Competition/Antitrust

While much the internet is in an uproar about Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to roll back Network Neutrality, I’d like the suggest that they’re focusing on the wrong thing. The reason Pai’s decision is the wrong one is not because the lack of net neutrality is, prima facie, a bad thing. Rather, it’s because we don’t have anything close to free market conditions in the U.S. when it comes to broadband.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s assertion that consumers will be served by Internet service providers’ “transparently” offering them “the plan that’s best for them” is fatuous in the extreme. The more likely outcome is that consumer options will shrink. They’ll “transparently” know that they’re being offered fewer choices, none of which will genuinely encompass an open internet. The truth is that competition among ISPs is shrinking, and their power already is enormous.

Here are three ways an end to network neutrality could affect you: 

Residents of Winlock (WA) – where internet is dead slow, if available at all – are major proponents of network neutrality and argue internet is a basic necessity. 

[Commentary] The city of New York has released a new Request for Information seeking technical and operational input from industry sources. The city wants to know what types of strategies for public/private cooperation it should consider in an effort to deliver "universal gigabit-class broadband" throughout the five boroughs.

The Federal Communications Commission is attempting to mediate the broadband redlining complaint filed against AT&T by attorney Daryl Parks on behalf of "Cleveland broadband consumers," according to Parks, who says he is ready to talk, but also to sue. According to Parks' office, they are scheduled for a Nov. 13-14 session with AT&T and FCC staffers to try and resolve the complaint. "It is my sincere desire to resolve these matters during the November 13 - 14 FCC staff monitored mediation session," said Parks.

So what does it mean for a government agency to be on the side of innovation? Having served on the FCC since 2012, I’ve certainly had time to think about that question. And I’ve come to the conclusion that the most effective strategy for seizing the opportunities of the digital age is promoting the power of free markets. Instead of viewing innovation as a problem to be regulated based on rules from the past, government should see innovation’s potential, guided by markets that embrace the future.

In recent years, cable companies have gained broadband market share against the telecommunication companies except in areas where the telcos have upgraded their traditional copper-based network infrastructure to support speeds competitive with the cablecos’ hybrid fiber coax-based service. But according to researchers at Moffett Nathanson, that’s set to change as telcos, particularly AT&T, get more aggressive about delivering faster broadband speeds.

[Commentary] The AT&T-Time Waner $85 billion deal dwarfs even the massive Comcast-NBCUniversal merger. And so do its implications: AT&T’s subscriber base is more than four times the size of Comcast’s at the time it purchased NBCUniversal. Any day now, the Department of Justice will announce whether this mega-merger will be permitted.

On Oct 5, several Members of Congress wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai regarding the FCC's Notice of Inquiry "Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion." The lawmakers wrote, "we strongly oppose any proposal to lower speeds from the current standard of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload to 10 Mbps download/I Mbps or to find mobile broadband as a universally appropriate replacement for fixed, home broadband." On Oct 24, Chairman Pai responded, writing, "With respect to claims that the Section 70