Comments on: The Cure for America’s Internet

By: directorblue

directorblue — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:40:42 +0000

Mr. Glass,

Your contention is flat out ridiculous.

Most Americans have exactly one choice for FTTH: cable to the home. As for copper, which I believe you’re describing, technological limitations keep speeds from reaching anywhere near what the telcos promised us in the 90’s (see “The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal“).

Exactly how many of your “4,000 ISPs” are delivering 10-100 MBps to the home?

The FCC’s “Brand X” debacle prevents the wholesaling of cable that would truly benefit all Americans.

As an added bonus, Kevin Martin (our beloved head of the FCC, whose former firm — Wiley Rein — counts Verizon as perhaps it most important client) is likely to approve the absorption of Alltel by Verizon, further reducing competition.

Thanks, FCC! We’re left with Ma Bell redux and the American consumer gets the shaft.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:45:11 +0000

There isn’t an “intractable” lack of competition — in fact, there’s not a lack of competition, period! As I’ve already mentioned, there are at least 4,000 WISPs in the United states — 80 per state (not 40 per state, as I stated earlier; that was a typo). Instead of pretending that there is, and seeking to regulate the Internet, “Save the Internet” should be out promoting more competition from these consumer-friendly, small, local businesses. It should be trumpeting their existence and lobbying to get them more wireless spectrum and better attachments to the Internet backbone. Attempting to regulate ISPs will KILL competition, leaving US citizens entirely at the mercy of what will then really be a cable and telephone duopoly.

By: Managing Traffic = Raise Rates « The Crone Speaks

Managing Traffic = Raise Rates « The Crone Speaks — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:42:22 +0000

[…] need I mention that the US is way behind in offering broadband services to all American’s? Late last month, yet another global survey confirmed this, showing the […]

By: EParno

EParno — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:40:26 +0000

America’s broadband market suffers from an intractable lack of competition. Many consumers have a choice today between a telephone company and a cable company. Many others have only one or no choice for a high-speed Internet connection.

This is a fact borne out by many broadband surveys including, but certainly not limited to, those conducted by Free Press. The Congressional Research Service has described the current market as a “broadband duopoly,” where telephone and cable companies face little real competition. The FCC’s own skewed July 2006 figures still showed an overwhelmingly concentrated broadband market, with telephone companies and cable companies controlling access to 99.6 percent of all U.S. consumers. Believe it or not Karr’s 98 percent figure above is conservative.

GAO found that the share of alternative broadband platforms also has been decreasing steadily over time, from a less-than-impressive 2.9 percent in 1999 to an anemic 0.4 percent today. While emerging technologies may eventually enable viable competitors, such channels currently do not compete in terms of speed, price, availability, or technological maturity.

Each of the supposed technology alternatives –- such as broadband over powerline (BPL), satellite internet, and 3G wireless — provide no real competitive option. In particular, 3G wireless fails the test because, among other drawbacks: (1) most services do not qualify as “high speed” under the FCC’s current definitions; (2) data plan prices typically are at least double what consumers pay for cable or DSL service; (3) wireless providers block many common Internet applications and services, foreclose outside network attachments, and reserve the right to terminate service arbitrarily for using “non-conforming” services; (4) few consumers have substituted wireless broadband service for wireline broadband service; and (5) the FCC’s figures include all owners of 3G phones, whether or not they have purchased or used them for Internet access.

These factors and others paint a picture of a country with a major competition problem in the broadband market.

By: Jon Garfunkel

Jon Garfunkel — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:08:02 +0000

Here’s the state map, in case anyone’s curious. Verizon announced last month that they’ve started bringing access to 23 new communities across the state. Governor Patrick announced an $25m bond initiative initiative last fall which has yet to be acted upon by the legislature.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:40:29 +0000

The above claims of a “duopoly” are, fortunately, false. There are more than 4,000 independent ISPs in the United States — that’s more than 40 per state! — and one of them is most likely near you. (If consumers fail to patronize them, it is often their own fault for failing to do so much as a Google search for excellent, local alternatives.)

Unfortunately, the laws and regulations favored by Free Press (the lobbying corporation which is actually behind the “Save the Internet” site) would actually destroy independent ISPs — which already face anticompetitive tactics and an unfavorable regulatory environment — by forcing them to allow their bandwidth to be taken without compensation.

Want a fast, economical connection to the Internet for every American? The way to do it is not by regulating independent ISPs out of business but rather by encouraging them. See my remarks to the FCC at http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html for more.