Let's Get Real about DSL and Cable Broadband

The double-edge of the FCC's DSL ruling by ZDNet's David Berlind -- One thing we know for sure is that technology mono/duo/polies (aka: technopolies) are really bad for end users. But, in an FCC ruling that could stifle competition in the business of internet service provision, I have mixed feelings. In case you missed it, the FCC ruled to reclassify Digital Subscriber Line service (DSL) as an [...]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We hear about the U.S. being in 13th ...or is it 16th place...among countries of the world in broadband penetration. Let's not argue about what penetration means, but we never hear whether there are multiple providers of last mile infrastructure or rampant arbitrage in those other countries. Does their policy encourage a monopoly, duopoly or something else??

Let's also realize that DSL is provided almost always on copper wire and cable broadband is provided on a combination of coax and fiber. Meanwhile the telcos are placing fiber closer and closer to the doorstep. DSL will eventually die to be replaced by fiber to the home and all the broadband we could possibly consume.

The telcos and cablecos aren't very adept ISPs, thus it's likely that those companies like Earthlink, AOL, at al that are good at this will be encouraged by the telcos to strike a deal for resold DSL service; however, probably not for broadband access from the cablecos.

The situation, for the time being, is the telcos and the cablecos are the only realistic providers of last mile wireline infrastructure needed by ISPs and consumers alike. That will change as wireless alternatives evolve for this costly element of the network. While that won't take place overnight, it will happen, probably on a schedule similar to fiber deployment by the telcos.

Telco monopoly bashing gets us nowhere. The facts are that all DSL investment and a great deal of the copper and fiber investment has been deployed after the monopoly was broken in 1982... on the same day that IBM's monopoly was broken by the courts.

The telcos have choices as to where and when they deploy DSL capacity, precisely because they are not a monopoly and broadband is not a 'universal service' like POTS.

Regulation is a dying factor for enforcing universality of anything. This is a good thing. The marketplace, equipped with the exploding technology is a far better regulator, unless you happen to choose to live in rural areas that are uneconomic to serve. But it's these same rural areas that were the last to get POTS, too. On the other hand, wireless alternatives will probably be the broadband technology of choice in these areas.

The FCC has done the right thing. The ISPs should be able to purchase DSL access from the telcos at a price very near cost. Will they be able to purchase broadband access from the cablecos. If not, why not?