You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-08-21 18:45
The data and evidence show that broadband is not a public utility warranting economic regulation of prices, terms and conditions; this is contrary to the assertions of net neutrality proponents: the Markey-Eshoo Bill, FreePress, the Open Internet Coalition, and Google's Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, among others.
Why is broadband not a public utility?
First, it is a competitive service, not a natural monopoly service.
A public utility presumes "natural monopoly" economics where economies of scale and scope preclude the possibility of competitive facilities/services.
Second, users have choice of access providers.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-06-30 12:23
Comcast-Clearwire's 4G WiMax rollout starting in Portland today, as part of broader national launch this year, is powerful evidence of the vibrancy and dynamism of the facilities-based broadband competition trajectory in the U.S.
Contrary to the parade of imperfection horribles claimed by anti-competition groups to try and justify a wide variety of new net neutrality-related regulations, the U.S. has more real and growing facilities-based broadband competition than any nation in the world.
The Comcast announcement provides powerful proof points of all the good aspects of vibrant facilities-based competition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-04-30 13:51
First quarter financial results prove that the success of the broadband sector's facilities-based competition, is an exceptionally strong foundation on which to build a National Broadband Strategy. (See 1Q09 results: AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, companies are listed by revenue size.) The results show:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-03-17 13:34
A post by a Google policy analyst yesterday attempted to make the economic case for open access in the U.S. and suggested reasons why American infrastructure providers should embrace a mandated open network model. This proposed theory warrants a strong practical rebuttal. This proposed case for the economics of open access does not hold up to close scrutiny, because it has fatal flaws in both logic and economics.
I. The fatal flaw in logic in the case for the economics of open access:
Since the post assumes broadband markets everywhere are basically the same, it concludes that the open access experience in some European countries is relevant and applicable to the U.S. situation. The fatal flaw in logic here is the core assumption that European and U.S. markets are factually analogous. They are not. They are substantially different factually and structurally as I will explain in detail.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-02-19 18:03
Markets and competition work!
Congress wisely appreciated that encouraging and respecting private investment and inter-modal broadband competition is critical to:
Even in a severe recession, Comcast and Verizon are proof that companies will make private investments to expand broadband speeds and access, if their capital is welcome, and the government does not discourage investment and deployment by forcing open access network sharing and mandated net neutrality in the absence of any definable or measurable problem.
Comcast announced today that it "plans to reach more than 30 million homes with faster speeds," and is "doubling speeds for most existing customers for no additional charge" in 2009.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-02-03 18:45
To the extent the FCC is fair and remains focused on encouraging competition and innovation, Comcast's response to the FCC staff's latest inquiry -- asking for clarification of Comcast's reasonable network management practices-- should largely put this particular matter to rest.
I am writing about this from a Net Competition perspective, because this isolated staff inquiry appears to:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-10-22 19:06
The professional complainers who assert there is little broadband competition, or that the U.S. is falling behind on broadband, will no doubt ignore the indisputable facts -- that Comcast just announced major speed upgrades for most of its users and a new set of superfast or wideband tiers for high-end users.
The Comcast DCOSIS 3.0 upgrade will "enable Comcast to double speeds for the majority of existing high-speed customers at no additional cost."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-09-09 09:15
Invited to speak at the ITIF forum on ITIF's white paper: "It's Time to End the Broadband Policy Wars" -- I so strongly disagreed with the framing bias of that white paper and the broadband policy debate in general that I decided I needed to counter it by writing my own white paper:
The abstract of my six page paper is below:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-08-29 12:23
FreePress is making another big strategic mistake in screaming "artificial scarcity!" in a crowded and congested Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-08-21 18:48
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the FCC's order on Comcast's network management practices, reined in the net neutrality movement much more than it advanced their agenda.
At its rawest level, the chest-beating petitioners got the FCC to: reiterate what the FCC has long said it would do, and also order Comcast to do what Comcast already publicly committed to do.
How does the FCC Comcast decision limit Net Neutrality?
First, the petition proved the existing system/process works -- seriously undermining any legitimate rationale for new net neutrality legislation or regulation. (Unfortunately, for the neutralists, the public takeaway from the resolution of this petition was not that legislation is needed, but that there is a government process in place more than able to handle consumers' concerns.)