Richard wrote: "They want cable and telco to pull fiber and then wholesale
it to ISPs at or below cost." Every unbundling proposal I can think of,
specifically including U.S. UNE's, is defined with a generous return on
capital.
I'm not very optimistic about unbundling affecting most U.S. consumers
because I think the scale the carriers now have in TV,voice, Internet
connectivity, and operations make it extremely difficult for unbundling to
work in the U.S.
but the specific question Richard - and Jules Genachowski - have to
answer is, "If we find monopoly like-pricing unacceptable, what alternative
do you offer?"
Currently, Verizon, Comcast and their peers are charging $100 for high
speeds that cost $50 and less in France, England, and Vermont. To me, that
is pretty good evidence competition is weak and prices could be much lower.
I'm willing to accept that competition might work in low
speeds/wireless, because 300 megahertz is enough for 10 networks like
Verizon's LTE. V & T are pulling away from the others so successfully it
will probably require strong government action to protect competition for
that to work, and at least through 2013-2015 U.S. wireless prices will be
somewhat higher than if we had strong competition. I'm not happy, but
waiting that long is not off-the-wall.
But unless someone sees something that will bring prices for
highspeed/wired connections, I feel something must be done.
Richard, are you really an advocate of strong regulation and probably
price-fixing for high speeds? Or do you have a better way to reduce
monopoly-like prices?
db
