The Federal Cable-Protection Commission

Problem: Solved?

The Federal Communications Commission last Friday unanimously voted to free cable operators from their obligation to sell cable channels they own to rival satellite and phone companies.

In a bizarre justification, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said ending the unambiguous rules would prevent anti-competitive activity in the market because the FCC would retain the right to review industry abuses on a case-by-case basis. Lawmakers called that an invitation for endless, time consuming litigation that will deprive consumers of competitive choice and favor the still-dominant cable television industry.

“The sunset of the program access rules could lead to a new dawn of less choice and higher prices for consumers,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the original authors of the rules. “If we do not extend the program access rules, the largest cable companies could withhold popular sports and entertainment programming from their competitors, reducing the competition and choice that has benefited consumers. I urge Chairman Genachowski and the FCC commissioners to extend the program access rules that have helped to level the playing field in the paid television marketplace.”

The FCC’s decision could have profound implications on would-be competitors, particularly start-ups like Google Fiber that could find itself without access to popular cable networks at any price.

At a time when cable companies and programmers are constantly pitted against each other in contract/carriage disputes, the deregulatory spirit at the FCC is likely to irritate consumers even more.

Phillip “How nice of the FCC to think about poor cable companies” Dampier

The FCC claims it will continue to protect sports programming from exclusive carriage agreements — a potentially critical concession considering the history of “exclusive, only on cable” programming contracts was largely focused on regional sports channel PRISM.

Comcast successfully kept the popular Philadelphia-based network (today known as Comcast SportsNet Philadephia) off competing satellite services and cable operators by only distributing the network terrestrially. A controversial FCC rule (known as the “terrestrial exception”) states that a television channel does not have to make its shows available to satellite companies if it does not use satellites to transmit its programs. Cox Cable has its own implementation of that loophole running in San Diego.

Derek Chang, executive vice-president of DirecTV, says Comcast’s local market share dominance is a direct consequence of SportsNet. More importantly, Chang believes even if Comcast says it will sell the network to competitors, it is free to set prices for SportsNet as high as it wants.

“They win either way,” Chang said. “They’re either going to gouge our customers, or they’re going to withhold it from our customers.”

Verizon FiOS has secured the right to carry the channel on its system, but won’t say how much it pays.

The PRISM case is today’s best evidence that exclusive agreements do hamper competition — Philadelphia is hardly a hotbed of satellite dishes, with a 40-50% reduced satellite subscriber rate attributable to the lack of popular regional sports on satellite.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act is back. Will anyone at the FCC stand up to Big Telecom companies while busy watering down pro-competitive policies?

Historically, satellite dish owners and wireless cable customers were the most likely victims of exclusive or predatory programming contracts, with some cable networks refusing to sell their programming to competing technologies at any price.  Others charged enormous, unjustified mark-ups that made the technology non-competitive. Today, wireless cable television is mostly defunct and home satellite dish service has largely been replaced with direct broadcast satellite providers DirecTV and Dish.

Today’s programming landscape is more complicated. The FCC would argue that unlike in the 1980s, most cable programmers are no longer directly controlled by yesteryear’s Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) and Time Warner (Time Warner Cable was spun off into an independent, unaffiliated entity in March, 2009), which collectively controlled dozens of popular cable networks. But programmers’ know their best customers remain cable operators which maintain a dominant market share in every major American city.

Friday’s ruling has implications for telco-TV providers and satellite dish companies that may find programming negotiations more complicated than ever. AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS may find access to cable-owned programming difficult or even impossible to obtain if cable operators decide their unwanted competition is harmful to their business interests.

But an even larger challenge looms for the next generation of video competition: Google Fiber TV and “over the top” online video.

Nobody is complaining about Google’s robust gigabit broadband offering, but Kansas City residents originally expressed concern about the company’s proposed television lineup. As originally announced, Google Fiber TV was missing HBO and ESPN.

A competing cable system without ESPN is dead in the water for sports enthusiasts.

Google has since managed to sign agreements that expand their channel lineup (although it is still missing HBO). But nothing prevents channel owners from dramatically raising the price at renewal. That is a concern for smaller cable operators as well, who want protection from discriminatory pricing that awards the best prices to giant multi-system operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

The most important impact of the FCC’s decision may be for those waiting to launch virtual cable systems delivering online programming to customers who want to pick and choose from a list of networks.

The FCC’s “new rules” give programmers who depend on tens of millions of cable subscribers even more ammunition to kill competing distribution models like over the top video. Start-up providers who cannot obtain reasonable and fair access to cable programming will have to depend on the vague policies the FCC claims it will enforce to prevent egregious abuse. But the FCC is not known for its speed and start-up companies may face enormous legal fees fighting for fair access that is now open to subjective interpretation.

Copps

Americans need to stand up and say “no” to more telecom mergers and lobbying efforts that push for additional deregulation and corporate protectionism in the telecommunications sector. Unfortunately, we are in for a fight, thanks to Washington’s problem disappointing a multi-billion industry that lavishly finances political campaigns, conventions, and vacation outings.

Michael Copps, former commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from 2001-2011 and acting chairman for the first six months of the Obama Administration ought to know.

“The consolidated world of telecom broadband did not evolve from the hand of God, the mysterious workings of natural law, or the inevitability of market-based dynamics,” Copps wrote in his essay, “Why Give Up on Competition?” “It was enabled by conscious decision-making at the federal level, largely through the abdication of its oversight responsibilities by the Federal Communications Commission over the better part of 30 years.”

In short, it did not have to turn out this way, no matter what the telecom industry and their astroturf friends have to say.

“Go to just about any telecom conference these days, and some industry maven will make the case that restoring competition to the telecom world is so 1990s,” Copps writes. “Why don’t we all just recognize the inevitable, they ask: telecom is a natural monopoly, competition is a chimera, and the sooner we flash a steady green light for more industry consolidation and less government oversight, the better off we’ll all be.”

Provider-backed ALEC advocates for the corporate interests that fund its operations.

Too many in Washington are already true believers, according to Copps, and the result is two companies controlling over 2/3rds of the wireless marketplace and a broadband duopoly for most Americans. This did not happen overnight. Enormous and expensive lobbying campaigns run for over a decade have convinced lawmakers that less is more when it comes to telecom regulation and oversight. Regulators ringing alarm bells about deregulation without sufficient competition have been picked off, says Copps, by the telecom industry-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has convinced at least 19 state legislatures to wipe away authority from state public service commissions that for years have been trying to protect consumers and preserve competition.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was originally designed to open the telecommunications marketplace to increased competition, but also ensure a level playing field for competitors by charging the FCC to implement and enforce strong rules to keep incumbent telecommunications companies from steamrolling new competitors.

No surprises here: Michael Powell was FCC chairman during the deregulation frenzy of the first term of George W. Bush. Today, he’s the president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the largest cable industry lobbying group in the country.

With the arrival of President George W. Bush, the new Republican majority at the FCC promptly began obliterating checks and balances at the behest of some of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies. The results:

• Reselling rights and wholesale leasing of facilities to competitors were wiped away, guaranteeing monopoly control of already-established networks;
• Opening up the long distance and local market to Baby Bell competition with their promise they would compete nationwide failed. Like Big Cable, the Baby Bells sold local and long distance only to their own customers, not to those located in another Baby Bell’s service area;
• Instead of competing, phone companies simply bought each other. “As soon as one transaction was approved, another one came through the door,” Copps reported. “Sometimes it seemed like the merger approval business was our only business.”;
• ” The FCC voted, over the strenuous objections of Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and me, to remove advanced telecommunications (broadband) from the purview of Title II of the Telecommunications Act—where consumer protections, competition, privacy, and public safety are clearly mandated—and placed them instead in the nebulous and uncharted land of Title I, where regulatory authority is uncertain, consumer protections are virtually non-existent, and where the huge companies are better positioned to wreak havoc on the promise of competition,” Copps said.

To right the wrongs, Copps wants some major changes to reignite competition and return to telecom innovation, eliminating the stagnation we have from today’s cozy, barely competitive marketplace:

1. Learn to say “no” to more industry mergers. Consolidation has not brought communications nirvana for consumers, just higher prices and fewer choices, often from a monopoly provider;
2. Encourage innovative approaches like municipal broadband. Copps: “‘My way or nothing’ may be the mantra of the big guys, but that means no broadband in places they don’t wish to serve.” Copps wants to see the federal government pre-empt state bans on public broadband laws provider-backed ALEC has gotten through legislatures across the country;
3. Smarter stewardship of wireless spectrum, including unlicensed spectrum use, shared spectrum, smarter technology, and a “use it or lose it” policy that pulls back unused/warehoused spectrum held by some of the nation’s largest wireless carriers.

[flv width=”448″ height=”276″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/David Cay Johnston The Fine Print How Big Companies Use Plain English to Rob You Blind 9-19-12.mp4[/flv]

Fellow Brighton, N.Y. resident and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston hits the nail right on the head describing the Big Telecom Swindle that promised America it was going to get something magical called “the information superhighway.”

Over a half-trillion dollars in rate increases later, AT&T and Verizon instead spent a lot of that money on an enormously profitable wireless business that redefines the average American family’s monthly phone bill at $100+. Johnston talks about the broken industry promises of ubiquitous broadband, leaving millions of potential FiOS and U-verse customers behind.

With vast lobbying arms, large cable and phone companies have manipulated public policy to assure they can gouge customers, shortchange workers, and erect barriers to fair play. If consumers don’t pay attention, politicians armed with fat campaign contributions will continue to represent corporate interests, not those of the average American.  

[Note to Mr. Johnston: He isn’t the only reporter paying attention. Hat tip to Stop the Cap! reader Pat McDermott who shared the video.]  (17 minutes)

AT&T has sent the Federal Communications Commission a bait and switch checklist that, despite the stated purpose of modernizing telecommunications networks, would also allow the company to completely abandon its landline network and win near-complete deregulation of its broadband service.

On Tuesday, August 28, Christopher Heimann and I met with Matthew Berry and Nicholas Degani, respectively Chief of Staff and Legal Advisor to Commissioner Pai, to discuss actions the Commission can and should take to facilitate the retirement of legacy TDM-based networks and services and transition to an IP-based Network/Ecosystem, consistent with federal policies and objectives, including those enunciated in the National Broadband Plan.

At the request of Commissioner Pai, AT&T has prepared and is submitting herewith a checklist of those actions, which identifies the critical first steps the Commission should undertake without delay to begin the transition as well as additional steps that would facilitate completion of that transition.

Under the existing statutory and regulatory framework, carriers already can undertake the steps necessary to make the transition, including, in some cases, steps requiring Commission approval (such as withdrawing legacy TDM-based services). But, insofar as the transition raises a number of novel and likely contentious issues, Commission action on the items included on the attached list would greatly facilitate and thus hasten completion of the transition. The steps we identify implicate an array of issues raised in the above-referenced dockets. Accordingly, we are filing the checklist in each such docket.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert W. Quinn, Jr.

AT&T’s letter and attached checklist are documents only a policy wonk or careful observer of Big Telecom could easily navigate. Despite the thicket of opaque terms like “TDM” and the not-immediately-apparent importance of the difference between an “information service” and a “telecommunications service,” AT&T has, to borrow a phrase from President Obama, some brass ones making its intentions perfectly clear.

With the help of Bruce Kushnick, executive director of New Networks Institute and a former telecom industry insider, we will guide you through AT&T’s filing and what it really means.

AT&T lists several “critical first steps” (we have put them in bold) to achieve the transition to an all-IP telecom world, retiring the traditional “public switched telecommunications network” (PSTN) which you know better as a landline.

1. Establish a date certain for an official TDM-services sunset, after which no carrier would be required to establish and maintain TDM-based services/networks, and purchasers of such services (including circuit-switched and dedicated transmission services) would have to switch to IP or other packet-based services.

No casual observer of FCC filings would be expected to understand the implication of setting a date to officially sunset “TDM services.” TDM is synonymous with the landline network Ma Bell established more than 100 years ago — the one that gives you a dial tone, DSL, and access to dial-up Internet where broadband is unavailable. AT&T wants the FCC to manage what the company has not been able to consistently accomplish on the state level: setting a final date when traditional landline service can be permanently disconnected, preferably at the convenience of the phone company.

2. Clarify that any state requirements forcing service providers to maintain TDM networks and services […] following the TDM sunset are preempted. Such requirements could deter investment in broadband, and thus are inconsistent with and pose an obstacle to federal law and policies encouraging the transition to all IP networks and services.

This provision would effectively eliminate any existing state laws or regulations that require AT&T to deliver a fairly-priced, well-run landline service for customers throughout its service area. Some states have not bought into AT&T’s lobbying juggernaut, often delivered with the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Despite the enormous sums spent lobbying legislators, some states have kept oversight in place requiring AT&T to serve everyone that wants phone service. With this provision, those state laws and regulations would be pre-empted.

AT&T claims state requirements somehow deter broadband investment, a curious conclusion considering AT&T has already largely ceased its expansion of DSL and U-verse services.

3. Complete action in the IP-enabled services proceeding, and classify such services as information services, subject to minimal regulation only at the federal level. The Commission could permit service providers to offer DSL or other broadband transmission services on a common carrier basis if they so choose, but in no event should a provider be required to do so. 

Quinn

This is AT&T’s provision to kill regulation and destroy competition. Government rules, regulations, and oversight apply largely to “PSTN” landline services, not to IP-based or broadband networks. Basic landline service is designated a “telecommunications service” by the FCC, which makes it subject to regulator review. Broadband, on the other hand, and anything else using IP, is typically classified as an “information service,” where most oversight regulations do not apply.

AT&T’s plan is to shut down today’s landline “telecommunications” service in favor of IP-based Voice over IP, which would effectively reclassify your phone line as an “information service.” That means by changing just one word — “telecommunications” to “information” — AT&T can walk away from a century of basic consumer protection rules and regulations. AT&T also gets a divorce from its telecommunications service obligations as a “common carrier,” which requires AT&T to deliver service to any customer who requests it, at a fair and reasonable price, without changing its form or content.

If AT&T’s broadband networks were reclassified as a “telecommunications service,” Net Neutrality would be easy to enforce under the “without changing its form or content” provision of common carrier rules. Back in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, AT&T’s lobbyists had already made their mark, creating new “distinctions” of telecommunications services, some more regulated than others. Now AT&T is back to kill off the last regulatory obligations it still has to endure, taking Net Neutrality to the grave once and for all.

4. Reform Interconnection – after the official date for the TDM sunset, no carrier or other provider of TDM based services should be entitled to require others to interconnect in TDM. The Commission should take action to maintain the market-based, regulation-free interconnection regime that has applied to IP-based interconnection for decades.

[…] Reform wholesale obligations under section 251/271 to eliminate unbundling, resale, collocation and other requirements that could require ILECs to maintain TDM networks and services.

These particularly opaque sections give AT&T’s competitors real nightmares because they would wipe out requirements that phone companies open certain facilities to competitors who deliver services over AT&T’s network. If AT&T’s recommendation is adopted, no competitor would be safe if AT&T eventually padlocks access to its network.

But AT&T does not want its intentions to be that obvious. It throws a transparent bone to regulators to offer a facade of competition in both this and the preceding recommendation.

AT&T instructs the FCC it can mimic the time-honored patina of an open, competitive industry by allowing AT&T’s competitors to sell DSL or other broadband services over AT&T facilities, but only if AT&T feels like it (at comfortable prices that don’t undercut AT&T).

5. Eliminate regulatory underbrush/superstructure that accompanies TDM-based services. For example, phase out equal access, residual ONA/CEI, record-keeping, accounting, guidebook, dialing parity, payphone, and data collection (which should be limited to that which is collected on the Commission’s Form 477) requirements.

AT&T leaving town.

What AT&T calls “underbrush,” consumers and regulators call oversight and consumer protection.

“Sayonara any telco rules, regulations and oh yes, your rights,” says Bruce Kushnick. “Your service breaks… tough. Prices go up and there’s no direct competition — too bad. Networks weren’t upgraded — so what.”

Kushnick notes this provision would allow AT&T to avoid maintaining a public record of its performance (and its potential abusive practices, bad service, and high prices), including any requirement on the state or federal level to tell the public anything about how well we are being served by the wired monopoly.

Other things on AT&T’s hit list: “Equal Access,” which opened the door to competitive long distance calling and lower rates, “Dialing Parity” which lets you avoid dialing ten (or more) digits for every call (or being forced to learn more complicated numbers for things like directory assistance or other shortened dialing numbers), and public payphones. AT&T’s desire to kill off “residual ONA” refers to the costs to establish Open Network Architecture — the framework for opening up the nation’s phone monopoly for competition. Re-establish the monopoly and there is no reason to fret about the costs to maintain access for competitors AT&T will eventually eliminate.

6. Further reform USF to provide support for broadband regardless of the regulatory classification of broadband services, eliminate any obligation to offer such services on a common carriage basis to be eligible for such support, and provide incentives for service providers to invest and offer services necessary to ensure that no one is left behind by the transition to an all-IP, broadband ecosystem.

The reform of the Universal Service Fund has already opened up opportunities for rural telecommunications companies to apply for broadband infrastructure grants to expand broadband in rural America. Only AT&T has refused to participate in the current round of broadband grants because they do not like the rules. AT&T wants a free hand to receive broadband funding, so long as it faces no questions about where the money gets spent. Under AT&T’s recommendation, the company would receive money with no obligation to ensure everyone who wants broadband in rural America can get it. It also wants the government to hand out money to providers to implement their goal of regulatory nirvana — the conversion of basic landline service to Voice over IP, idolized as the golden calf of ultimate deregulation.

But although providers won’t be left behind, consumers might be:

7. Establish/reform rules to facilitate migration of customers from legacy to IP-based services and to prevent customers that procrastinate or fail to migrate from holding up the transition. For example, establish a process for identifying a default service provider if a customer fails to migrate, and/or permit service providers to notify customers that they will be dropped from service as of a date certain if they have not migrated to an alternative service/service provider. 

This particularly arrogant provision would put a stop to Aunt Maude holding up AT&T’s grand plan to live a regulation-free lifestyle. How dare she drag her feet with AT&T’s agenda at stake? If your elderly parents or extended family don’t understand why AT&T is meddling with their landline service and don’t want to change, AT&T has an unsympathetic solution. Under their recommendation, your parents would find themselves with a “default service provider” they might not want to do business with or, even worse, simply leave them with a dead phone line AT&T has no interest in repairing. But AT&T would likely still get their way. In rural areas they already cover, AT&T would be the “default service provider” because it is the only service provider. If Maude wants her phone line back, the only way she will get it is choosing the migration to Voice over IP AT&T intended all along.

AT&T’s language is remarkably frank, but was never intended to be viewed and explained to the public at large. It was the product of a phone company lobbyist talking to a politician, staffer, or regulator that one day could become an employee of that phone company. The only way to stop this cozy relationship is to tell regulators you are watching (and understanding) the game being played here.

Phillip “Artificial Scarcity for Fun and Profits” Dampier

It would be an understatement to say I’ve heard the argument once or twice that there is simply no economic room for additional players to enter what Big Telecom companies always claim is a robustly competitive marketplace for Internet access.

Virtually every company facing inquiries from regulators, politicians, and consumers always makes the point today’s deregulated broadband playing field is an excellent example of free market competition at its best.

While they advocate for even more deregulation, oppose the entry of community-owned broadband services, and demand more spectrum from Washington lawmakers, we endure a veritable monopoly/duopoly for Internet access. Their defense, after a dismissive rolling of the eyes, is that we just don’t understand business.

Enter Tim Lee, writing for the alternate reality reader of Forbes, who decided to prove his argument by comparing broadband with Supercuts:

Being the first to build a hair-cutting shack in a particular customer’s backyard can be pretty lucrative. It gives you a de facto monopoly on that household’s haircut business. Let’s assume that it takes 4 years worth of haircuts to recoup the costs of building a shack for a particular household. While barbers will need to raise some extra capital to build the shacks, in the long run the owner of the first shack may be able to earn big monopoly rents.

Now along comes a new barber who wants to enter the hair-cutting business, but every household already has at least one hair-cutting shack. So he needs to build hair-cutting shacks in backyards where another barber has already built one. And that’s an economically precarious situation. Remember, we assumed a monopolist needs to do 4 years worth of haircuts in order to break even. But if you build a shack in a backyard that already has another barber in it, you shouldn’t expect to get more than half of the customer’s business, on average, over the long run. Not only that, but competition will push down prices, so you’ll have to do more haircuts to recover the costs of construction. So you’ll be lucky to recover your initial investment within 8 years, and it could easily take more than a decade.

And things are even worse for the third or fourth barber who builds in a particular backyard. The fourth barber will be building in a yard that already has three barbers. He can only expect to attract 25 percent of the household’s business, and strong competition among barbers means his margins will be pretty thin. It’s hard to see how he could ever recover the costs of his investment.

Brushing away the hair-cutting analogy, Lee’s point is that it is wasteful and inefficient for competitors to overbuild new networks where others already exist. The phone and cable companies that dominate the marketplace today decry additional competition as a death blow to their business models, because with so many providers fighting for customers (by lowering prices and offering better service), not every provider can sustain a profit Wall Street investors expect quarter after quarter. This argument is particularly common when attacking those dastardly socialist community-owned broadband providers they say destroy private enterprise (while unconvincingly also warning they will always fail and cost taxpayers millions on the way down). It is also why Wall Street continues to beat the drum for additional consolidation in the wireless marketplace, where anything more than AT&T and Verizon Wireless represents too much revenue destruction.

Lee does make some valid points:

1. Infrastructure costs are the biggest expense in launching a new network, especially wiring the last mile to customers;
2. Verizon FiOS overestimated its potential market share and found it harder to turn a profit than first anticipated;
3. Other utilities have avoided building redundant networks (ie. you don’t have two companies providing their own electric, water, and gas lines).

When communities decide to offer their own broadband service, incumbent cable and phone companies spend big bucks to scare residents.

But Lee’s conclusion is entirely favorable to the industry he often defends — that is just the way things are and customers should not expect anything better.

Those arguments are usually also the basis for free market declarations that if a private company cannot find a way to deliver a service at a profit, then those left out will just have to do without.

Thankfully, despite Lee’s criticism of Google Fiber in Kansas City as “extremely wasteful,” the search engine company is perhaps best positioned of all to turn the industry’s common refrain against new competition on its head.

Every so often, a surprising third party shows up with the resources to ignore Wall Street’s conventional wisdom. Enter the deep pockets of Google Fiber or a bond-backed community provider threatening to deliver service far better than what a community currently enjoys. The predictable defense from incumbent providers:

• Nobody needs faster broadband speeds;
• Community networks are a government takeover of the Internet;
• Fiber optics are expensive and represent an unnecessary investment;
• Public broadband destroys private investment and jobs at incumbent commercial providers;
• This is just a political stunt, not a real effort at taking Internet speeds to the next level.

Without the kind of competition on offer from Google, community providers, and private providers like Verizon taking a chance on FiOS fiber optics, there would be no room for innovation in the marketplace.

Provider tolerance for today’s marketplace duopoly and the lackluster service that results is reminiscent of a joke told by President George W. Bush’s in 2000: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.”

It is easy for today’s comfortable duopoly providers to take shots at would-be competitors while dragging their feet on network upgrades. They have little to fear with Wall Street on their side, joining opposition to new competition as harmful to profits. Even Verizon Communications, one of the two dominant providers, quickly heard from analysts irritated with the infrastructure expenses involved upgrading to a fiber optic network. At the heart of that criticism was a sense it was an unnecessary expense, with no reason to change the safe and reliable status quo. Innovation that costs money is the enemy of Wall Street, unless competition warrants the investment.

Therein lies the key. Effective, disruptive competition demands companies do something different. Lee may be right that three companies cannot easily bring home the big profits. Wall Street may have to make do with less. In a competitive market, the player offering the least will be the first to innovate to keep or attract customers, or eventually close their doors. Those remaining will compete in turn to deliver the best possible service at the lowest possible price. That itself is a departure from the comfort zone enjoyed by phone and cable operators today where neither feels much pressure. Cable companies won’t ever compete with other cable companies and the same is true for phone companies. But if a company like Google arrives, the decade-long coffee break is over.

Want proof? Just look at cable operators struggling to keep video customers who are now finding alternatives with Netflix and online viewing. They are increasingly looking for ways to enhance the value of cable television by offering online viewing themselves. Even rate increases have slowed. If Netflix and cord-cutting were not factors, would cable companies have changed the way they do business?

Google’s marketplace disruption delivers for consumers.

Lee is right saying it is not easy to break into the broadband business. Only some might realize the same investors and Wall Street barons that dislike profit-eroding competition also often happen to be in the business of loaning money to finance new businesses. More than a few will turn those loans down as too risky to contemplate.

But here comes the rhetorical trap Lee’s argument gets ensnared in: If running redundant networks is wasteful and we still need competition, the logical solution would be to construct or nationalize one advanced network on which all providers would market their services. Why waste time and money on duplicate copper and coaxial networks when a single fiber to the home network could deliver improved service well beyond what the local phone and cable company can offer.

Isn’t the answer to run a single telecommunications line into customer homes (one preferably not controlled by any provider), and let competition bloom on that advanced infrastructure? That is the solution Australia has chosen, scrapping the country’s ancient copper wire phone lines in favor of one national fiber network. Most community providers also operate open networks that other cable and phone companies can utilize (but often petulantly refuse).

Somehow, despite the enormous savings possible from sharing or offloading network infrastructure expenses, I doubt providers will consider that the kind of innovation they want or need.