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 Thu, 2009-07-23 21:00
Choice, having the benefit of a selection of different alternatives to choose from, springs from the risk and opportunity of market competition -- not from Government economic regulation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-07-20 11:04
Kudos to Steve Pociask of the American Consumer Institute for his research reminding regulators that American consumers enjoy the most competitive, useful, and innovative wireless market in the world.
In reviewing the stats that matter most, the U.S. is far ahead of the rest of the world.
We constantly hear from anti-competition forces that competition doesn't work.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-16 12:08
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-09 16:19
The supreme irony of the special access* issue is that competitors, who want to avoid investing in next generation broadband access facilities, are demanding that the FCC... (whose top priority is a National Broadband Plan to encourage the rapid build-out of modern broadband facilities to all Americans) ...regulate copper access prices in a way that surely would discourage investment in the exact next generation facilities that the FCC wants to get built.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-07-06 16:45
The DOJ has opened an initial review of the telecom industry, per WSJ reports, as part of the Obama Administration's and the Varney Antitrust Division's "aggressive stance on antitrust enforcement."
Antitrust enforcement is fact-driven, since it ultimately must be proven in court. The competitive facts in the telecom industry will speak for themselves; the industry is clearly and overtly competitive and trending more competitive.
This review will not be difficult or take long since the DOJ has vast and deep experience with the U.S. telecom industry -- having overseen the AT&T Consent Decree 1984-1996, been intimately involved with the drafting and implementation of the 1996 Telecom Act including the detailed development of local competition and Bell entry into long distrance. The DOJ also has reviewed and approved a number of telecom mergers over the last several years, most recently the approval of Verizon-Alltel and Centurytel and Embarq.
Moreover, the DOJ will examine the telecom marketplace to see if it exhibits the core characteristics of a competitive market:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-07-01 15:13
Handset marketing exclusives are a pro-competitive wellspring of wireless growth and broadband adoption. Marketing exclusives are also a legitimate, proven and widespread marketing practice that marshals maximum marketing resources for selected, potentially-hot-new-products in order to drive maximum sales and adoption.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-06-25 09:26
A new coalition of some struggling broadband competitors, NoChokePoints.org, is making claims that the "special access" market is being "choked" by lack of competition and is urging the FCC to reverse course and regulate lower prices for these competitors.
To solve this controversy and determine who is actually "choking," or holding up whom, I thought it would be instructive and interesting to consider how the beloved TV detective Columbo would apply his common sense questioning to get to the bottom of this whodunit.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-05-13 12:19
The latest wireless statistics submitted to the FCC today show that the U.S. leads the OECD in wireless competition, use and price; the U.S. is not falling behind.
The CTIA study is based on Merrill Lynch's research of OECD data. Please read the report's summary findings below:
"The price per minute of service in the United States is the lowest of the 26 OECD countries tracked by Merrill Lynch.
Consumers in the United States have the highest minutes of use per month of the 26 OECD countries tracked by Merrill Lynch.
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: