Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable-Phone Duopoly

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Joseph H. Weber" <jweber () spri com>
Date: August 14, 2005 1:31:12 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable- 
Phone Duopoly


Dave,

The difficulty with all the efforts to foster competition is that the
"competitors" are always using the facilities of one of the parties  
they are
competing with. No matter how the facilities were built, they remain  
under
the control of their owners, and people competing with these owners, but
using their facilities, are always going to have a hard time, no  
matter what
the government does (unless they prohibit the owners from offering  
retail
services - a prospect that doesn't seem to have much support).

We now have some real competition for broadband between cable and  
telco, and
hopefully can develop some more using wireless. I think that's where we
should focus - and stop attempting to contrive competition in ways that,
fundamentally, can never be viable.

Joe Weber
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: "Ip Ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:50 AM
Subject: [IP] Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable-Phone  
Duopoly



> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: August 14, 2005 11:38:32 AM EDT
> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable-
> Phone Duopoly
> Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com
>
>
> Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable-Phone Duopoly
> By Rob Pegoraro
> Sunday, August 14, 2005; F07
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/
> AR2005081300149.html?referrer=email&referrer=email>
>
> Competition in the market for broadband Internet access remains
> alive, despite what can look like a concerted campaign by big
> business and government to abolish it. The latest such steps were a
> Supreme Court ruling and a Federal Communications Commission vote
> that allowed cable and phone companies to block competitors from
> their networks.
>
> Be glad that competitors are still around: The phone and cable
> incumbents still fall short of many customers' needs, and it's up to
> other companies to meet them.
>
> But as long as telephone and cable TV lines are the only affordable
> ways to pipe data to and from a house, any challenger to Comcast,
> Verizon and their ilk must first go into business with them. The
> competitor has to rent a phone or cable company's wires -- lines
> installed under a government-sanctioned monopoly -- to reach any
> customer's home.
>
> Figuring out how that should happen has consumed thousands of
> billable hours from lawyers and lobbyists over the past decade. And
> so far, competition has taken off only in half of the cable-phone
> duopoly.
>
> Since the dawn of cable-modem access, such cable operators as Comcast
> and Cox have almost never allowed other companies to offer Internet
> access over their lines. The Supreme Court's "Brand X" ruling in late
> June codified this state of affairs, ruling that cable operators
> could not be forced to let in competitors.
>
> Phone companies such as Verizon, however, have been far more
> welcoming. Competing digital-subscriber-line providers did start out
> with the benefit of regulations mandating their access -- a good
> thing, given the early obstructionist behavior of many phone carriers
> -- but they've grown even as those rules have loosened.
>
> The FCC's vote two Fridays ago will end the obligation of incumbent
> phone companies to rent their DSL connections to competitors (they
> still must sell bare phone lines at a discount, allowing other firms
> to set up their own DSL services over them).
>
> Earlier FCC decisions relieved phone companies from having to lease
> particular elements of their networks and allowed them to bar
> competitors from such new networks as Verizon's Fios fiber-optic
> service.
>
> A choice of broadband access that's limited to the cable company and
> the phone company would be extraordinarily bad. Although such firms
> have done a remarkable job of rolling out service, they let down
> customers in other ways.
>
> One is price. Far too often, cable and phone companies have balked at
> cutting rates, instead increasing download speeds whether or not
> customers want the extra performance. Even the $30 a month that
> Verizon charges for DSL is more than many dial-up users want to pay.
> The market should have room for firms that charge less for a slower,
> but still always-on, connection.
>
> Another is reliability -- the subject of numerous complaints from
> Comcast, Cox and Verizon users. The fault rarely involves a break in
> cable or phone lines; it's the Internet service provided over them,
> which competitors often deliver more consistently.
>
> Just getting connected can be an ordeal. I've heard from many readers
> who have waited weeks for Verizon to set up their DSL; some decided
> to cancel their orders and go with competitors, even though it meant
> paying more. One of my colleagues actually had Verizon unplug his DSL
> service -- then offer to charge him more for a slower connection. A
> competitor quickly had him back online.
>
> A third failing is tech support. If you like simply being told to
> reboot your modem and computer whenever you call, even if it's an
> obvious service interruption, you'll love the incumbents.
>
> [snip]
>
> Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro  
> atrob () twp com.
>
> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as jweber () spri com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

>




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/