Updated with comment from FCC below. When the appointment was announced, consumer advocates had some questions over whether new Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn was going to be another in a long-line of baby bell pushover Commissioners. But since starting her tenure at the FCC, she's actually shown herself to be both tough and savvy to the ways of the telecom sector. She's recently done things like pointing out the hypocrisy of minority ant-net-neutrality astroturf (try asking Joe Public what that is), hammering Verizon for high ETFs and their phantom $1.99 fee, and most recently criticizing the sector's lack of competition and high prices (pdf).

Clyburn is planning to continue her criticism of high prices and limited competition when she appears this week before the House Energy & Commerce Committee. While her full testimony is not yet publicly available, a leaked copy obtained by cable operator trade mags indicates that Clyburn plans to highlight recent Time Warner Cable comments that the company raises broadband prices simply because they can. While honest discourse on the real state of competition is refreshing, Clyburn seems to be confused about what actually constitutes "competition":But assuming FCC data is right (and that's never a given given the agency has spent a decade using junk science), the agency's recent broadband plan noted that 78% of the public already has the choice of two providers. Of course a duopoly doesn't mean there's competition. In duopoly markets, massive phone and cable incumbents essentially stare at each other waiting for the next opportunity to raise broadband or TV prices, jack up ETFs, or impose the latest absurd fee. Sure, you'll see some competition on things like channel counts, but this "competition" is usually based largely on superficial perceptions of value, not price.

Carriers also lag on network upgrades if their sole competitor agrees an area isn't worth upgrading. For example, ask Time Warner Cable when they plan to upgrade markets like Binghamton or Rochester, New York -- where the only competition for the next five years (or more) will be last-generation DSL (Verizon and Frontier, respectively). Given Verizon is putting FiOS deployment on hold, and most other telcos plan on nursing copper for the next decade -- there's tens of millions of people living markets who won't be seeing next-generation broadband any time soon.

Of course for all of Clyburn's concerns, the FCC's broadband plan really doesn't address the problems created by these broadband duopolies. Much like they did with broadband over powerlines, some at the FCC are apparently hoping that fourth-generation wireless broadband steps in and magically creates extra layers of competition. Of course that extra layer of competition will be very expensive service, dominated by these same regional mono(duo)polies, which means it won't really be competition at all.

Update: Clyburn's advisor Rick Kaplan reaches out to us to note that the original trade magazine interpretation took some liberties with Clyburn's statement, which thankfully doesn't naturally equate two carriers with robust competition. "Commissioner Clyburn is not suggesting that the presence of two providers automatically makes competition robust," he says. "Rather, she is merely pointing out that when there is only one, even cable execs have said they won’t roll out new technologies." Here's her complete statement:It's refreshing to see a Commissioner understand that the majority of the problems in this sector stem from a lack of substantive competition. Cure competition, and you organically resolve a lot of other issues (network neutrality, predator pricing) without the need for additional regulation.