Yes, competition in terribly lacking, but the key assumption is that consumers could and would switch to NN-respecting ISPs in a functioning market.
I'm not so convinced - for one, NN matters to entrepreneurs as well as consumers. If a lot of consumers don't switch to NN ISPs, the next YouTube is going to be unable to reach as many viewers. And I don't think we should assume that people will flock to NN ISPs. For one, people may not realize it importance. The less paternalistic reason is that the switching cost is not minimal and there could be lock-in (cognizant, financial, technical, or network) that limit the ability to switch, regardless of the number of ISPs available. On 5/5/10, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> http://www.multichannel.com/article/452161-Competition_Not_Neutrality_Is_Key.php > > > Competition, Not Neutrality, Is Key > > > By Bruce Kushnick > > 5/3/2010 12:01:00 AM > > > A recent court decision ruled (with caveats) that the Federal > Communications Commission did not have the authority over the cable > companies’ Internet service provisioning, and the complications known > as net neutrality (NN), such as blocking or in some way limiting a > customer’s service. Unfortunately, NN is simply a failure of a market > without adequate competition. > > Our focus has been dragged away from the real issue, the > infrastructure. There are phone and cable wires in homes and > businesses, etc. Those wires should allow someone to pick and choose > the services over that wire, and if their Internet or broadband > provider blocks or degrades their service, the customer can find > another provider. Instead, there are only two providers in most > markets with the same collusive conditions — block all competition. > You can’t go elsewhere. > > Thus, even if the net-neutrality issue was “cured” by the FCC, the > problems are much deeper and they would still continue to plague > America’s broadband, Internet and phone customers. > > The underlying problem is that the phone and cable companies have > taken control of America’s critical infrastructure . And under their > control over the last 25 years, they’ve failed to adequately upgrade > the infrastructure. America is now 15th in the world in broadband, and > now every plan is about “workarounds” of the incumbents or filling > ”deployment” holes left from the companies’ incompetence — or, more > realistically, greed — over public interest. > > And it wasn’t because AT&T, Verizon Communications, et. al. didn’t > receive financial incentives. The phone companies made massive > commitments to rewire entire states, schools, libraries, etc., and > received billions per state to do these upgrades — yet, the work was > never done. We estimate the companies already received $320 billion > and counting, as the companies continue to get phone rate increases to > pay for fiber optics and other services. > > Not only was the money to be used to upgrade the states’ utilities, > the Public Switched Telephone Networks (PSTN), pocketed by the > companies, but just to show you how sleight-of-hand this “broadband > network” discussion goes, AT&T is now claiming that there are really > two different networks — the old PSTN and the new shiny “broadband > network.” > > In fact, AT&T has filed with the FCC to start to close down the PSTN. > It claims it is a drain on broadband investment. > > It’s absurd on its face because there is really only one phone network > — the PSTN , or state utilities — and we at the New Networks Institute > believe it has been hijacked illegally. It was the utilities that were > supposed to be upgraded to fi ber optics. It was the utilities that > were opened to all forms of competition by the Telecom Act and state > laws and it is the utilities that are currently funding Verizon and > AT&T’s new networks in the form of increasing phone rates. > > And yet, over 25 years, there’s been a total failure to properly > upgrade these utilities. The failure is clear; we’re 15th in the world > in broadband for a reason — and after 25 years of AT&T and Verizon’s > rule, we sit here today and are bickering about net neutrality. > > Opening the networks in a traditional way will not solve the current > problems. While the break up of AT&T in 1984 was to open the long > distance markets, the Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to open the > “last” mile — opening up the PSTN to local competition, Internet > competition, in fact, even video competition. And while the Telecom > Act giveth, under pressure from the phone companies, these networks > were closed. But, the “era of competition” proved that the phone > companies would do everything in their power to keep controls over > their wires, so simply reopening the networks will not bring robust > and sustainable competition. > > Maybe it’s time to give AT&T what it wants — AT&T, Verizon, you keep > the “broadband networks,” and we’ll keep and properly finally upgrade > the PSTN to what was already paid for — fiber optic, very fast, > reasonably priced, ubiquitous, open-to-all networks . > > Bruce Kushnick is executive director of the New Networks Institute. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Sent from my mobile device Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
