Uverse Or UDiscrimination? AT&T’s Fiber Rollout Increasing Digital Divide
January 12th, 2009 Davis Posted in Media, Technology |
As long time readers know, I’m a BIG fan of fiber internet access. I’ve only been fortunate enough to have access to the goods for 3 months of my life, but it was enough of a taste to know that fiber is a pretty disruptive piece of technology. While you may not need the the extra juice in order to find an on-ramp to the net, many of the more bandwidth intensive applications perform much better when you have a supersonic connection to the information highway.
Yet, despite all of the advances in technology, the rollout of fiber access has been painfully slow. AT&T likes to brag that they now offer Uverse to over 17 million households, but after two years, they’ve still only managed to sign up 1 million subscribers. While 17 million households sounds like a pretty significant footprint, if you’re not in one of the higher tax brackets, you are probably still waiting for super fast internet access.
A Tale of Two Cities
A little over a year ago, I left my swanky downtown loft in San Francisco for a much more humble apartment in the heart of Oakland. A big part of the move was because I wanted to save money for a new business that I was starting. At first I was ashamed to tell people that I was living in the 510, but after spending a year in Oakland, I’ve grown quite fond of the neighborhood. We certainly have more then our fair share of violent crime, but if you take the time to get involved in the community, you’ll meet a lot of amazing people. Leaving San Francisco for Oakland meant that I had to give up my fiber connection, but at the time, I was hopeful that it wouldn’t take long before AT&T finished their rollout of Uverse in the Bay Area. Sadly, after researching Uverse’s availability, I don’t expect this to happen anytime soon.
According to ZipSkinny.com residents who live in my zip code make a median salary of $32,273 per year. 23.7% of the population lives below the poverty line and there are nearly 18,000 people per square mile living in my neighborhood.
While Oakland can be a rough place, smack dab in the center of Oakland is a small town named Piedmont. Piedmont may be less then 2 miles from my home, but their community is night and day compared to my own. Despite being surrounded by Oakland, Piedmont was able to create a separate town for their residents and as a result they have their own school district, police department and fire services. While people in Oakland are struggling to survive, the median salary in Piedmont comes in at $77,952 (over twice what my neighbors are making.) The percentage of people living below the poverty line is a more reasonable 4.9%, and the average density per square mile is a measly 5,700 people.
Now I can’t fault Piedmont residents for wanting to live in a good neighborhood, but when you compare both cities, the difference between them is pretty startling. While one city is known for it’s high drop out rate among teenagers, the other is known for their high SAT scores. One city has an extraordinarily large population of single mothers, the other has an extraordinarily large population of personal nannies. One city has limited internet options, the other has access to Uverse.
We can argue over whether or not it’s fundamentally fair that Piedmont has so many advantages, but it’s their access to Uverse that I take exception with. As someone who has first hand experience with the benefits of a super fast internet connection, I’ve been harassing trying to get AT&T to expand Uverse into my neighborhood since I first moved. So far they’ve been pretty unresponsive and downright uncooperative to work with, yet 2 miles away in Piedmont, they are going door to door signing up residents for their service.
If you ask AT&T (either their phone reps or their PR dept.) for a list of neighborhoods where they provide service, they’ll refuse to break down the data citing competitive threats. Since I knew that Piedmont was juiced up for Uverse, but that Oakland had been largely denied service, I wanted to take a closer look at the numbers, to determine whether or not this was part of a larger pattern by AT&T.
In order to test my theory that AT&T is discriminating against the poor by only choosing high net worth areas to rollout Uverse service, I painstakingly researched bay area availability by looking up individual addresses one at a time. To help track this data, I created a public spreadsheet showing all of the bay area zip codes where you’ll find (and not find) Uverse service. While my spreadsheet does not prove that AT&T is using demographic data to discriminate over who gets access to Uverse company wide, it does suggest that their selection criteria in the Bay Area could be favoring the rich neighborhoods over the poor. When asked for more data on their company wide rollout, AT&T’s public relations department more or less told me to kick rocks and refused to comment on their selection criteria for Uverse availability. While they are well within their rights to withhold this data from the public, when you consider all of the government assistance that they receive, it seems only fair that they be required to provide some transparency over how they are choosing who gets Uverse and who gets denied.
According to my research, the average median salary of Bay Area Uverse neighborhoods comes in at $75,486 vs the average median salary of $67,405 for neighborhoods without access. In neighborhoods where AT&T offers Uverse, 6.65% of the citizens live beneath the poverty line compared to 11.04% in non-Uverse neighborhoods. While you would think that it would be in AT&T’s best interest to offer service in some of the densest areas first, a quick glance at the data shows that the average Uverse neighborhood represents approximately 3,500 people per square mile compared to density of over 7,000 people in Non Uverse neighborhoods.
Encyclopedia Davis and the Case of the Missing Uverse
Perhaps even more perplexing then the discrepancy between the haves and the have nots, was the fact that I could not find a single address in San Francisco which has access to Uverse. While my phone calls to AT&T reps and their public relations department generated plenty of assurances that they were offering service in the city of San Francisco, after more then 200 address searches, I still could not identify a single San Francisco residence that had access to Uverse. Despite AT&T’s claims that Uverse is currently available in the city of San Francisco, their representatives were also unable/unwilling to provide me with a single address that is currently using Uverse. As a result, I’ve excluded demographic data from the city of San Francisco when running the calculations listed above.
What makes this issue such a controversial topic is that if you are one of the traditional cable providers and want to expand service to a local neighborhood, there are typically very strict guidelines on which neighborhoods you have to serve. Because cable agreements have been traditionally negotiated community by community, local city governments have been able to negotiate equal access for all citizens. There are plenty of examples where cable companies have tried to only service high net worth neighborhoods, but because of the local franchise agreements, local politicians have had the muscle to pressure the cable companies to treat all of their citizens fairly.
When it comes to the telephone companies, the rules are a little different. Two years ago, California approved statewide franchise agreements that allow the phone companies to pick and choose which neighborhoods they want to offer service. The result is a broadband system that rewards the rich while discriminating against the poor.
Normally, I’m content to let businesses operate in the best way that they see fit, but when it comes to the internet, I’m a strong proponent of open access for all. The net is a great equalizer for society. It doesn’t matter whether you are black or white, rich or poor, male or female, gay or straight, young or old. When push comes to shove, it’s the power of your ideas that matter online. Yet, when it comes to the speed of your connection, it would appear that the tax returns of your neighbor, play a large role in deciding whether or not you have access to the highest tiered speeds on the net.
Internet providers have a unique business model that tends to encourage natural monopolies. Because the barriers to entry are so high, incumbent providers have a big advantage over new companies trying to get into the game. When you consider that President Elect Obama has proposed some pretty large checks to the phone companies, it becomes even more important to ensure that AT&T’s rollout policy treats everyone the same.
While I recognize the need for AT&T to turn a profit on their investment, I fear that by discriminating against the poor, it will only increase the digital divide. If AT&T isn’t using demographic information in their decision making process, then they should be more open about the criteria they are using to decide who does and does not get access to fiber internet. If my data is correct and they are only rolling out Uverse to the wealthy neighborhoods, then this is an issue that should be addressed before giving them access to more public funds.
While I believe that the statewide franchise agreements were a positive step for consumers and the telecommunications industry, if we’re not careful we run the risk of creating a system that makes it even more difficult for the poor to succeed online. While there may not be the same adoption rates in Oakland as there are in Piedmont, it doesn’t mean that their citizens should have less opportunities. Instead of continuing to discriminate against the poor, I’d like to see AT&T provide more balanced access to all.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I definitely feel for you. I live in an eastern suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, a community of approximately 23,000 residences. Some parts of our community have had access to U-Verse since July 2007, when they first rolled it out in our area.
I’m also in the process of mapping out available areas by typing in individual addresses. Where it is available, in some areas, they are average 30-40% penetration. Our local cable provider, Time Warner Cable, has to be “shaking in their boots.”
What I’ve noticed, so far, is AT&T seems to be going after the “low hanging fruit” as they have installed their nodes (VRADs) close to where their existing switching infrastructure is located. I’m located approximtely 4,800 ft. from the my CO which is fine for my DSL connection but approx. 1,800 ft. too far for their U-Verse service.
AT&T does not seem to “finish off” implementation of U-Verse in their existing communities rather they would prefer to expand into areas where its convenient for them.
Residents a couple of blocks from me have had service for well over a year whereas AT&T has been unresponsive as to when they will install more nodes closer to me and others.
Also, in our area, I’m finding that there does seem to be some correlation as to poorer areas not having access to U-Verse.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Thanks for the feedback Mark, you raise some very interesting observations. The Bay Area may have been first, but I really doubt that we have anywhere close to a 30% penetration rate here. Once you finish collecting your data, I’d love it if you’d be willing to share it with me. Tracking AT&T’s entire US rollout is too daunting of a challenge alone, but with help, I’m hoping to prove that this pattern extends beyond the bay area.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
No uverse over here in the tri-vlly. Though - I did go over to trulia to find a street number and randomly plugged in that address from a wealthier sub-erb. No uverse there either.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
South Bay uverse is also not matching at&t’s description of Sunnyvale-Santa Clara-San Jose being covered. Santa Clara is mainly 2 zipcodes 95050 and 95051, yet I drive those streets regularly and have not seen a single uverse terminal on the street (they are easy to spot once you see one). Yet in the adjoining zipcode 94086 which is less affluent than 95051 there is a clearly defined uverse terminal line being installed down north Mary avenue, but they are not “plugged in” yet after 3 months (you can tell when they are operational because there is an electric meter spinning on the side of the phone box). at&t’s installation clearly doesn’t make sense to have all those assets sitting on the side of the road unused and unplugged for 1/4 of a year so far denying people uverse access.
I’ve been attempting to get ANY answer as to when I will get uverse and I too am getting the “we can’t tell you or else the cable company will use it as an advantage against us” response. That doesn’t hold water. What I see in 94086 is a bunch of uverse hardware rusting and unused and still no terminals in 95050 / 95051 Santa Clara.
What is worse is at&t claimed uverse was a stopgap between dsl and their next fiber plan for 2010-2011 start date back in 2006 when they announced it in Texas somewhere. Well that’s nice but it’s now 2009 and it’s not in the heart of silicon valley. Are they giving up?
February 20th, 2009 at 8:32 am
1. I’m not an AT&T fan!
2. I’m pissed that AT&T has used the cable pricing model once high speed capability is in. They choke down the service and sell it in a good, better, best, elite, model.
3. This is discrimination at the individual ‘pipe’ outlet and should be banned as it is not neutral at all but discriminates by pocket book. If the water department utility had a similar structure and ability, poor people would only have three or four pounds pressure in their lines and water would come in at a trickle whereas the wealthy would have 60 pounds of pressure for showers, etc. The real discrimination comes in in when suppliers of content will be able to make specific content available only to ‘elite service’ customers.
It gives AT&T the ability to ‘red line’ individuals by income, and is an extension of zip code red lining by banks for lending.
4. I would like to know if anyone else is concerned here and if anyone is working to prevent this?
March 15th, 2009 at 9:51 am
I am miffed at your research. It really is an interested point. I live in an upper middle class neighborhood and U-Verse is not available to me, yet around the corner (in the same neighborhood) my good friends just switched from Direct TV to U-verse. And I have another friend who lives in a less wealthy part of town (J-ville, FL) and he has the complete package just Thanks for your interesting information.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Thanks for your observations Josie, every little piece of data helps. My “research” certainly isn’t scientific and doesn’t prove a company wide pattern for this behavior, but it does show a discrepancy in the San Francisco bay area and hopefully encourages people to think about whether or not, these same abusive practices are happening in their neighborhoods.
If you’d be kind enough to look up 3 random addresses per zip code on Trulia.com, verify whether or not Uverse gives them access and then input the results by Zip Code into a spreadsheet, I’ll be happy to add your neighborhood to my survey. It is my belief that if we look at enough data, it will show a pattern.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Well I would love to give U-Verse a spin but I can’t get it either. One item to make note of My subdivision has three AT&T VP’s and we are not even on the road map!!!
June 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I live in a fairly affluent suburban area in South East Michigan, and have been waiting for U-Verse for about 2-3 years now, since it was announced. AT&T has literally covered a city neighboring ours, which has a substantially lower median income, with U-Verse service! I’ve been calling them every month for the past two years asking for them to move into our area, but they don’t respond. Doesn’t seem like they’re favoring higher income areas where I live!