Cable competition not fast enough

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

Sunday’s Washington Post featured a story entitled, “Cable War Fails to Offer Rate Relief in Montgomery.” The gist of the story is that Comcast, the incumbent cable provider in Montgomery County, Maryland, is raising rates by 4 percent and residents are distraught that the much vaunted competition from Verizon has done nothing to curb prices.

So much for the idea that “competition will bring down rates,” said Montgomery County Council President Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County), who has long clashed with the industry over regulation. “That clearly hasn’t happened.”

David Isenberg links to the story under the headline “Benefits of Competition my Ass” and asks, “Are you listening Kevin Martin?”

You would think Verizon has been providing service in the country for years and has settled into a cozy duopoly with Comcast. So when did Verizon get permission from the county to start competing with Comcast? November 28, 2006. That’s right folks, less than three months ago.

As the Post story notes, Comcast serves 200,000 households to Verizon’s 1,000. However, it will build out to most homes in four years. The story also notes–albeit in paragraph 14–competition on margins other than price: “Comcast, for instance, has improved its Internet speeds four times over the past three years without increasing its prices.”

Feb 19, 2007 | Comment | Tags: , , , ,

Senators Tackle Competition In Sports Programming

According to the National Journal today, Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy, the present and future chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are concerned about DirecTV’s “Sunday Ticket” arrangement with the NFL, which might abridge every American’s constitutionally protected right to watch any football game they want for free. “My concern is restrictive policies which are going to require people to pay a lot more money to see the games,” Specter told reporters. “The recent migration by the National Football League away from free, over-the-air television for transmitting NFL games to the public concerns some fans,” Leahy wrote in a statement. I’m glad this is what the senate is now working on.

Nov 16, 2006 | Comments Off | Tags: , , ,

Wi-Fi competition at Logan

Yesterday the FCC ruled that the Massachusetts Airport Authority cannot prevent Continental from putting up a Wi-Fi antenna in its Logan Airport lounge. Some folks, such as Julie Ask of Jupiter, have see this ruling as validating the “no one owns it” character of unlicensed spectrum. As I’ve argued before, unlicensed spectrum works in part because it is used consistent with physical property rights. This is why Ask goes on to say that she “dread[s] the day that a Muni network is overlayed or my neighbors set up 802.11n.”

This particular case is actually about property and competition. It’s an analog to a case where an apartment building’s landlord (who gets a cut from the cable company) puts in his leases a clause prohibiting satellite dishes. There’s no point to that clause except to stifle competition, and that’s why Congress told the FCC to promulgate the OTARD rules under which the Logan case was decided. One interesting question is whether such a rule is even necessary in a competitive environment. If you have a competitive market for apartments, then presumably you’ll get the right mix of restricted and non-restricted leases. Another interesting question is whether Logan Airport is subject to sufficient competition to justify such a rule.1

One thing I do know is that this ruling will spur competition. Glenn Fleishmann writes,

This ruling may have little effect in airports outside of Boston-Logan, because I am unaware of any other situation in which the airport authority set up an adversarial approach to the extend of spending what must have been hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing action on the public’s dime against privately owner airlines, which are also the airport authority’s tenants. In the airports I know something about, the development of a comprehensive Wi-Fi system was undertaken with the involvement of airlines and other tenants to provide the right services in the right places. In some airports, different entities, including airlines, run their own distinct systems without any conflict that’s been documented.

I think it will have an effect. Take T-Mobile, which files in favor of Continental in this case. It has a partnership with Starbucks to put hotspot service in its stores. Just about every airport has a Starbucks. Even if other airports are not as hostile as Logan, T-Mobile/Starbucks now doesn’t have to find out by testing the waters at each one. It can go ahead and deploy Wi-Fi at every airport without asking for permission and without fear of litigation (well, little fear). Hopefully this will mean lower prices across across the board. What about free ad-supported wi-fi from Google? All it has to do now is find a tenant partner at airports.

  1. I know some are going to say that without the rule Massport would have a “monopoly” over internet access at Logan. But that’s like saying that the owner of a movie theater has a monopoly over the popcorn concession and that’s why they charge high prices. However, when you buy a ticket to a movie, you’re buying a bundle of services, including the option to buy popcorn at a certain price. Movie theaters are competitive and compete on concession prices as much as anything else. If we had “open access” rules for popcorn at movie theaters, you’d see ticket prices go up. The question is whether Logan faces competition from other airports. I don’t know. ↑

Cross-posted at TLF. You can leave and read comments there. →

Nov 3, 2006 | Comments Off | Tags: , , ,

  •  
  •