Begin forwarded message:
From: "Joseph H. Weber" <jweber@xxxxxxxx>
Date: August 14, 2005 1:31:12 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ip Ip" <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 14, 2005 11:38:32 AM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Broadband Is Too Important to Be Left to
Cable-
Phone Duopoly
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as jweber@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/