Re: Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Drzyzgula <bob () drzyzgula org>
Date: November 14, 2008 8:41:32 AM EST
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:05:18PM -0500, David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Steven S. Critchfield" <critch () drunkenlogic com>
> Date: November 13, 2008 6:01:39 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Network Neutrality and Groundhog Day
>
> Back to the idea of monopolies that Brett likes to argue
> against. There is exactly 1 "cable" operator. It used to be
> Viacom, and they sold the franchise to Comcast. There is
> exactly 1 "phone" company with wire to the homes. Wireless
> is the only option here for competition that isn't dependent
> on one of the government anointed monopolies.
>
> The AT&T here is a defacto monopoly because they are the only
> phone company that owns any copper to the homes. Comcast is
> a monopoly as they only have the ability in our market to
> drag coax to the home. Independent ISPs here ride AT&T copper
> to the home. They may be able to colo in the switch facility
> and get the traffic out there to their own networks, but it
> still had to cross AT&T's network.

There's one thing I don't completely understand about this.
When it is claimed that "[Only Comcast has] the ability in
our market to drag coax to the home" I'm wondering what,
precisely, is implied by the term "ability". Are the
impediments regulatory, financial, or perhaps the result
of some private restriction?

On my street, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, there are
currently three sets of communications cable hanging on the
poles: Verizon's twisted pair, and coax-to-the-premises
cable systems from both Comcast and RCN. I can buy DSL
from Verizon or from some number of CLECs, Cable modem
from Comcast or RCN, and I'm sure there's wireless ISPs
(Clearwire had an application before the planning commision
in the past year for an antenna a few hundred yards from
my house) as well as the 3G options from the four major
cellular providers. Both of the cable TV companies offer
telephone; I use RCN's and it is delivered over their
own twisted pair, although that copper only terminates in
the box up the street. And FIOS is expected within a few
months; it's expected to be available pretty pervasively
at least in urban and suburban Montgomery County, except
where they have trouble getting right of way agreements
from private homeowners associations; my neighborhood is
expected to be among the first because of the above-ground
utilities. At the moment I have a Covad SDSL line for
my servers and an RCN 20Mbps/2Mbps line for browsing and
telecommuting. And with all this competition it's still
too expensive.

At the same time, I have co-workers -- people who commute
daily to the same physical office as I do -- who cannot
obtain DSL or Cable Modem -- or even Cable TV. So, no wired
broadband for them. In at least instance, I know that the
solution has been DirectTV for video and Verizon's mobile
broadband for Internet. In his case I know the essential
problem is that there just isn't sufficient density in
his neighborhood to make a cable roll-out profitable.

So I'm wondering: What is the lack of "ability" here that
creates "monopoly" situations, and to what extent are they
the result of government policy?

--Bob Drzyzgula





-------------------------------------------
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