Posted by: Joan Marsh on September 20, 2010 at 3:08 pm
The GAO recently released a report on competition in the wireless industry. The report was overwhelmingly a good news story for American consumers. First, and most importantly, the report contained a wealth of data confirming that the wireless marketplace is effectively competitive. For example, it found that there are more than 140 facilities-based companies offering wireless services, with four national carriers, many “small and regional carriers of various sizes,” and at least 60 MVNOs, including Tracfone.
The report also found that usage of wireless services is exploding, both in voice (from 250 minutes per month in 2000 to 750 minutes per month in 2007) and in data. And yet the average overall price for wireless services has steadily declined over the past decade, with the report finding that average prices declined by 50%. So, consumers in the U.S. are generally getting more wireless services for lower costs.
Despite all this good news, some cited the report as evidence that dark clouds are gathering, particularly in the area of consolidation. But let’s be clear – consolidation simply means that carriers have increased their geographic scope and thus increased their scale economies and efficiencies. And while this undoubtedly has placed additional competitive pressures on all carriers, competition benefits consumers and drives the very price decreases that the report found laudable. Let’s also not forget that each and every one of these deals was found by the FCC, after a rigorous review, to be in the public interest.
Read More 
Posted by: Margaret Boles on September 13, 2010 at 12:21 pm
It’s been five years since the term net neutrality entered the lexicon of beltway banter. Five long years of discussion, debate and disagreement, and guess what? We are surprisingly where we began – squabbling over an issue that means different things to different people. The only constant is that, like most things in Washington, net neutrality has been based on winners and losers – as if there is some sort of mythical scorekeeper keeping tally.
Let’s be clear. The real winners should be American consumers. However, what real consumers want has often taken a back seat to the political rancor. That’s why we decided to personally reiterate to consumers our long-standing commitment to them and a set of standards geared towards addressing their needs.
Read More
Posted by: Bob Quinn on September 9, 2010 at 10:00 am
As the dog days of Summer 2010 wind down and we begin the inexorable march towards Halloween, the Great Pumpkin and beyond, I have been thinking about the interesting places the net neutrality debate took us this summer.
We began the summer with FCC Chairman Genachowski proposing the Third Way to, in his words, “restore the broadly supported status quo consensus that existed prior to [the Comcast/BitTorrent decision].”
We endured the hand wringing by so-called public interest groups over the Chairman’s efforts to forge a compromise solution to this endless debate, the hyperventilating over the Google/Verizon proposal on net neutrality, and the disapproval of the Chairman’s desire to seek more information before making any critical decisions.
Now, Labor Day has come and gone and finally the hazy smoke of the DC Summer sun has cleared to reveal the three “must haves” those groups feel they must have to preserve their version of an open Internet:
- Some form of prior ban on paid prioritization services over Broadband Internet Access service;
- FCC authority designed to ensure the “robustness” of broadband Internet Access service in perpetuity; and
- Identical net restrictions for wireline and wireless services.
The real eye opener to me though was how far this debate has wandered from the status quo that Chairman Genachowski described at the beginning of Summer (being praised for his efforts by these same folks). And, in fact, it is still being praised.
Indeed when you examine these three new “must haves” from the NetRoots crowd, you realize that even full-blown monopoly-style Title II regulation would not give the FCC the authority to do what these folks now seem to think is essential. And I begin to wonder whether Chairman Genachowski is starting to feel a little like Charlie Brown as NetRoots Lucy keeps pulling the football away from him just as he is about to kick it.
Now, if we look more closely at these three “must haves”, you’ll see what I mean (and once again I’m going to apologize in advance for my detour into arcane telecom jargon).
Read More
