Home » Competition »Net Neutrality »Public Policy & Gov't » Currently Reading:

Revision3 CEO: Free and Fair Competition Impossible Without FCC Establishing Common Sense Ground Rules

Phillip Dampier May 4, 2010 Competition, Net Neutrality, Public Policy & Gov't 2 Comments
jim-lauderback (Courtesy: Forbes)

Lauderback

Establishing a free and open marketplace for competitive broadband is impossible unless the Federal Communications Commission asserts its authority and enacts strong Net Neutrality protections.

Those are the views of self-proclaimed libertarian-leaner Jim Lauderback who runs Revision3, an Internet-based television network.

Penning a column in today’s Forbes, Lauderback strongly believes broadband services should be reclassified as a Title II common carrier service, and should be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.

I fundamentally believe that customers should have unencumbered access to any service they wish to use or run, up to the bandwidth limits that they have purchased. The big broadband companies should be prohibited from granting favored bandwidth and quality of service preference to any site or application.

Why? Because Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are for-profit companies, and without restrictions they could–and probably would–grant preferred network access to their own services. Imagine the power Comcast could wield to promote its own video networks, particularly if the NBC merger is approved. Why wouldn’t Comcast ensure that NBC, G4, Syfy and MSNBC look great when streamed over its broadband network, while simultaneously throttling YouTube, CBS’ TV.com, movie and sports streams from Netflix and Major League Baseball, along with any other non-company owned video services (including those from my company, Revision3)? Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are in business to make money, and anything that will make their owned and operated networks more successful is just good business. It works for them, but not for their customers.

Lauderback declares today’s broadband marketplace a oligarchy — one cable and one phone provider.  With the increasing prevalence of term commitments, bundling, and other contractual obligations, many of today’s providers are successfully locking their customers in place.

“Service bundling gives these two even more power over their customers and makes it even harder to switch,” he writes. “I discovered this first hand last week, when I tried to move from AT&T’s increasingly spotty DSL service to Comcast. Comcast was happy to take my money, but it would have cost me almost twice as much unless I also shifted my TV and local phone service to Comcast.”

Those who support open hand-to-hand competitive combat in a free market understand that healthy competition cannot exist when a handful of players get to control how the game is played.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Drew
Matt Drew
14 years ago

“Those who support open hand-to-hand competitive combat in a free market understand that healthy competition cannot exist when a handful of players get to control how the game is played.”

Correct! But the solution is not to involve the wardrobe malfunction police, but to increase the number of players by removing the protections that keep those players in control. Customers who have choices are much more difficult to lock in.

Michael Chaney
14 years ago
Reply to  Matt Drew

So unbundle the service, reclassify under Title II, and allow open access to last-mile infrastructure. That will definitely increase competition and give consumers much more choice.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!