We have long been arguing that the telephone and cable companies are not sufficiently investing in the connections needed by communities. Quarter after quarter, companies offering DSL see decreases in their lines as subscribers jump to cable or fiber-optic alternatives (where available, which is not many places). Recall that AT&T's CEO himself believes DSL to be obsolete. As this trend continues, most communities will find that a single cable company has a monopoly on high speed broadband access and those willing to settle for slower, less reliable alternatives will have a choice between DSL and wireless options. Susan Crawford has written about this, terming it the Looming Cable Monopoly. The main reason is that cable is cheaper to upgrade to higher capacity connections than the telephone lines. Unfortunately, due to the reality of natural monopoly, the big cable companies will almost certainly continue to dominate in their communities. It is just too hard and risky for other businesses to challenge their market power. This is why smart communities are evaluating all their options and determining if a long term public investment in fiber-optic infrastructure would generate enough benefits to justify the high upfront cost.

We have long been arguing that the telephone and cable companies are not sufficiently investing in the connections needed by communities. Quarter after quarter, companies offering DSL see decreases in their lines as subscribers jump to cable or fiber-optic alternatives (where available, which is not many places). Recall that AT&T's CEO himself believes DSL to be obsolete. As this trend continues, most communities will find that a single cable company has a monopoly on high speed broadband access and those willing to settle for slower, less reliable alternatives will have a choice between DSL and wireless options. Susan Crawford has written about this, terming it the Looming Cable Monopoly. The main reason is that cable is cheaper to upgrade to higher capacity connections than the telephone lines. Unfortunately, due to the reality of natural monopoly, the big cable companies will almost certainly continue to dominate in their communities. It is just too hard and risky for other businesses to challenge their market power. This is why smart communities are evaluating all their options and determining if a long term public investment in fiber-optic infrastructure would generate enough benefits to justify the high upfront cost.

We have long been arguing that the telephone and cable companies are not sufficiently investing in the connections needed by communities. Quarter after quarter, companies offering DSL see decreases in their lines as subscribers jump to cable or fiber-optic alternatives (where available, which is not many places). Recall that AT&T's CEO himself believes DSL to be obsolete. As this trend continues, most communities will find that a single cable company has a monopoly on high speed broadband access and those willing to settle for slower, less reliable alternatives will have a choice between DSL and wireless options. Susan Crawford has written about this, terming it the Looming Cable Monopoly. The main reason is that cable is cheaper to upgrade to higher capacity connections than the telephone lines. Unfortunately, due to the reality of natural monopoly, the big cable companies will almost certainly continue to dominate in their communities. It is just too hard and risky for other businesses to challenge their market power. This is why smart communities are evaluating all their options and determining if a long term public investment in fiber-optic infrastructure would generate enough benefits to justify the high upfront cost.

We have long been arguing that the telephone and cable companies are not sufficiently investing in the connections needed by communities. Quarter after quarter, companies offering DSL see decreases in their lines as subscribers jump to cable or fiber-optic alternatives (where available, which is not many places). Recall that AT&T's CEO himself believes DSL to be obsolete. As this trend continues, most communities will find that a single cable company has a monopoly on high speed broadband access and those willing to settle for slower, less reliable alternatives will have a choice between DSL and wireless options. Susan Crawford has written about this, terming it the Looming Cable Monopoly. The main reason is that cable is cheaper to upgrade to higher capacity connections than the telephone lines. Unfortunately, due to the reality of natural monopoly, the big cable companies will almost certainly continue to dominate in their communities. It is just too hard and risky for other businesses to challenge their market power. This is why smart communities are evaluating all their options and determining if a long term public investment in fiber-optic infrastructure would generate enough benefits to justify the high upfront cost.

Our focus tends to be at the most local -- how do people in local communities access the Internet? But we do worry about how the Internet itself is governed. Think it should be totally unregulated? That sounds nice until you type google.com into a browser and it takes you to search.microsoft.com. Or you type microsoft.com and you end up at apple.com. We need rules and standards. Much like the principle of network neutrality, some are looking to change the way these rules and standards have traditionally developed. Susan Crawford has written a column examining how governments like Russia want to change who makes key decisions. Though we are believers in the necessity of a strong government role in the provision of essential infrastructure, we share Susan Crawford's concern that changing who makes decisions about the rules of the Internet could be very damaging to this amazing network of networks.

Our focus tends to be at the most local -- how do people in local communities access the Internet? But we do worry about how the Internet itself is governed. Think it should be totally unregulated? That sounds nice until you type google.com into a browser and it takes you to search.microsoft.com. Or you type microsoft.com and you end up at apple.com. We need rules and standards. Much like the principle of network neutrality, some are looking to change the way these rules and standards have traditionally developed. Susan Crawford has written a column examining how governments like Russia want to change who makes key decisions. Though we are believers in the necessity of a strong government role in the provision of essential infrastructure, we share Susan Crawford's concern that changing who makes decisions about the rules of the Internet could be very damaging to this amazing network of networks.

Our focus tends to be at the most local -- how do people in local communities access the Internet? But we do worry about how the Internet itself is governed. Think it should be totally unregulated? That sounds nice until you type google.com into a browser and it takes you to search.microsoft.com. Or you type microsoft.com and you end up at apple.com. We need rules and standards. Much like the principle of network neutrality, some are looking to change the way these rules and standards have traditionally developed. Susan Crawford has written a column examining how governments like Russia want to change who makes key decisions. Though we are believers in the necessity of a strong government role in the provision of essential infrastructure, we share Susan Crawford's concern that changing who makes decisions about the rules of the Internet could be very damaging to this amazing network of networks.

Susan Crawford published an excellent essay in the New York Times presenting her Looming Broadband Monopoly argument as a discussion of the coming digital divide between those with access to next-generation networks and those without.

These numbers are likely to grow even starker as the 30 percent of Americans without any kind of Internet access come online. When they do, particularly if the next several years deliver subpar growth in personal income, they will probably go for the only option that is at all within their reach: wireless smartphones. A wired high-speed Internet plan might cost $100 a month; a smartphone plan might cost half that, often with a free or heavily discounted phone thrown in. The problem is that smartphone access is not a substitute for wired. The vast majority of jobs require online applications, but it is hard to type up a résumé on a hand-held device; it is hard to get a college degree from a remote location using wireless. Few people would start a business using only a wireless connection.

She identifies the problem as a lack of competition in the market while highlighting the role of lobbying from the wealthy cable companies to keep it that way:

The bigger problem is the lack of competition in cable markets. Though there are several large cable companies nationwide, each dominates its own fragmented kingdom of local markets: Comcast is the only game in Philadelphia, while Time Warner dominates Cleveland. That is partly because it is so expensive to lay down the physical cables, and companies, having paid for those networks, guard them jealously, clustering their operations and spending tens of millions of dollars to lobby against laws that might oblige them to share their infrastructure.

In this essay, her preferred solution is better federal regulation that would require companies that own networks to share parts of their infrastructure with competitors (to significantly reduce the problems of natural monopoly). Unfortunately, she did not explicitly discuss the solution of the communities building their own networks - a topic she has discussed at great length elsewhere in very positive terms.

Susan Crawford published an excellent essay in the New York Times presenting her Looming Broadband Monopoly argument as a discussion of the coming digital divide between those with access to next-generation networks and those without.

These numbers are likely to grow even starker as the 30 percent of Americans without any kind of Internet access come online. When they do, particularly if the next several years deliver subpar growth in personal income, they will probably go for the only option that is at all within their reach: wireless smartphones. A wired high-speed Internet plan might cost $100 a month; a smartphone plan might cost half that, often with a free or heavily discounted phone thrown in. The problem is that smartphone access is not a substitute for wired. The vast majority of jobs require online applications, but it is hard to type up a résumé on a hand-held device; it is hard to get a college degree from a remote location using wireless. Few people would start a business using only a wireless connection.

She identifies the problem as a lack of competition in the market while highlighting the role of lobbying from the wealthy cable companies to keep it that way:

The bigger problem is the lack of competition in cable markets. Though there are several large cable companies nationwide, each dominates its own fragmented kingdom of local markets: Comcast is the only game in Philadelphia, while Time Warner dominates Cleveland. That is partly because it is so expensive to lay down the physical cables, and companies, having paid for those networks, guard them jealously, clustering their operations and spending tens of millions of dollars to lobby against laws that might oblige them to share their infrastructure.

In this essay, her preferred solution is better federal regulation that would require companies that own networks to share parts of their infrastructure with competitors (to significantly reduce the problems of natural monopoly). Unfortunately, she did not explicitly discuss the solution of the communities building their own networks - a topic she has discussed at great length elsewhere in very positive terms.

Susan Crawford published an excellent essay in the New York Times presenting her Looming Broadband Monopoly argument as a discussion of the coming digital divide between those with access to next-generation networks and those without.

These numbers are likely to grow even starker as the 30 percent of Americans without any kind of Internet access come online. When they do, particularly if the next several years deliver subpar growth in personal income, they will probably go for the only option that is at all within their reach: wireless smartphones. A wired high-speed Internet plan might cost $100 a month; a smartphone plan might cost half that, often with a free or heavily discounted phone thrown in. The problem is that smartphone access is not a substitute for wired. The vast majority of jobs require online applications, but it is hard to type up a résumé on a hand-held device; it is hard to get a college degree from a remote location using wireless. Few people would start a business using only a wireless connection.

She identifies the problem as a lack of competition in the market while highlighting the role of lobbying from the wealthy cable companies to keep it that way:

The bigger problem is the lack of competition in cable markets. Though there are several large cable companies nationwide, each dominates its own fragmented kingdom of local markets: Comcast is the only game in Philadelphia, while Time Warner dominates Cleveland. That is partly because it is so expensive to lay down the physical cables, and companies, having paid for those networks, guard them jealously, clustering their operations and spending tens of millions of dollars to lobby against laws that might oblige them to share their infrastructure.

In this essay, her preferred solution is better federal regulation that would require companies that own networks to share parts of their infrastructure with competitors (to significantly reduce the problems of natural monopoly). Unfortunately, she did not explicitly discuss the solution of the communities building their own networks - a topic she has discussed at great length elsewhere in very positive terms.