Posted by: Jim Cicconi on July 27, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Amidst the flurry of blogs and op-eds on net neutrality, Title II and broadband reclassification that cross my desk on a daily basis, it was a welcome and refreshing change to read Paul Misener’s piece that ran in CNET last week.
Although I don’t agree with everything the vice president for global public policy at Amazon.com had to say (what do you mean network operators haven’t deployed innovative new services?), Paul does lay out a fair airing of the issues to help reach what some people think is an elusive middle ground.
I was particularly pleased to read Paul’s clear recognition that certain quality-of-service/network management practices by ISPs are not only necessary but in the best interest of consumers. I couldn’t agree more.
Read More 
Posted by: Joan Marsh on May 20, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Occasionally, a conclusion is reached that is so unhinged from the facts that it defies explanation. So it is with the 14th Edition of the Mobile Wireless Competition Report released today by the FCC.
Actually, it was not a conclusion in this case that baffles, but the lack of one. After reviewing an extensive record that demonstrates robust and even cut-throat competition in almost every facet of the US wireless industry, the FCC decided that it would not, as it has in the past, draw any conclusion about whether the U.S. wireless industry was effectively competitive.
Why should things have changed so suddenly?
It’s not the industry. On almost every measurable indicator, the U.S. leads the world in wireless investment, deployment, penetration and innovation. What is driving the investment and innovation? Robust competition in the U.S. wireless market. And despite uncertain economic times, carriers continue to invest billions of dollars in upgrading their networks – more than $20 billion in both 2008 and 2009.
It’s not a lack of choice. The U.S. continues to have four national carriers – a level of competition most European countries envy – three large regional providers, and dozens of smaller providers. Most U.S. consumers continue to have at least five different providers from which to choose. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that the U.S. wireless market is the least concentrated among 26 industrialized nations.
Read More
Posted by: Bob Quinn on May 11, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I’ve had some time to step back a bit from last week’s FCC announcement, in which the Chairman and General Counsel laid out a plan to go down the path of applying 75 year-old monopoly voice (Title II) regulation to the 21st century broadband Internet. I have to admit that while some issues have crystallized, others leave me a bit puzzled with the approach outlined by General Counsel Schlick.
For starters, I think analysts and market reaction to the FCC’s decision (as evident by the cable stocks, which have never before lived under the Title II umbrella) confirms our fears from the outset that heavy-handed regulation (however you try to spin it) will inject a great deal of uncertainty into an already jittery marketplace. So, I am left pondering many questions. Most notably, what does the Commission think it will actually accomplish with this proposal?
I will leave aside the perplexing assertion that the proposal appears to be based on the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia in the Supreme Court Brand X case, in which he and two other justices would have reversed the FCC and not applied Chevron deference to its views. If there’s a SNL for telecom geeks, I know there is a funny skit in there somewhere.
Equally interesting were Commission statements that were pretty clear that reclassification of Title II would not apply to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but only to the transmission facility used by the ISP to provide Internet access service. Allow me an overly wonkish moment: AT&T sells a DSL transport service to competitive ISPs (in fact, we had a merger commitment on this issue in the AT&T/BellSouth merger after EarthLink raised concerns that we might withdraw that service from the market post merger). The competitive ISP buys that service from us and couples it with its Internet access services and sells the whole package to the consumer as a retail Internet service.
Under the Commission’s “third way” proposal, net neutrality rules will not apply to ISPs like EarthLink or for that matter any other ISPs, including AT&T or cable companies.
Read More
