We Need A Broadband Competition Act, Not A Net Neutrality Act
from the get-out-the-wrecking-ball dept
Andy Kessler has put together a fantastic editorial for the Wall Street Journal explaining why Markey's attempt at legislating Net Neutrality won't do any good. As we pointed out when Markey first announced it, this plan seems to be focused on the symptoms, not the real problem (and, no, just having the FCC step in to slap the wrists of neutrality violators doesn't help either). The real problem, of course, is the lack of real competition in the broadband market. Kessler suggests that we shouldn't be focused on Net Neutrality, but should wipe out the bogus regulations that are currently restricting competition in the broadband market. That means not going through a painful localized franchising process or making it a pain to get the rights of way necessary to install equipment necessary for next generation broadband. It means actually opening up the market to competition, not creating subsidies and regulations that mean only the incumbents can play. Not that politicians are about to do anything like this, but it sure would be nice.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, competition, ed markey, net neutrality, rights of way
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ethical Corporations
A residual concern, even with increased competition,-- how is the consumer to know if he or she is being screwed by the ISP????? I know that I don't have the technical expertise to make that determination. Since the anecdotal evidence is rising that corporation (such as Comcast) are doing stealth actions to manipulate the flow of packets, I am left with a feeling of mistrust. To avoid the hammer of regulation, I would hope that companies (such as Comcast) could take a more proactive ethical approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethical Corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethical Corporations
the only ethical corporation is a non-profit corporation, and even non-profits can be pretty shady.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethical Corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's called a utility easement. Check your property deed.
And by the way, competition does help your town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
same for tv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close, But No Cigar
If you mean that as I expect it'll be interpreted (see the Anonymous Coward's comment about digging above), then I think you're going to run into problems.
You simply can't have dozens or hundreds of firms trying to lay fiber in a town. Even some wireless solutions can run into interference issues with everyone sharing a frequency (e.g., WiFi bad, cellular good). Both are examples of the oft-cited "tragedy of the commons".
That being said, there may be ways to structure the competition such that the tragedy can be avoided. With respect to fiber, for example, I suspect there's a way for a town to own the fiber like it owns the water lines and sewers and whatnot. The town isn't providing the Internet connection, but it is allowing ISPs to connect to the town to provide service to whatever households sign up for them. The ISPs pay less vs. their own build-out, but they have to put up with competition. And if ISPs want their own build-out (e.g., different/better tech than what the town has), that's fine, but they have to go through the rigmarole they do today and perhaps more, to justify the hassle for the town's residents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Close, But No Cigar
we don't need more competition in the telephone and TV space, we need more competition in the ISP space.
after all, if you can deliver enough bandwidth, telephone and television service are not that hard to provide over said connection.
since the cable companies and telephone companies provide service that is famously bad, you don't have to compete on price alone, just providing a reliable product with no hidden fees is enough to make half of america switch today.
mobile providers need to get into the residential and commercial internet access business, along with municipal programs, the power companies, satellite communications companies, and maybe even the auto industry.
i think the water and sewer companies need to figure out how to put a signal thru water to provide broadband internet service.
if you are in the business of putting a signal, a copper wire, or a microprocessor into a home or business, then you should expand your product offerings with internet service. the ISP market is begging for additional providers.
the more "pipes" that are available in your neighborhood, the less likely the two or fewer providers in your neighborhood will be to play games with your service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Close, But No Cigar
I'd much rather see municipalities & citizens own the fiber & get to decide the rules (net neutrality, etc) rather than some remote global corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only reason large ISPs (cable and telcos) are against net neutrality is because they want to triple dip. By that I mean that the user would be charged to connect to the internet. A site like Google would have to be charged for their bandwidth. And a site like Google would be charged yet again by the individual ISPs to allow end user access. Getting rid of net neutrality would be a huge cash cow.
While I agree that I would love to see more competition in the broadband market, that would not fix this problem. All ISPs would want to partake in that triple dipping. The fact that there are five ISPs or a million would not change that desire to triple dip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then why do the neutrality laws with phones work so well? If there was no phone neutrality, you'd pay for your phone service. And when you called someone, you'd pay his carrier. And if your call passed through any third party carriers, you'd have to pay them too.
That's what the telcos and the cable companies want to do. They want to decide who gets to go through to the end user to make everyone pay again and again. See my post above for more information.
And your argument could be used against criminal laws too. Why pass criminal laws? Why should murder be illegal? Let the market work out who should be alive and dead. Please explain why that's wrong without dipping into some subjective morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Civil (versus Criminal) laws are the same; even more so because it's far less often the case that society can't function unless this or that civil offense is coded into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Phone companies have never needed to improve on their infrastructure because the service they offer hasn't changed. It works "good enough" for its purpose. You can't compare neutrality laws for phone service with that of internet service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The infrastructure and underlying technology has made great strides toward various service/economic goals.
Assumption is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
i disagree. dialup internet access changed the landscape for rediential phone service forever.
they didn't have caller ID 50 years ago. centrally stored voicemail didn't exist 50 years ago. 911 is not 50 years old. the mobile phone is not a 50 year old invention either.
innovation is necessary even when you have a monopoly, because that is how you justify raising prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can service providers get away with providing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. What's being discussed is the elimination of discriminatory regulations set up to favor one company. In other words, allowing competition to use the same space as the incumbents. That does not mean letting companies "do what they want". That's a ridiculous assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition Isn't Enough
If I had four more Verizons or Comcasts in my area, they'd simply all agree to the a lot of the same habits in order for the better interest of them all.
They'd all be fighting equally to throttle certain types of traffic and punish "heavy users" like myself.
Our capitalist system isn't just a blind free-for-all. Competitors strike deals with each other all the time to control their market for the better of them all.
And I think that's all we'd have with increased competition and no net neutrality.
Different sign up deals, different speed promises. Standard throttling and heavy user punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google take over
GOOGLE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
or congress (the senate) not the house...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google take over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may not change the desire, but it does change the ability. I'm going to use the ISP that doesn't triple dip. There's a lot more chance for that one (or five) to exist out of ten companies, than there is out of two.
Then why do the neutrality laws with phones work so well?
Are there actually laws? I don't know, but I think it's more like the market. If AT&T wants to triple dip as you're describing, I'm going to use Sprint or Qwest.
And your argument could be used against criminal laws too. Why pass criminal laws? Why should murder be illegal? Let the market work out who should be alive and dead. Please explain why that's wrong without dipping into some subjective morality.
What? What the hell?? I don't even know what to say. I didn't say there should be no laws. You have drawn my opinion about endless regulation of communications to a very illogical conclusion. Think about all the regulations and subsidies that allow AT&T (DSL) or Comcast (cable) to be my only choices for broadband and try to draw equivalents to criminal law. I dare you. Try to have a little rationality, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, there are actually laws, and they empower FCC regulations. As for going to a different phone company, that's an option the vast majority don't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make the Central Offices Wholesale only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Central Offices Wholesale - Not an Assumption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's give them all a big tax break
You can’t trust big corporations, trickle down does not work, never will. I’m not saying we have to punish them, just make the rules to keep them in line, they will not do it on their own. Time has proven this again and again.
PS: I didn’t mean to get to far off the subject of this thread, but I just couldn’t help but notice the similarities. Anyway, I hope whoever gets into the white house, repeals the oil company tax cut and actually re-institutes the windfall profits tax on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why can't they...
For instance, cable in my city runs along the same poles that electric does. Those poles and land belong to the City, i.e. the residents of the city. Right now, to have cable internet, I have to purchase cable television also, which is crap as it doubles my bill for something I don't want and don't use. But the only real alternative is the DSL that crappy in this town and the wireless that's even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't be this stupid, right?
I love these "we just need competition" droolers. They always seem to forget one VERY IMPORTANT FACT. In order to provide these services the companies involved must use PUBLIC/PRIVATE property, be it wired or wireless.
So, to just let the market decide is quite frankly impossible since your ALWAYS talking about PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. Hence why you want regulations, part of the telecommunications act forced providers to sell their infrastructure at cost was a step in the right direction but then corruption seeped and it was "decided" cable companies were different. Guess cable companies claim the used magic tubes to send their signal.
Until the day comes where telephone, power, cable, etc companies have to pay property owners, or in the case of wireless all those within broadcasting range of the signal for use of THEIR property/airwaves the little fairy tale that is "free market" only exist in the minds of the deluded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadband Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
franchise clarity
The AT&T driven state-wide franchises passed in 19 states simply eliminate most municipal oversight and fast tracks AT&T roll-outs to the communities of their choosing. In two years of state franchises - this 'compeition' has not resulted in lower prices nor better services - anywhere.
Finally - if you're concerned about affordable and competitive internet access - you should be looking at the FCC and the Supreme Court's 2005 "Brand X" decision. This decision effectively deregulated cable broadband internet service and as a result eliminated most small providers. If anything has impacted on the loss of real competition and the greater concentration of ownership - it was this decision.
Unpacking the Brand X Decision
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/jun/1158573.htm
No Quarter for the Time Warner Bandwidth Rationing Plan
http://saveaccess.org/node/2195
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: franchise clarity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACT BROADBAND
[ link to this | view in chronology ]