"Competition in Cable TV" is working!

The New York Times' editorial board seems stuck in a time 1992 time warp in its "Competition in Cable TV" editorial that nonsensically disagrees with the DC Appeals Court for having the good sense to see what everyone can see -- that there is very active competition for video service in the U.S.  

The New York Times acts like it is still 1992, that since then nothing has happened, and that the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Telecom Act didn't succeed wildly in promoting competition.

Thank goodness the DC Court of Appeals considers facts and is in touch with the reality of "Competition in Cable TV." 

• 32 million Americans get video service from a cable competitor: DBS providers DirecTV and Echostar, telcos Verizon and AT&T, or overbuilder RCN.
• Cable has earned 38 million new broadband subscribers -- a completely new service since the 1992 or 1996 Acts.
• Cable has earned 18 million new telephony subscribers, an entirely new service for cable, since the 1992 or 1996 acts.
• Cable also has invested in Clearwire to create a fifth national wireless broadband provider.
• And America's cable industry is the only one in the world that has built out a nationwide fiber-coax infrastructure increasingly capable of 50 MBs of broadband speed.

And that's not competition?!   

It seems like The New York Times editorial board needs to get out and about more, a lot has changed since 1992 when they apparently last went outside.

• If they would just look at the advertisements for competitive video/broadband/voice offerings in their:
  • own newspaper, and others;
  • on TV;
  • online; or
  • on the radio... they would see the constant and fierce daily battle for video/broadband/voice customers.