $100. With the average cost of renting a modem from your provider around $10 per month, a device would pay for itself in less than a year and then continue saving you money each month. In other cases, where providers will rent you a high-end gaming router or a decent mesh router for a modest monthly fee, doing so might be a pretty decent deal. Locating local internet providers Let's run through all of the top options from internet providers to see how their equipment policies compare and whether you're in a position to save some money. CNET AT&T Equipment fee: No This is significant because AT&T used to charge $10 monthly for its equipment. The company required the use of its combination modem-and-router gateway device and didn't allow customers to use their own modem. That meant that you couldn't skip the $10 monthly additional fee. In 2022, AT&T scrapped its equipment fee for all internet plans, so customers need not worry about that additional amount getting tacked onto their monthly bill. Read our AT&T home internet review. See at AT&T CNET CenturyLink Equipment fee: Yes ($15 per month for modem/router gateway device rental) Can you skip it? Yes CenturyLink charges $15 monthly to rent a gateway that combines a modem and a router into one device. If you sign up for DSL with CenturyLink, that gateway will be one of three models: the Greenwave C4000, the Zyxel C4000LZ or the Zyxel C3000Z. If you have a fiber plan with Quantum Fiber, your equipment is included at no extra cost for an "initial period," however long that may be. You can skip that $15 fee by using a gateway or modem of your own, but CenturyLink cautions customers not to use anything that isn't on its list of approved devices. You can also opt to buy CenturyLink equipment upfront, for $200 plus tax, an investment that would pay for itself after a year and one month of service. "CenturyLink highly recommends using one of our certified or recommended Wi-Fi modems (gateways), which have been tested and approved to work optimally with our high-speed internet technology," the company's website reads. "Retired and third-party devices are more likely to cause performance issues and may not connect to your internet service correctly." Remember, if you're replacing CenturyLink's gateway with a standard modem, then you'll also need to find a good router to go with it. Read our CenturyLink home internet review. See at CenturyLink CNET Frontier Equipment fee: No Frontier Fiber includes equipment rental fees with the monthly cost, which is already lower than most. For plans 500Mbps and faster, Frontier offers the Eero Pro 7, a Wi-Fi 7 router. The 200Mbps plan comes with the Eero Pro 6E, and all DSL plans come with the Eero Pro 6. For an additional $10 a month, you can add Whole Home Wi-Fi with up to two mesh Wi-Fi extenders for better coverage. Read our Frontier home internet review. See at Frontier CNET Google Fiber Equipment fee: No Google Fiber customers receive a modem and a mesh router with up to two additional extenders at no additional cost. If you subscribe to Google Fiber's fastest plan, with download speeds of up to 8Gbps, then you'll get a faster, multi-gig router to go with it, complete with support for Wi-Fi 6E. Read our Google Fiber home internet review. See at Google CNET Hughesnet Equipment fee: Yes ($15 to $20 per month for modem/router gateway device rental) Can you skip it? No Hughesnet provides satellite internet service to all 50 states. That's the good news. The not-so-good news is that satellite internet features pretty pricey equipment costs. Customers must rent Hughesnet's equipment to the tune of $15 per month or $20 per month if opting for Hughesnet's Fusion plan that combines satellite internet with low-latency fixed wireless internet. There are no options to skip those monthly fees. The only alternative provided is to buy the equipment up front for $300 ($450 with the Fusion plan). That's a tough pill to swallow. Paying that much right out of the gate is not appealing. Once you consider that Hughesnet requires a two-year contract (and canceling early will activate an early termination fee), you may find that the up-front cost will save you money if you foresee staying with Hughesnet beyond your initial term. Read our HughesNet review. See at Allconnect CNET Kinetic by Windstream Equipment fee: Yes ($11 for modem/router gateway device rental) Can you skip it? Yes Kinetic is Windstream's home internet service, and the equipment rental fees cost $11 a month. Paying that fee gets you a combination modem-and-router gateway device, but you can skip the fee outright if you use your own modem and router hardware. The company has different hardware requirements for different customers based on the specific nature of the connection (some DSL subscribers use ADSL technology, while others use VDSL, for instance). Be sure to ask Windstream for some guidance specific to your home's connection before you make a purchase -- the customer service number is 800-347-1991. Read our Kinetic by Windstream home internet review. See at Windstream CNET Mediacom Equipment fees: Yes ($15 per month for modem/router gateway device) Can you skip them? Yes Mediacom is a midsize cable internet provider, and customers need to pay $15 per month to rent a cable modem/router gateway from the company. You can skip that fee by using your own, but it'll need to be at least a DOCSIS 3.1 model plus a compatible router. Here's the full list of approved hardware (PDF). The WiFi360Pro, which comes with two Eero Wi-Fi units (and Eero secure services), is included for one year of service. It supports up to 1Gbps and supports Wi-Fi 6. Mediacom also offers Eero Wi-Fi extenders for $5 a month. Read our Mediacom home internet review. See at Mediacom CNET Metronet Equipment fees: No Metronet is a 100% fiber-optic internet provider in the Midwest that covers Indiana and 15 other states nationwide. Like fellow fiber providers like AT&T and Google Fiber, Metronet doesn't charge customers to use its router. It does charge $10 per month if you want to add Whole Home Wi-Fi, but that is optional, not a required cost. Read our Metronet review. See at Metronet CNET Optimum Equipment fee: No Optimum offers both hybrid fiber and cable connections and 100% fiber hookups. The company provides customers with its Altice Gateway, which serves as your home's modem and router. Your exact model depends on your specific plan and whether your home's connection uses cable or fiber. "Optimum internet customers using service delivered via our HFC network are able to use their own equipment," an Altice spokesperson tells CNET. "Optimum Fiber service is currently only delivered via the Optimum-provided Gateway, which is designed specifically to work with our fiber network." Read our Optimum home internet review. See at Optimum CNET Rise Broadband Equipment fee: Yes ($10 to $15 per month router rental) Rise Broadband is a provider of fixed wireless home internet connections throughout much of the middle of the country, including many rural areas. The ISP covers the cost of the equipment rental fee in select regions (including the modem and antenna that receive the over-the-air signal), but many will have to pay $10 just for the receiver, then an additional $15 to rent a router. The router rental is optional; the receiver lease is not. If you're eligible for fiber internet, that equipment rental is optional. Read our Rise Broadband home internet review. See at Rise Broadband CNET Sparklight Equipment fee: Yes ($14 per month for modem) Can you skip it? Yes Sparklight charges customers $14 per month for its cable modem. For an additional access point, Sparklight charges an extra $10 monthly. Sparklight also offers an "Ultimate Wi-Fi Bundle," which includes your modem, two eero Wi-Fi devices and eero plus for $25 monthly. If you want to skip the monthly charge, Sparklight requires you to use a DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem device. If you choose to go that route to save on the added monthly fee, here's a list of Sparklight recommended modems. Read our Sparklight home internet review. See at Sparklight CNET Spectrum Equipment fee: Yes ($10 per month for router rental, modem provided free of charge) Can you skip it? Yes Spectrum includes a free modem with all of its home internet plans, but if you don't have a router, you'll need to rent one for $10 per month if you're on the 500Mbps plan. Users of the 1-gig plan get equipment included in their monthly bills. To avoid that monthly fee, you'll need to use your own router. However, if your equipment malfunctions, it won't be eligible for Spectrum technical support. You can also use your own modem, but make sure to use a Spectrum-supported model. Read our Spectrum home internet review. See at Spectrum CNET Starlink Equipment fee: Yes ($349-$599 one-time purchase) Can you skip it? No Starlink, Elon Musk's internet service, aims to disrupt the satellite internet category by providing faster speeds and lower latency than offered by rivals Hughesnet and Viasat. What Starlink shares with those companies is a stark equipment fee. Instead of an additional monthly charge for your equipment, Starlink requires that you pay for the equipment up front. That means a payout of $349 to $599 for standard service. Read more about Starlink. See at Starlink CNET Verizon Home Internet Equipment fee: No Verizon offers three separate home internet services: Verizon Fios, Verizon 5G Home Internet and Verizon LTE (4G). Each service is a bit different, but one thing they all have in common is that your equipment rental is included in the price. Read our Verizon home internet review. See at Verizon CNET Viasat Equipment fee: Yes ($15 per month for modem/router) Can you skip it? No Viasat charges the same cost for monthly equipment as rival HughesNet and its monthly equipment charge is still inescapable. You could get a slight discount on that monthly price by choosing to pay for the equipment with a one-time purchase of $250, but there are no significant savings to be had there unless you hold on to your Viasat service beyond the initial two-year contract. Read our Viasat internet review. See at Allconnect CNET WideOpenWest Equipment fee: No WideOpenWest -- or WOW, as the company enjoys branding itself -- includes the modem cost in your monthly fee but you can still buy your own WOW-approved modem. Separately, customers can pay $10 per month to rent an Eero 6 router. You can skip that fee if you already have a router that you're happy with. Ten dollars per month isn't a bad price to try out a mesh system in your home, but that older version of Eero sells in a two-pack for $189, and you can often find it on sale. If you plan on using that router for longer than a year and a half or so, it's probably better to buy one of your own. Read our WOW home internet review. See at WOW CNET Xfinity Equipment fee: Yes ($15 to $20 per month for modem/router gateway device rental) Can you skip it? Yes Xfinity offers customers the option of renting the xFi Gateway, which combines a modem and a router into a single device, at $15 per month in select locations. In others, and with select plans, equipment is included at no extra cost. If you have a fee, you can skip the monthly charge by using your own modem and router. Pretty much any router will work, but you must ensure the modem is a DOCSIS 3.1 model. The Xfinity website has a full list of supported modems. Additionally, Xfinity offers xFi Complete, an in-home W-iFi option for $15 to $25 extra a month, depending on where you live. The xFi Complete package comes with unlimited data (a nice perk since Xfinity enforces data caps on most plans), a Wi-Fi Boost Pod for extended coverage throughout the home, and the ability to manage the security of your network through various controls. Read our Xfinity home internet review. See at Xfinity CNET Ziply Fiber Equipment fee: Yes ($15 monthly router fee) Can you skip it? Yes Ziply Fiber features an optimized Wi-Fi 7 router for all fiber plans as well as Whole Home Wi-Fi for $15 monthly. You can also skip that additional monthly fee by using your own router, but to paraphrase an FAQ on Ziply's website, it recommends you use the Ziply Fiber router "for the best fiber internet experience." Read our Ziply Fiber review. See at Ziply Fiber Is it worth buying your own router? It depends on your ISP's terms of service, but in most cases, it makes sense to buy your own router and save $10 to $15 a month, if not more. Most ISPs will let you opt out of a modem or router rental, and if you have that option, you should take it. Investing in your internet equipment can lead to overall improved speeds while trimming down your monthly bill. If you're unsure about what router to invest in, we've tested dozens of top-rated routers and internet equipment, including mesh networks and Wi-Fi extenders.
CNET
3 days ago
- CNET
DOCSIS 3.0 vs. 3.1 vs. 4.0: What Are the Differences?
If you have cable internet, then you're using DOCSIS technology. DOCSIS, which stands for Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications, is a standard that defines how your modem relays cable internet signals going to and from your home. If you have cable internet, whether from Cox, Spectrum, Xfinity or one of many regional cable internet providers like Armstrong, you're using a DOCSIS-compliant modem. The DOCSIS 4.0 cable modem is ideal since it produces faster upload speeds. But while specifications for DOCSIS 4.0 have been released, DOCSIS 4.0 modems aren't yet widely available for retail purchase. So that means that if you're shopping for a new cable internet modem, you'll likely only have the choice of DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1. As the numbers suggest, the two modem versions are similar, but we recommend opting for DOCSIS 3.1 while you wait for a new 4.0 modem. Modern cable modems are compliant with DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1, with more and more internet service providers recommending DOCSIS 3.1 modems. Which Router Upgrade Is Right for You? Which Router Upgrade Is Right for You? Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 9:01 Loaded : 3.34% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 9:01 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Which Router Upgrade Is Right for You? DOCSIS 3.0 vs. 3.1 vs. 4.0: What are the differences? DOCSIS is the standard cable modems use to move data. Dong Ngo/CNET Despite the simple one-tenth difference in versions, DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1 modems vary significantly in performance, pricing and availability. DOCSIS 4.0 would imply a bigger jump in performance, but the improvement largely has to do with upstream capacity. Here's a quick look at the advantages of each. DOCSIS 3.0 modem advantages Price : DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems are generally cheaper than their 3.1 counterparts. : DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems are generally cheaper than their 3.1 counterparts. Availability: You're likely to have more options, including used or refurbished devices, when shopping for a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. DOCSIS 3.1 modem advantages Speed : DOCSIS 3.1 cable modems support faster speeds than DOCSIS 3.0 modems and are thus better suited for high-speed plans, especially those with gig speeds or higher. : DOCSIS 3.1 cable modems support faster speeds than DOCSIS 3.0 modems and are thus better suited for high-speed plans, especially those with gig speeds or higher. Security: DOCSIS 3.1 modems may offer better online security than 3.0 models, especially if you purchase a modem-router combo device. DOCSIS 4.0 modem advantages Upload speeds : DOCSIS 4.0 is designed to "significantly increase upstream capacity," according to CableLabs, the organization that sets and tests DOCSIS specifications. : DOCSIS 4.0 is designed to "significantly increase upstream capacity," according to CableLabs, the organization that sets and tests DOCSIS specifications. Future proof: DOCSIS 3.1 is the current standard, but 3.0 is still in use, nearly two decades after its introduction in 2006. It's safe to assume that 4.0 modems will be useful for many years to come. DOCSIS 3.0, 3.1 and 4.0 specifications Device Max download speed Max upload speed Price range Specification issued DOCSIS 3.0 1Gbps 100Mbps $50-$150 2006 DOCSIS 3.1 10Gbps 1Gbps $150-$250 2013 DOCSIS 4.0 10Gbps 6Gbps N/A 2019 Show more (0 item) Shop providers at my address The most significant difference between DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1 is that the latter can support download speeds 10 times faster than DOCSIS 3.0, up to 10Gbps. DOCSIS 4.0 also supports downloads up to 10Gbps but is capable of significantly faster uploads, up to 6Gbps. The symmetrical, or close, download and upload speed capacity brings cable internet closer to matching the speed potential of fiber-optic internet service. Locating local internet providers DOCSIS 4.0 could pave the way for faster cable plans with faster upload speeds Most cable providers already offer a gigabit plan with maximum speeds of around 940 or 1,000 megabits per second. Astound, Cox, Xfinity and select other cable providers offer download speeds above 1,000Mbps. With DOCSIS 4.0 technology, cable providers can offer even faster speeds using their current cable/fiber hybrid infrastructure. The DOCSIS 4.0 modem notably allows for much quicker upload speeds, which cable providers sorely lack. Upload speeds are more important than you think. Many US households are seeing a rising trend in upstream data or upload speeds. Certain activities, such as using smart home devices and uploading photos and videos to social media, utilize your upstream data. According to CableLabs, DOCSIS 4.0 allows for "an increase in upstream capacity and more options for operators to increase downstream capacities." Still, DOCSIS 3.1 is the current standard for high-speed cable internet If you choose speeds above 1 gig and rent your equipment, you'll receive a modem-router combo that comes with DOCSIS 3.1 built-in, so you don't have to worry about your modem's specifications. Otherwise, if you choose to use your own equipment, you'll want to spend a little extra for a DOCSIS 3.1 modem to take full advantage of the plan's speed potential. What if I don't need gig and multi-gigabit speeds? The speed potential of DOCSIS 3.1 and 4.0 is impressive, but unless you've got a high-speed plan, that may not matter. Suppose your selected plan comes with speeds up to 200Mbps. If you rent from your provider, the modem included with your equipment may be a DOCSIS 3.0 model, which can support your internet connection just fine. If you use your own modem, you probably won't see much of a performance improvement, if any, by purchasing a DOCSIS 3.1 device over a DOCSIS 3.0 one. Considering the price difference and available options between the two, you'd be better off opting for DOCSIS 3.0 on lower-tiered internet plans. A standalone cable modem sits atop a much larger SURFboard eXtreme combo device. Dong Ngo/CNET DOCSIS 3.0 has more, cheaper options DOCSIS 3.0 is the cheaper option when shopping for a modem or modem-router combo. New DOCSIS 3.0 modems can cost between $50 and $150 depending on the device you choose and the source you buy from, but you may be able to score a used device for less than $50. On the other hand, DOCSIS 3.1 modems can easily cost $150 to $250 or higher. Manufacturers like Arris, Asus, Netgear and Motorola have made DOCSIS 3.0 modems for years. These manufacturers make DOCSIS 3.1 modems as well, but you'll likely have fewer options than you would if you were shopping for a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. Is DOCSIS 3.0 outdated? In terms of the latest technology shaping how we get online, yes, DOCSIS 3.0 is sorely outdated. With more and more ISPs rolling out multi-gig plans and the overall trend of heavier internet usage in recent years, according to Open Vault, a DOCSIS 3.0 modem will not support the faster speeds many internet users are turning to. If you don't have a need for speed, you'll most likely be fine with a DOCSIS 3.0 modem, especially if you're trying to save money by avoiding an upgrade. Still, nearly all ISPs support DOCSIS 3.1 and often recommend DOCSIS 3.1 to get the most out of your internet connection. DOCSIS 3.1 is more secure and better for long-term use Any major internet protocol update, like the transition from DOCSIS 3.0 to 3.1, will include improved security features. This typically comes with enhanced encryption, so a DOCSIS 3.1 modem will presumably be better equipped to secure your information. Additionally, the best router and modem combos equipped with DOCSIS 3.1 will also include WPA3, a more advanced router security feature than older modem routers that may come with DOCSIS 3.0 and WPA2. DOCSIS 3.0 was released in 2006, and DOCSIS 3.1 arrived in 2013, which is a long time in the tech world -- long enough for initial security measures to become outdated. Modem manufacturers and ISPs release regular security updates to keep your equipment safe. Still, I would recommend additional security software or a good VPN to help boost your online security, especially when using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. Considering the increase in home internet speeds and the need for up-to-date security, DOCSIS 3.1 is well on its way to fully replacing DOCSIS 3.0. It hasn't entirely done so, mainly because slower, cheaper cable internet plans can still get by with DOCSIS 3.0 technology. Coming to a home near you: DOCSIS 4.0 DOCSIS 4.0 technology is on the verge of improving cable internet service, but it's not here just yet. Since 2023, Xfinity is the only major cable internet provider to have begun rolling out DOCSIS 4.0 in the country, starting with select service areas in Atlanta, Georgia; Colorado Springs, Colorado and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, if you want to get ahead of the game and purchase a DOCSIS 4.0 modem, you're out of luck. There are currently no DOCSIS 4.0 modems available for retail purchase, at least none I could find from a trusted source. According to a press release from Comcast, Xfinity will continue deploying the 4.0 modem to new areas over the next few years. Bottom line: DOCSIS 3.1 will bring you faster speeds Since DOCSIS 4.0 modems aren't widely available yet, your choice of a new or used device will come down to 3.0 or 3.1 versions. If you sign up for faster speeds, especially those approaching or surpassing 1Gbps, or simply want a device you know you can use for years, a DOCSIS 3.1 modem is the way to go. If you're content with a low- or mid-tier cable internet plan, a DOCSIS 3.0 modem will likely meet all your needs and come at a lower price than a DOCSIS 3.1 device. But chances are you're also paying a premium for those faster speeds, so you might as well equip your home with a device to let you enjoy them. DOCSIS 3.0, 3.1, 4.0 Modem FAQs What does DOCSIS stand for? DOCSIS stands for data over cable service interface specifications. This telecommunications standard allows your modem to deliver internet from your cable provider to your home. There are three different versions of DOCSIS: 3.0, 3.1 and 4.0. Is DOCSIS 3.1 the best cable modem? Most cable modems comply with DOCSIS 3.0 or 3.1 technology since the 4.0 modems are not yet available for purchase throughout the country. That said, most cable internet users will likely have the option between 3.0 and 3.1. We recommend going with the 3.1 standard as it supports high-speed internet plans like gigabit and multi-gigabit tiers. Compared to the 3.0 standard, the 3.1 modem will offer better online security.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Trai caps Wi-Fi tariffs to boost PM-WANI and align with FTTH rates
Says high tariffs charged by telcos and ISPs have hindered the spread of the PM-WANI scheme; new rules cap prices for public Wi-Fi providers to enable affordability Subhayan Chakraborty New Delhi Listen to This Article Aiming to expand the PM-WANI scheme, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) on Monday introduced a cap on tariffs charged by telecom operators and internet providers from Public Data Offices (PDOs) that provide public Wi-Fi services. The tariffs have now been aligned with retail tariffs for broadband Fibre to the Home (FTTH). The move comes after the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) informed Trai that the proliferation of the PM-WANI scheme was significantly below the envisaged targets. One of the reasons cited was the high cost of internet connectivity charged by Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Red Tape Isn't the Only Reason America Can't Build
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The buzziest idea in Democratic politics right now is the 'abundance agenda,' which criticizes liberals for saddling government programs with bureaucratic red tape that delays those programs to the point of never delivering. Few examples seem to illustrate the point better than rural broadband. As part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress allocated $42.5 billion in subsidies to a new Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Its required 14 procedural steps to actually get this funding to internet service providers, or ISPs—companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and Frontier—along with significant labor, environmental, and domestic-production requirements, seem to fit the pattern of a well-intentioned program that has been stuffed with too many bells and whistles. (One of us, Asad Ramzanali, worked on broadband issues including BEAD in both the House of Representatives and the White House.) Thus, three and a half years after the law passed, shovels have still not broken ground on any project funded by this program, as the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently explained to an incredulous Jon Stewart, who lamented the 'incredibly frustrating, overcomplicated Rube Goldberg machine that keeps people from getting broadband.' Figuring out how to provide high-speed internet to all Americans has been an important public-policy goal for decades. As the coronavirus pandemic made painfully clear, broadband is crucial to full participation in society. And multiple empirical studies have shown that increased broadband access is correlated with stronger economic growth. Yet more than 7 million homes and businesses still do not have access. But the current political debate misunderstands the nature of the problem at almost every level. When it comes to broadband, procedural simplicity on its own hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. The deeper issue is that the United States government has abandoned the full range of policy tools that would actually get the job done. Any effort to achieve 'abundance' must start by recognizing that red tape isn't the only reason America can't seem to build anymore. The BEAD program does seem overcomplicated. It requires the Federal Communications Commission to complete a national map of where broadband is currently missing, the Commerce Department to distribute funding to states, state-level broadband offices to allocate subgrants to internet service providers, and the ISPs to deploy cables to connect homes to the internet. The numerous intermediate steps—initial planning grants, five-year action plans, map challenges, final plans, and more—sound like the kind of red tape that blocks progress and generates distrust in government. The solution seems glaringly obvious: simplify the steps. Cut out all the middlemen and empower the FCC to provide money directly to ISPs as efficiently and quickly as possible. Any reasonable person would reach that conclusion. The first Trump administration had the same thought. In 2020, the FCC rolled out a multibillion-dollar program called the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). To allocate the money, the FCC quickly identified areas that had insufficient service. It then held a reverse auction of small geographic plots, awarding the subsidy to whichever ISP submitted the lowest bid for each plot. There was no notice of funding opportunity. No planning grants. No five-year action plans. No subgranting process. No state broadband offices. And no labor, environmental, small-business, or diversity requirements. ISPs quickly bid a cumulative $9.2 billion to serve high-speed broadband to 5.2 million homes and businesses. [Jerusalem Demsas: Not everyone should have a say] In many ways, RDOF was a neoliberal economist's dream—an efficient allocation of scarce public resources distributed through a competitive process. But removing bureaucratic steps turned out not to result in a better outcome. Without accurate mapping data to understand where need existed, RDOF allowed ISPs to bid on serving such locations as an empty patch of grass, industrial-park storage tanks, and a luxury resort that already had broadband. Without proper due diligence, other providers committed to projects that were not technically or financially feasible. As a result, the RDOF program still hasn't delivered much broadband to Americans. More than one-third of the bids have already been deemed in default, according to the FCC. In other words, nearly 2 million of the 5.2 million promised locations will never get service under the program, and that number is likely to keep growing. Worse, many of these locations may not get service from BEAD, either, because RDOF was assumed to cover them. Within that context, Congress's approach to the BEAD program—making sure that broadband maps are accurate; that state governments, who know their residents and needs best, develop thorough plans that will ensure long-lasting service; and that communities have opportunities to provide input—is less baffling. With the benefit of hindsight, the process should have been simpler. But Congress was clearly responding to the failures of RDOF, which meant more checks in the system. Why is internet service a problem that the government needs to solve, anyway? The answer is that private-sector companies seek to maximize profits, but in many rural areas, building networks is unprofitable. There might not be enough customers to offset the onetime costs of construction or even the ongoing costs of repairs, customer service, and overhead. To date, the federal government's approach to promoting service in unprofitable areas has almost exclusively been to subsidize private companies. The first federal broadband subsidies go back to at least 1995. Since then, the U.S. has put more than $100 billion into broadband expansion, primarily into rural areas, across more than 100 federal programs. Like RDOF, many of these programs have severely underperformed. This is what happens when government loses the ability, or the will, to undertake more direct interventions in the market and to challenge, not merely subsidize, corporations. A century ago, America faced a problem almost identical to the broadband shortage: rural electrification. Well into the 20th century, life in much of rural America was little changed from the 19th. Without electric appliances—refrigerators, washing machines, even lamps—running a farm was backbreaking, round-the-clock work. By 1935, private providers had electrified more than 80 percent of nonfarm households but only 11 percent of farm households. That year, as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Congress created the Rural Electrification Administration to address this problem. At first, REA Administrator Morris Cooke hoped to partner with private electricity companies, not unlike our current subsidy-heavy approach for broadband. However, those companies argued that rural electrification would not be financially self-sustaining. Even with government support, they proposed building out to only 351,000 new customers, which would leave millions unconnected. The New Dealers recognized that subsidies to private firms could only go so far. So they turned to three other strategies. First, when the private sector was unable to serve all Americans, the REA organized communities across the country to develop their own, cooperatively owned electricity-distribution networks, funded by the federal government. The REA encouraged state laws to charter these cooperatives, provided engineering support to build infrastructure, and assisted cooperatives in negotiating for sources of electrical power. Second, the New Deal created public options. Federal government–owned providers, most famously the Tennessee Valley Authority, were established to generate electricity at affordable rates. These public options functioned as an important 'yardstick,' in Roosevelt's words, to evaluate the performance of the private sector. If the private sector refused to offer electricity at affordable rates, the TVA could step in to sell electricity directly to cooperatives instead. Third, private-sector electricity providers were classified as public utilities subject to strict regulation. The government couldn't build public plants to generate power across the entire country or successfully organize every community. So it required electric companies to expand services to cover everyone in their existing and adjacent service areas, even households that were unprofitable to serve. These utilities were required to set prices that allowed them to turn reasonable but not excessive profits. [George Packer: How Virginia took on Dominion Energy] The REA was a success. By 1940, a quarter of farm households were electrified, and by 1953, that figure had risen to 90 percent. That same year, retail rural electricity rates approximated rates found in urban areas. A similar approach could be applied to rural broadband today. Local governments could offer public broadband—as happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which has one of the fastest broadband networks in the world, run by the municipally owned electric company, a public option that competes with Xfinity and AT&T. Cooperatives could purchase internet service in the same way as they buy electricity. And public-utility regulations could require broadband providers to cover areas adjacent to their service areas at a reasonable price in exchange for rate regulation. So why has the federal government focused on subsidizing for-profit ISPs rather than using the mixed approach that worked during the New Deal era? Consider what happened in Chattanooga. After its municipal model proved successful, ISPs saw a threat and mobilized. They successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass laws restricting public options in broadband. Twenty-five states, including Tennessee, had such laws on the books in 2019, according to a report by BroadbandNow. In Congress, Democrats have repeatedly proposed federal legislation to preempt such state laws, but those proposals have languished. And although some of the state limits on public options have been repealed, 16 states still restrict municipal broadband. Lobbying from ISPs might likewise explain why the FCC has never used its existing legal authority to require ISPs to expand service at mandated affordable prices. (A conservative appeals court foreclosed that option for the FCC only recently.) The lesson of rural broadband is that some government failures are due not to procedural excess, but to giving up on regulatory tools that might antagonize Big Business. Unfortunately, learning this lesson again may now cost us $42.5 billion. Last week, the Department of Commerce rolled back many procedural hoops of the BEAD program—ostensibly with the same goals as RDOF. It's tempting to think that America can learn how to build again without having to wage difficult battles against powerful corporate interests, simply by eliminating bureaucratic red tape. But if efficient building were really so easy, we'd already be doing it. Article originally published at The Atlantic
IOL News
10-06-2025
- Business
- IOL News
The digital land grab: white-owned fibre giants are encroaching on township markets
South Africa is under siege once more, and this time not by force of arms, but through fibre cables and Wi-Fi routers. In the name of 'connectivity,' we are witnessing the second coming of a land grab. First, they came for our land. Now, they are coming for our markets, our digital land, in townships and rural areas that black-owned Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have long nurtured and pioneered. We are not watching history repeat itself, we are living it. The Historic Echo: From Stolen Land to Stolen Market The dispossession of black people from their ancestral land is one of the darkest stains in South Africa's history. Through the 1913 Natives Land Act and decades of apartheid legislation, 87% of land was allocated to a white minority. Even today, the vast majority of land remains in white hands, with very little restitution achieved through the post 1994 democratic process. And now, in this so called fourth industrial revolution, a similar pattern is emerging, only this time the conquest is digital. Townships and rural villages that were never deemed "bankable" are now hotspots of fibre rollout, not by black-owned companies, but by well funded white Afrikaner corporations who ignored these areas until black ISPs created the demand and proved the market. This is not coincidence. It is a calculated strategy of digital colonisation. The History of Telecommunications in South Africa South Africa's telecoms sector has always reflected the broader racial and class divide. Under apartheid, black communities were structurally excluded from fixed-line access, and investment into communications infrastructure was concentrated in white suburbs and business districts. Even post-1994, liberalisation of the market through the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not equate to transformation. A handful of white-owned corporations and foreign multinationals consolidated the infrastructure value chain, from undersea cables and fibre networks to mobile spectrum and switching centres, while black operators were relegated to the periphery with little capital support or policy favour. Today, the vast majority of fibre infrastructure, including open-access and wholesale networks, remains under white ownership, decades after the so called economic reform. The Power of Black ISPs Already on the Ground Despite the odds, black-owned ISPs have built meaningful networks across South Africa's townships and rural communities. Operators like Mzansi Comnet in KwaZulu-Natal, EC Internet in the Eastern Cape, UdyNet in the Free State, Bakwena Telecommunications in Gauteng, MLR Wireless in Limpopo, NC Connect in the Northern Cape, Skynet in the Western Cape, and Jireh Technologies in Mpumalanga are not just surviving, they're connecting over 200 000 clients collectively. These networks were not funded by banks or big capital, they were built with grit, hustle, and community trust. Yet these same operators are now being pushed out of their own markets by well financed fibre giants with state protection and private equity firepower. This is not development, this is displacement. The Digital Divide, and Who's Profiting From It According to Statistics South Africa's 2023 Baseline ICT Access Survey, only 1.7% of rural households had internet access at home. In urban areas, especially former white suburbs, access exceeded 70%. The fibre rollout was supposed to close this divide. But instead, it has been used to transfer value from townships to white-owned infrastructure companies. Companies like Vumatel, Herotel, and Fibertime are aggressively capturing township economies through low-cost fibre offerings, funded by billions in private equity and shielded by their relationships in the public sector. Meanwhile, black-owned ISPs, many of whom pioneered connectivity using wireless and Wi-Fi mesh systems, are being pushed out of the very communities they built. These fibre giants exploit wholesale access from Openserve or DFA and offer pricing that local black ISPs cannot compete with, simply because they are excluded from finance and infrastructure ownership. The Betrayal of the State and the Banks The South African state has watched this play out with indifference, if not quiet complicity. I charge public finance institutions such as the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), National Empowerment Fund (NEF), and Development Bank of Southern Africa as having failed to develop targeted funding instruments for black ISPs. Despite consistent calls for township fibre expansion funds, low-interest backhaul financing, and equipment lease support, black-owned ISPs are treated like high-risk liabilities, while white-owned companies receive multi-million rand deals from both banks and government-linked entities. Where is the transformation mandate? Why are banks and development funding institutes refusing to fund businesses that actually serve poor communities and instead backing companies that only show up once the market is proven? This Is Our Second Land, and If We Lose It, It's Gone Forever Let us be brutally honest: if we lose the township market to white fibre giants, we will never get it back. Just as we lost the land and have struggled for more than a century to reclaim it, once the networks are entrenched, and once the customer loyalty is locked in through debit orders and data contracts, there will be no coming back for black ISPs. The future of education, work, health, and finance is online. Whoever owns the internet in a community owns its economy. And right now, black people are about to become digital tenants on land we once hoped to develop for ourselves. A Call to Action for Equity in the Digital Economy The time for polite conversations is over. There is an urgent need for: A moratorium on fibre rollout in townships without transparent local consultation and equitable participation. A public inquiry into subcontracting practices in township fibre builds. State funded backhaul access for black ISPs at cost-based pricing. Earmarked funds at the IDC, NEF, and USAASA (Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa) exclusively for township connectivity led by black operators. Spectrum allocation frameworks that prioritise township and rural network operators. Community benefit agreements as a condition for fibre wayleaves and trenching rights. Conclusion: Never Again We were beaten once, stripped of our land, dignity, and economic power. We cannot allow it to happen again in this new era of is the land we are trying to claim, not with rifles, but with routers. Not with protests, but with policy and participation. If we let it slide, our children will inherit a digital world where they are permanent consumers and never producers. We are not here to beg for are here to reclaim our stake in the digital economy, and this time, we are not giving it back.
