Phillip Dampier says:

I agree that open access is at the heart of today’s marketplace duopoly. During dial-up days, large telcos had to open their networks and sell wholesale access to the network of dial-in numbers people used to use to avoid long distance access charges. Then, the very-business friendly Bush Administration hearted Big Telecom’s arguments that their broadband networks should be closed to wholesale access. That means AT&T, Verizon, and the cable companies can refuse to sell access to third party resellers. The only exceptions are some minor voluntary agreements with companies like Earthlink, who offer very little (if any) savings to the customers they have who sign up for service using cable or DSL providers.

In Canada, Bell is required by law to sell wholesale access to all-comers, which is why there are independent ISPs who can undercut Bell’s pricing, all while selling service over Bell’s DSL facilities. Bell limits customers’ usage – TekSavvy, which comes across Bell’s DSL lines, does offer unlimited plans. Bell wants to impose their pricing models on every independent provider in Canada, which is what all the screaming is about up there.

Unfortunately, the CRTC foolishly did not extend the open access laws to cable companies, so consumers are stuck with lower speed DSL for independent providers.

In other countries, the dominant providers are mandated to open their networks to resellers to promote competition. Customers pay a much lower line charge, which sustains the costs to provide the physical line to your home, and then you pay an ISP for the Internet access.

Republicans didn’t like this notion last time this was debated, claiming providers should have the full fruits of their labor. Telling competitors to build their own networks is nice in theory, but investment capital is very difficult to obtain when Wall Street abhors competition interfering with revenue.

Banks don’t want to hear about how competition will lower prices, because that is exactly the opposite of what they want. In fact, when too many competitors exist, the only thing you hear from them is a drumbeat for mergers and acquisitions to reduce competition and increase revenue.

For us, it’s going to take a deep pocketed entity like Google to truly disrupt the entrenched market. They already have sufficient capital and power to invest in fiber networks to compete with traditional providers. The only other entities will be individual communities who decide they have been held back by monopolists long enough and decide to treat broadband as a utility service, sold to their residents at a reasonable rate to sustain and grow the community.