There is a post over at techdirt.com about the possibility of US government to create a policy that is similar to the one that was created to build roads and highways. The proposal is very interesting because the government would form a department that would lay out all the fiberoptic cable thorough out the nation. The problem is think about how the DOT (Department of Transportation) works, right now. All interstate highways, I believe, were created by the Federal government but the state highways are maintained by the states via Federal dollars. And to continue, the states shove money to the local government to improve those roads. It sounds like a not a big problem but it is if you think about it the problem. Most of the money tends to be spent creating all these different departments, and maintaining the personnel for them, before a dime is spent on the roads. What would make you think that it wouldn't happen again?
AT&T was one huge company that created smaller, or actually swallowed up smaller, companies in regions of the United States. They controlled the entire phone system. Since they were a monopoly, and some of their practices were shady, the gave the appearance to stop other companies from forming. One of the reasons were that they created the network of phone lines and switches that made up the phone system. They were, eventually, tried and found guilty of barring other companiesfrom entering the market using that monopolistic power. Thus, they were broken up into smaller bits and the government ruled that they had to lease the lines out to long distance companies. And that smaller local companies could come about and take care of the "last mile" line to the actual home. This allowed for competition.Until 1996, when Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In which, not only did he sell of federal control of the Internet to private companies. But he allowed telephone companies the ability to offer cable television services and cable companies to offer phone services. This supposedly created more competition. Of course, AT&T wasn't forced to charge fair market price but a price they wanted. So small phone companies started offering services but quickly started to lose money because AT&T jacked up that price. Soon they would go out of business. Where is MCI these days? There is less of a fear that if AT&T becomes a behomonth again that they will be the monopoly they once were. Why? Because local monopolistic cable companies exist and offer the same services.
What does this AT&T have to do with a National Broadband Policy? Well, think about how current cable broadband companies operate. They are not a huge cable company that owns entire regions of the cabled United States. They've done a great job of laying most of the infrastructure but in a local setting. And rather then dominate and entire county. Two or three companies tend to carve up the market between city/county lines. Or in some areas right down the middle of a county. This gives them not a monopoly but a duopoly with each side owned by a different company. It becomes harder for the US government to break them up stating that there is no competition, even though there is no real competition. Company A claims that Company B is their direct competitor. Even better are Satellite companies because they offer a "third" alternative. But there is no real competition because A and B have already decided not to play in each others backyard.
The US government wants more home wired and I applaud that. But creating an another bueacracy to acheive that goal is not the way to do it. We have already seen that in other places in the world that broadband speeds are higher than what the cable companies want to roll out. And that the cost of doing so will not be as expensive as the cable companies might say it would be. I even applaud the fact that at least someone is recognizing the "last mile" issue needs to be either home owners issue rather than the cable companies. What I would like to see happen is that a National Broadband policy recognize this but state to the cable companies, thanks for wiring most of the homes but it's time to go in a different direction.
Here's my list:
losing lost our technical edge in the wider community. The policy needs to be able a) spark true competition, b) create jobs (new companies), and c) make America the best in broadband penetration. But it needs to do this in such a way so that anti-competitive practices that have caused monopolies to be broken up don't exist at the cost expense of the taxpayer. Creating another beaucratic mess it not the way to do that.
AT&T was one huge company that created smaller, or actually swallowed up smaller, companies in regions of the United States. They controlled the entire phone system. Since they were a monopoly, and some of their practices were shady, the gave the appearance to stop other companies from forming. One of the reasons were that they created the network of phone lines and switches that made up the phone system. They were, eventually, tried and found guilty of barring other companiesfrom entering the market using that monopolistic power. Thus, they were broken up into smaller bits and the government ruled that they had to lease the lines out to long distance companies. And that smaller local companies could come about and take care of the "last mile" line to the actual home. This allowed for competition.
What does this AT&T have to do with a National Broadband Policy? Well, think about how current cable broadband companies operate. They are not a huge cable company that owns entire regions of the cabled United States. They've done a great job of laying most of the infrastructure but in a local setting. And rather then dominate and entire county. Two or three companies tend to carve up the market between city/county lines. Or in some areas right down the middle of a county. This gives them not a monopoly but a duopoly with each side owned by a different company. It becomes harder for the US government to break them up stating that there is no competition, even though there is no real competition. Company A claims that Company B is their direct competitor. Even better are Satellite companies because they offer a "third" alternative. But there is no real competition because A and B have already decided not to play in each others backyard.
The US government wants more home wired and I applaud that. But creating an another bueacracy to acheive that goal is not the way to do it. We have already seen that in other places in the world that broadband speeds are higher than what the cable companies want to roll out. And that the cost of doing so will not be as expensive as the cable companies might say it would be. I even applaud the fact that at least someone is recognizing the "last mile" issue needs to be either home owners issue rather than the cable companies. What I would like to see happen is that a National Broadband policy recognize this but state to the cable companies, thanks for wiring most of the homes but it's time to go in a different direction.
Here's my list:
- The broadband pipes do belong to the companies that laid them but they have, not should, to charge a fair price for access to them.
- The "last mile" belongs to the homeowner. If they need to be updated then a homeowner should receive some kind of tax credit to update them if needed since this will help the re-sell value of the home.
- Smaller local companies should be able to lease access to the broadband pipes. They would then re-sell this to the homeowner, at rate that is above the fair price so they can make money off of them. This could also spark competition between companies.
- Address the issue of all the dark fiber laying around unused that could be used to boost speed. This fiber was laid out but never used. Since the government gave tax credits to lay out the infrastructure then they should force the companies to use them at a fair price.
Powered by ScribeFire.
