DISQUS

While I agree that the existing, archaic framework of municipal cable franchising is inadequate for today's market and fostering future growth, I disagree with the assertion that it should be handled at the federal level, either by the FCC or Congress. Reason being, states have led the way legislatively in regards to cable franchise reform.

Since 2005, eight states have enacted statewide cable franchising legislation and Michigan looks to be the ninth, once HB6456 is signed by the Governor. You also have Oklahoma and Connecticut that have weighed in on the issue by their Attorney General and state PUC, respectively.

In addition, at least ten to twenty states will consider similar legislation during their 2007 sessions. Due to this high level of cable reform taking place in the states, the need to address it at the federal level should clearly abate.

Congress and the FCC's efforts to federally standardize timeframes, terms, applications, and procedures are unnecessary and erroneously apply a cookie cutter approach to specific state needs. While the recent FCC order doesn't look to preempt state law, my concern lies with is this a one time order or is it an incremental step toward needlessly increasing the federal government's role and erasing the hard work of countless state legislators who share the same vision and goals of their federal counterparts?

I've heard these arguments from both sides time and time again on this issue of broadband competition as well as the larger net neutrality debate and must inject a few points that have been glossed over or missed.

Duopoly?
First, what exists (in the market as a whole) is a technology duopoly not a provider duopoly. Cable modems and DSL are the primary technologies for residential broadband access but, in many markets, there are more than just two providers offering these services.

A liberal analogy could be made to the two most relevant computer platforms; the PC and Mac. Here are only two platforms but there is competition in the companies that provide them (more so in the PC market than Mac). No one says there is a duopoly with computer platforms and demands that regulation be in place so UNIX can have the chance to take a sizeable market share from the PC and Mac. Granted this may be a little oversimplified but lots of markets see significant competition more than just incumbent cable and telephony. Just as computers have sellers of clone PCs so does broadband access.

In that, there are numerous CLECs and other resellers of DSL ( due to unbundled access from the ILECs as defined in the Telecom Act of '96) as well as some for cable. For example, you have EarthLink (nationwide presence), Covad (presence in 44 states), RCN, and hundreds of regional companies that provide broadband access. Granted it is dependent upon your area but certainly more and more markets are continually being introduced to competition as technologies improve, demand (hint, hint) increases, networks expand, etc. It just takes more time for competition to reach certain markets.

Supply & Demand!
Another issue is that there has been a lot of focus on the supply side in these arguments but not much discussion on the demand side, which also must be addressed. Right now, there isn't the ubiquitous demand present to warrant ubiquitous supply and the perfect competition that is holistically desired.

A Census Bureau study (from October 2005) reported that almost 40% of households with no Internet Access didn't have it because they "don't need it" or are "not interested" in it. Another 23% didn't have it because they have no computer or their computer was inadequate. Only 23% stated that the "costs are too high" as the reason for no Internet access.

Other Access!
Lastly, I grant that satellite may be but wireless and BPL are not lesser technologies, quite to the contrary, they are very promising broadband access technologies that have already (in limited cases) and will provide more sizable competition to incumbent cable and DSL as they are deployed. BUT you have to give it some time to let the technologies, the demand, and the markets mature.

Instead of looking to hastily regulate, the government needs to work with industry to educate consumers in order to increase demand for broadband, foster innovation through partnerships, and closely monitor how the market evolves and then utilize existing means to police anti-competitive practices or isolated market failures.