dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Study Author Thinks Agency Wimped Out On Open Access
And U.S. consumers will pay high price because of it...

Last October the FCC released an FCC-commissioned study from the Harvard University's Berkman Center. That study found that in countries where "an engaged regulator" enforced open access obligations, robust competition and lower prices were usually the result. As you might expect, incumbent carriers spent the next six months trashing the study -- and when the FCC's broadband plan dropped last week, not only was open access nowhere in it, the plan didn't even really address the nation's uncompetitive duopoly.

Comments several weeks earlier made by plan architect Blair Levin seem to indicate that Levin lacked the political and legal stomach for the fight that would erupt between government and the nation's carriers. The author of the original open-access Harvard study, Yochai Benkler, over the weekend penned an editorial for the New York Times. In it, Benkler notes that the FCC's broadband plan failed to address competition, ignored open access, and failed to address fading telco copper infrastructure. The result, according to Benkler, is going to be a cable-dominated U.S. broadband future where high prices continue:
quote:
But without a strong commitment to open access, things will get worse. Because of the high price of laying their own next-generation fiber optics, would-be competitors like AT&T and Qwest have largely abandoned their goal of bringing fiber to the home, leaving the highest-speed tiers to the cable companies. Those companies aren’t keeping their excitement quiet: a recent Time-Warner investor briefing touted the company’s ability to set higher prices in markets in which its potential competitors provide only DSL services.
Benkler goes on to note that while the FCC's plan does help with transparency, that's obviously not going to be a miracle cure for competitive issues. He also notes that Levin's unwillingness to make a tough stand against carriers on open access means we're simply tacking decorations on to an entrenched monopoly system -- "lodging an insurmountable obstacle in the path" toward better, cheaper, faster U.S. broadband networks.
view:
topics flat nest 
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Need to use the old Long Distance Model

We need a Broadband Common Carrier Company to carry the data stream to the home and businesses. We need entertainment companies and ISP's to provide internet access and other services to end users. Any company wanting to provide services to homes or businesses would contract with the Broadband Common Carrier to give them access to the carriers subscribers. This was the way the telephone companies acted as common carriers for the Dial Up ISP's.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

FCC dances to masters in Congress

The FCC wasn't about to put Open Access in their broadband plan when the congresscritters that oversee them tells them that has no chance of passing or even getting thru committee. To go against their masters to make some point or apply pressure would just get the people who control the FCC budget mad at them. And bureaucrats who wish to have a career after the FCC aren't going to do that.

Yochai Benkler, the study's author, probably has a tenured position at Harvard and doesn't care who gets mad at him. Those he criticized at the FCC aren't as lucky and are acting in their own best interests. Those who think bureaucrats will operate in the public's interest don't understand bureaucratic thinking.

Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR

Ericthorn

Premium Member

Monopoly anyone?

I happen to live in an area where until recently, we had one provider for internet. We live off of an AT&T backbone, but there was no option for AT&T DSL, even though they provide the service to our provider (I pay 60$/mo for a 2mb/512k). In the last year or so, AT&T put up a CO here, and now people are flocking to it if they are in range. They're offering a 6mg/512k for 40$, and lower speeds at lower prices based on where you are (dsl range). If they put 1 or 2 more CO's here, the local provider would be out of business on the internet side. Isn't that what competition is about? Provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price, and we buy?

The only thing that comes to mind was way back when AT&T owned landlines (the baby bells, etc?), and they broke them up. I'm pretty sure local monopolies will never be challenged, and that is unfortunate. Small town America will continue to be screwed for years to come. It's an 80/20 rule. They'll provide 80% of what they can in the big cities to get a return, and shaft the other 20% for the bigger return to offset it.

Sucks, but that's the reality our government and the FCC has let happen. I could move 30 miles over, and get 10mg down and I don't care what up for less money because that town has 3 providers all bidding for business, one of them being FTTC.

Pashune
Caps stifle innovation
Premium Member
join:2006-04-14
Gautier, MS

1 edit

Pashune

Premium Member

Re: Monopoly anyone?

Click for full size
said by Ericthorn:

We live off of an AT&T backbone
I wonder if that explains the very poor speeds paragould.net provides; I think I'd go insane.

You guys didn't even get a CO until recently? If that's so, then does that mean there was no phone service? Maybe you meant there wasn't a DSLAM/RT nearby?

I still can't believe your Cable co. (or town in this case) actually gets away with such mediocre speed offerings.

My town is even smaller (less than 12,000) but AT&T DSL and CableOne internet (I have 5 mbit) have both been available to me for years.

Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR

Ericthorn

Premium Member

Re: Monopoly anyone?

The speeds are there, with AT&T providing 6mg DSL as of late. Paragould just doesn't pay for the bandwidth for its customers. Paragould.net just recently negotiated with AT&T for more bandwidth, and we're supposed to start being offered new packages. My 60$/mo for 2mg will go to about 65$/mo for 4mg, but since I've been living with 2mg for 6yrs now, I will downgrade a tier to keep the 2mg and save money, and tell them to shove that 65$ up their you know what.

And yes, I probably have my terminology mixed up. SBC was the landline provider here (back when I had a landline) about 4yrs ago (and I don't think they provided DSL of any kind at that time). If memory serves AT&T bought them and is now the service provider here.

I get sick every time I see a speedtest result in the town (Jonesboro) 30 miles over and they're getting 5-10mg down packages for less that what I pay.

Pashune
Caps stifle innovation
Premium Member
join:2006-04-14
Gautier, MS

Pashune

Premium Member

Re: Monopoly anyone?

My ISP used to buy bandwidth from AT&T, hence back then all I could afford was 3 mbit and their 5 mbit tier was $20 more. They switched over to Level3 a little over a year ago and they now offer up to 10 mbit for just $4 more than what I'm paying for now (3 mbit package is now gone; only 1.5, 5, and 10 exist for res. packages).

In your review you said you were going to test out AT&T DSL; have you done that yet?

Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR

Ericthorn

Premium Member

Re: Monopoly anyone?

Unfortunately no - I finally got a rep on the line who seemed to have some intelligence. When I enter my address without the unit/apt #, it says I qualify for the 6mg package, but when I enter my unit/apt #, the best I can get is basic with is 768k down. If they could just get a little more coverage in this town....

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Camaro

Premium Member

In a perfect world

Yes everyone's idea so far has been right but the problem is even if there is a million of us banging down the FCC door for reform,we are ants compared to there BILLIONS,and that will never change just a sad ugly fact we have to live with.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: In a perfect world

said by Camaro:

Yes everyone's idea so far has been right but the problem is even if there is a million of us banging down the FCC door for reform,we are ants compared to there BILLIONS,and that will never change just a sad ugly fact we have to live with.
Except those BILLIONS actually come from consumers and will be flowing away from the substandard service of the telcos to the cable companies.
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

Just a question of influence...

The telcos/carriers contributed enough money to election campaigns and "gifts" to people in the right places to get the FCC to see things in favor of the telcos/carriers. Nothing new or surprising here. People used to think that the new administration would be consumer friendly, but it's just business as usual with contributions and "gifts" from the usual companies to get what they want.

Elected officials are far more interested in staying in office through gifts and election contributions from businesses and the super-rich than they are in doing anything to help the people that elected them.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

The Real

The main problem is the FCC's lack of authority. Obama needs to reform the FCC to give them unquestionable (by the carriers) power to enact rules that can't be taken to court. But unfortunately Obama may simply be unwilling to spend political capital on addressing something as "low-priority" as broadband. The previous administration simply left too many other domestic issues unaddressed. Now that healthcare is on its final victory lap, I hear Obama's next main agenda issue is addressing illegal aliens and immigration. I imagine the FCC won't be considered, if at all, until his next term as president, assuming he wins again.

FLATLINE
join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY

FLATLINE

Member

Its almost time for us to push back and hard!

Im thinking we should make Blair Levin famous. Go on a compaign to make sure everyone knows he was just another pussy willing to sacrafice the well being of hard working Americans than to stand up to some of the greediest bastards we have ever seen.

Were only going to sit back for so long. Its getting to the point where we decide to push back. When we do its not going to be pretty and all those greedy bastards not just within the cable internet industry but all industry where greedy self serving jerks reside will lose everything. Why? Because were just going to straight up take it.

I cant believe we are still even talking about this. Internet is todays telephone. What they did with the telephone years ago needs to be done today. Whether you believe it or not. Broadband internet is our right. Its as essential as any other utility and to have it turn into one big money grab is sickening.