Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets?
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:55:10 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com> Date: August 26, 2008 6:38:23 PM EDT To: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets?
It’s about the funding model – not about who is the provider but why we have providers rather than operators who we hire.
A local facilities operator makes sense -- the real question is why local traffic is costly and limited. In fact why not start with the existing facilities and just replace analog line cards with G.Lite digital line cards? A one-time $100 charge would upgrade the facilities and then you can have 24x7 local connectivity.
You might not be able to just put a line card in but for those places where G.Lite (a ten year old technology) works why do we pay and pay and pay forever for something we (the community) can do ourselves or hire someone to.
-----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 17:48 To: ip Subject: [IP] Re: Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets? Begin forwarded message: From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net> Date: August 26, 2008 1:45:31 PM EDT To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com> Subject: Re: [IP] Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets? > Competition in the broadband space is currently about as good as it's > going to get for the foreseeable future, and could even backslide, > according to Blair Levin, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "Prospects > for the long-heralded 'third pipe' appear dim and dimming," Levin > said, referring to the notion of a hypothetical major competitor to > both telco and cable companies. "In terms of wireless and broadband> buildouts, there's unlikely to be another new national buildout, other
> than Clearwire, in the foreseeable future," Levin said. The problem with this statement is that it assumes -- fallaciously -- that a "third pipe" must be created by a national buildout by a single company. In fact, as my customers remind me nearly daily, consumers prefer their third option to be not another faceless, nationwide corporation but rather a local provider. One that provides personal service. One that answers the phone instead of sending calls to India or the Philippines. One that can make house calls. One that can provide general computer support. In short, consumers already have KMart and a Wal-Mart in the form of the cable and telephone companies. What they need is not another "big box" but rather a specialty store. One whose primary business is broadband, not video or telephony. One that isn't going to be Big Brother but rather a reliable, ethical, friendly local merchant. A local third pipe solves many of the problems that would be inherent in the creation of a large, nationwide provider. Firstly, there's the matter of capital. While stock markets are unlikely to lend much support to a "third pipe," small businesses control, collectively, more capital than the market caps of all public companies combined. If 10,000 small broadband providers each build a business worth $1.5 million, that's $15 billion of capital invested in the deployment of new broadband. Secondly, there's the matter of innovation. While large companies commit to technologies and business models and are loathe to change them, small businesses are much more nimble. They'll develop new technologies and be early adopters of those developed by others. And thirdly, there's the matter of serving areas with uncertain ROI. Small providers -- far more than big ones -- have a track record of covering sparsely populated areas and of being willing to accept a smaller ROI, or a longer payback period, when doing so. While subsidies for rural broadband can and should be provided, the notion of expanding the USF -- already a highly dysfunctional program -- to cover them is ludicrous. Instead, subsidies in the form of direct grants to consumers -- perhaps via vouchers given directly to the customers, who could give them to the provider in lieu of cash -- would allow providers to compete without burying them in mountains of undue paperwork. While there are approximately 4,000 small, competitive, independent ISPs in existence today, their progress in realizing this vision of a "local third pipe" has been hobbled by anticompetitive practices and by government policies which favor large providers. Spectrum, for example, is auctioned off in nationwide slices 5 to 20 MHz wide -- fine for cell phones but inadequate to provide 100 Mbps to multiple homes simultaneously -- rather than 100 or 200 MHz slices over the area of a county. What's more, the auction rules and the auction process itself favor large entities with access to public capital markets. They allow incumbents with deep pockets to foreclose competition by denying new entrants access to spectrum. They require payment in full immediately at the close of the auction, preventing smaller businesses and startups from "paying as they go" as they build their businesses. They hobble innovation, and destroy opportunities for new entrants, by locking out anyone who arrives with a great idea even one day after the auction is over. And because spectrum is not fungible and is subject to warehousing, no market can be made in it once it is sold. In short, auctions are the worst possible mechanism for awarding spectrum. A nonexclusively licensed regime (a la 3660 MHz, but with a single mandatory spectrum etiquette to ensure coexistence) would be far superior and would ultimately raise in far more in income taxes than the auctions raise in one-time fees. Government also fails to support the development of a "third pipe" by failing to mandate that small providers have access to essential facilities-- including local loops and DSL systems, leased lines to the backbone, and
the backbones themselves. Currently, the issue of backhaul -- erroneously labeled "special access" in DC by folks who do not understand that it is not "special" but rather vital -- is dormant both in the FCC and in Congress. The very poor decision in Trinko has allowed anticompetitive practices to fall into the "crack" between antitrust law and FCC regulations, escaping action or even scrutiny. And a decision against LinkLine by the Supreme Court would essentially reverse what was left of the pro-competitive measures of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, paving the way for the duopoly to crush competition. If we don't want today's competition to be "as good as it gets," we must do an about-face in all of these areas. Thousands of willing, able local businesspeople and entrepreneurs are here to take the helm and provide broadband to their communities. All we need to do is give them a fair shake, and we'll have so much bandwidth we won't know what to do with it. --Brett Glass, LARIAT ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets? David Farber (Aug 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets? David Farber (Aug 26)
- Re: Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets? David Farber (Aug 26)
- Re: Broadband competition: Is this as good as it gets? David Farber (Aug 26)