Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable-Phone Duopoly
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:34:55 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Dana Spiegel <dana () NYCwireless net> Date: August 14, 2005 4:06:04 PM EDT To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable- Phone Duopoly
Dave, for IP.Joseph highlights a good point, that the last mile (or "first mile" as those of us who are proponents of community media refer to it) is always controlled by a single private entity.
Where Joseph and others have it wrong is that "inter-modal" competition isn't competition at all. Its a monopoly or duopoly (or sometimes, rarely, an oligopoly). We can argue about the right type of regulation scheme to implement, or how to otherwise incent cable/ telco providers to compete, but we cannot merely turn a blind eye to the fact that left alone, they will _not_ provide competitive service. There are many places in this country without broadband access at all. There are many places in this country with only a single DSL or Cable provider. Even in New York City! We must remember that these are companies who, first and foremost, are working to maximize shareholder value. They are not socially conscious companies, who are altruistically interested in providing affordable, fast, and reliable service to everyone.
Wireless service is great, but its only in its infancy. There are hundreds (thousands?) of ISPs that are going to be screwed by the FCC's decision. They have just destroyed an entire industry, for the sake of a few big players.
Rob Pegoraro, in his article, states that cable and telco companies fall short on price, reliability, getting connected, tech support, and features. Well, that sounds to me like a list of all of the things at which an internet provider should be excelling. What's left for them to be good at?
More at: http://sociable.blogspot.com/ Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless dana () NYCwireless net www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Community Wireless blog: http://sociable.blogspot.com On Aug 14, 2005, at 3:06 PM, David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: "Joseph H. Weber" <jweber () spri com> Date: August 14, 2005 1:31:12 PM EDT To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable- Phone DuopolyDave, 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 retailservices - 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 AMSubject: [IP] Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable-Phone DuopolyBegin 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 dana () nycwireless net To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives 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/
Current thread:
- more on Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to Cable-Phone Duopoly David Farber (Aug 14)