Although your internet subscription seems like a personal choice, speed, price, and availability are determined by a silent monopoly. Internet access is remarkably similar to supermarket shelves that seem endlessly varied but are actually controlled by a small number of conglomerates—consolidated power masquerading as abundance.
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance estimates that over 83 million Americans rely solely on one provider. Price increases and service stagnation have been remarkably successful due to this lack of competition. In Los Angeles, the difference is particularly noticeable: wealthy Willowbrook residents pay $30 for a high-speed plan, while families in Watts, which is only a mile away, must pay $70 for the same service. This discriminatory practice, which advocates refer to as “digital redlining,” is reminiscent of the exclusionary mortgage maps of previous decades.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Issue | Broadband monopolies limit choice and inflate costs |
| Market | Six ISPs dominate 98% of the U.S. mobile internet market |
| Access | 83 million Americans rely on only one provider |
| Inequality | Plans cost $30 in affluent areas, $70 in poorer ones |
| Rural Impact | Over 8.7 million in cities also face single-provider access |
| Government Effort | $65B “Internet for All” plan to expand broadband |
| Barriers | High infrastructure costs, flawed FCC broadband maps |
| Digital Redlining | ISPs invest in wealthy areas, neglect low-income ones |
| Cultural Impact | Celebrities publicly complain about streaming delays |
Even famous people have expressed their frustration. During international performances, artists such as John Legend and Dua Lipa have voiced their dissatisfaction with livestream failures brought on by erratic connections. During lockdowns, streaming services like Netflix were compelled to lower video quality throughout Europe; this decision demonstrated how monopolized networks buckle under pressure. This is a worldwide problem that even highly influential celebrities cannot ignore; it is not merely a suburban annoyance.
Because it operates covertly, the monopoly prospers. By following the routes of power lines, railroads, and highways, fiber optic cables concentrate power in the hands of a select group of companies, including Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, and Verizon. Customers rarely have significant alternatives when they impose caps or raise rates. Due to a lack of competition, many people in rural America are forced to use satellite internet, which is more expensive, capped, and much slower than broadband in cities.
In a move eerily reminiscent of Roosevelt’s drive to electrify every home, policy responses like the Biden administration’s $65 billion “Internet for All” initiative aim to reshape access. But poor execution clashes with optimism. Due to self-reported data, FCC broadband maps are notoriously inaccurate and understate the number of Americans who are still disconnected. While urban “underserved” communities—which are frequently impoverished and disproportionately minority—remain excluded, funds primarily flow into rural “unserved” zones. Despite being in the shadow of Silicon Valley’s wealth, an estimated 37,000 households in Oakland still do not have access to dependable broadband.
The human cost is very evident. Because their connections failed, job seekers lost digital interviews, patients were denied telehealth consultations, and students in underconnected neighborhoods missed online classes. “This is modern-day redlining,” said Georgia Savage of #OaklandUndivided, in a direct description of the situation. Her remarks effectively convey how monopolized broadband access exacerbates inequality by widening gaps that infrastructure ought to be bridging.
The difference is evident when comparing countries. The average broadband bill in the United States is close to $70, which is almost twice as much as the $38 paid in the United Kingdom, where more stringent regulations encourage genuine competition. Scandinavian nations have expanded coverage through infrastructure supported by the government, treating broadband as a public utility. With its incredibly fast and dependable connections, South Korea serves as an example of what can be achieved when connectivity is prioritized culturally. It powers everything from sophisticated gaming industries to K-pop livestreams.
The quiet monopoly appears subtly for consumers, such as buffering during a big sporting event, mysterious price increases, or limited availability when relocating. Former FCC official Blair Levin noted that although broadband speed has increased, affordability has not significantly increased. The paradox still exists: while we enjoy speeds our parents could only imagine, access is still determined more by profit than by equity.
There have been attempts to break up the monopoly. Although Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network promised freedom, the monthly costs—more than $120, plus steep setup fees—remain startlingly high. Although T-Mobile’s fixed wireless internet has been very inventive, inconsistent coverage prevents it from being a universally applicable solution. These initiatives demonstrate how entrenched cable monopolies are while also highlighting consumers’ desire for competition.
This monopoly is even influenced by geography. Large cities have redundant networks with low-latency connections, but rural communities or tribal territories are decades behind. Previously regarded as a neutral backbone, infrastructure now functions as a gatekeeper. Just as railroads used to determine which towns prospered, infrastructure now determines whose future accelerates and whose stays stalled.
