Chairman Wheeler chose the 1776 start-up incubator office as the backdrop for his comments Thursday that outline a new agenda for big telecom: Competition, Competition, Competition.
IDG News Service Grant Gross reported on the chairman’s comments.
“At the low end of throughput … the majority of Americans have a choice of only two providers,” Wheeler said. “That is what economists call a duopoly, a marketplace that is typically characterized by less than vibrant competition.”
Wheeler unveiled a new broadband competition agenda, which charges the FCC to:
- Protect competition – including generally opposing merger efforts…
- Encourage competition – including opening up new spectrum…
- Work to create new competitors – in a place where “meaningful” competition is not available.
Time magazine’s Haley Sweetland Edwards wrote that critics will believe it when they see it:
But it seemed to some consumer advocates to be disingenuous in a climate where the FCC is widely expected approve of a massive planned merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable in the next six months.“The real proof will be in the agency’s actions and not just its speeches,” wrote advocacy group Free Press’ policy director, Matt Wood, in a prepared statement.
The Switch’s Brian Fung noted that Wheeler kept specifics to a minimum but,
“He emphasized that the FCC would continue extending broadband to rural areas by supporting “whomever steps up to the challenge” — a veiled reference to competitive entities, such as city governments, seeking to challenge large, incumbent ISPs.”
Last week’s FCC deadline for Chattanooga, TN and Wilson, NC petitions made for a treasure trove of broadband-related media hits last weekend and into this week.
First things first, we’ve said it before and we’ll say it again. Allan Holmes with the Center for Public Integrity wrote a must-read. “How Big Telecom Smothers City-Run Broadband” is insightful, in-depth, and really explains how we’ve gotten to where we are now in this national fight.
Ellis Smith offers a human element to this issue:
When Joyce Coltrin looks outside the front door of her wholesale plant business, her gaze stops at a spot less than a half mile away.
All she can do is stare in disbelief at the spot in rural Bradley County where access to EPB’s fiber-optic service abruptly halts, as mandated under a Tennessee law that has frozen the expansion of the fastest Internet in the Western Hemisphere.
And Dominic Rushe of The Guardian quotes our own Chris Mitchell:
It’s a story that is being watched very closely by Big Cable’s critics. “In DC there is often an attitude that the only way to solve our problems is to hand them over to big business. Chattanooga is a reminder that the best solutions are often local and work out better than handing over control to Comcast or AT&T to do whatever they want with us.”
On Friday, USTelecom, which represents the Big Cable Duopoly wrote wrote a little blog post on the subject, The Inquisitr.com helped translate:
“If cities are allowed to expand their own broadband, it could force Comcast and Time Warner to stop practices like data throttling that squeeze businesses, such as Netflix that have grown successful playing by the rules. Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast a toll to keep from losing additional customers over the black hat practice of slowing down content that users are already paying for.”
The Verge’s Jacob Kastrenakes covered the filing and blog post. He states that the industry giants argue the FCC simply doesn’t have the power to preempt state law.
While USTelecom is right that some public broadband networks have turned into blunders, many have been incredibly successful and have actually proven to be legitimate competitors to private networks.
AT&T filed its petition Friday as well, arguing that municipal networks should not be given tax breaks, but of course they make no such claim for companies like themselves.
Ars Technica’s Jon Brodkin wrote about the doublespeak Tuesday:
“’Community broadband networks “should not receive any preferential tax treatment,” AT&T argued. Only private companies should be given special treatment, the company said. “Indeed, any tax incentives or exemptions should be provided, if at all, to private sector firms to induce them to expand broadband deployment to unserved areas,’ AT&T wrote.”
Several other journalists echoed his reporting.
IDG News Service’s Grant Gross reported on several petitioners, including Todd Patton, of North Carolina:
“There is very little competition for broadband services in most areas today, leaving consumers at the mercy of a small handful of huge multi-national corporations like Time Warner Cable and AT&T to raise prices as they see fit,” he wrote. “Municipal broadband offers consumers an affordable choice and often at higher speeds than the big corporations choose to offer.”
The Electronista and Brittany Hillen from Smash Gear noted that AT&T argues that allowing muni networks to exist would make private companies operate at a disadvantage.
Meanwhile, Sam Gustin from Motherboard spoke with one tech expert that noted the irony:
“You almost have to admire AT&T’s chutzpah in saying that, given the concessions they wrung out of communities over the years for promised AT&T broadband deployments that never even materialized,” said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran tech policy expert who supports community broadband initiatives.
AT&T reported more than $18 billion in net income in 2013. . .
Brad Reed from BGR’s story got picked up by YahooNews. He wrote that AT&T argued it simply shouldn’t have to compete with municipal broadband networks in places where they offer 6Mbps or greater, “even if the municipal network would deliver speeds of 1Gbps or higher for it’s users.”
And DSLReports added a little history to the mix, reminding us of AT&T’s polls that insinuated that muni networks would result in pornography and government rationing of TV usage.
AT&T wasn’t the only company that filed a letter to the FCC. Netflix also joined the preemption fray. The streaming giant filed its comments Tuesday, saying,
“Federal preemption is appropriate when state laws unduly interfere with municipal broadband.”
Because we follow the good, the bad, and the ugly, we have to mention some misguided politicians with the National Association of Governors.
RBR.com (which regards itself as “The Voice of the Broadcasting Industry”) brought up claims that state sovereignty is the real issue, and the “FCC has no right to supersede any federal, state, or local law.”
And Eric Boehm of Watchdog.org, an arm of the Center for public integrity noted:
“The local governments say they want to grow the taxpayer-funding, public Internet access to compete with Internet giants like Comcast.
Essentially, they are asking their biggest brother — the federal government — to back them up in a fight with their bigger brothers in state government.”
Again we note the double-speak. Boehm first argues that muni networks would be too difficult to compete with for private companies, and then calls them out as “boondoggles.” We encourage these organizations to at least try to get their stories straight before they hit the big red “publish” button.
A couple of cities are announcing their interest in city-owned broadband.
First posted in The Coloradoan and also covered by InnovationNews: Fort Collins city manager Darin Atteberry announced a Broadband Strategic Plan proposal as part of his 2015-2016 budget.
Atteberry said the proposal is in response to citizen comments about slow Internet speeds in the city and new, next-generation high-speed Internet services becoming available across the nation.
More Syracuse officials are announcing their support of a city-owned network. Nader Maroun, a Syracuse Common Council member says Syracuse MetroNet has been actively involved in researching how a network could be run in the city:
Significantly, this municipal network would not involve any local public funding nor would it be built and managed by the city. Instead it would be created by a new nonprofit organization specifically tasked for this purpose. Since Dr. Nulty’s study, we have been exploring ways in which such a network might be financed, built and managed.