The nuetrality-ites are hiding behind the premise that NN regulation is warranted because its a telco-cable duopoly with 98% share; they believe this means there is market failure warranting government price regulation.
This is very lame and misleading analysis.
First, the expert agencies: the FCC the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and the Federal Trade Commission all disagree with the NN assertion that the broadband market is not competitive and hence warrants regulation.
Second, the duopoly assertion ignores the context which is highly relevant. While dial-up was essentially a monopoly, the 1996 Telecom Act addressed that by encouraging competition. Cable modems were a new market and cable created massive competitive pressure on dial-up and on DSL which was forced to lower its prices to attract customers. This Market is not a duopoly, it is a very dynamic market that is in successful transition from a monopoly eleven years ago to a competitive market today.
Third, there are a variety of viable new competitive entrants that will further discipline the market. There are 2 wireless broadband alternatives for over 150 million Americans and an additional one coming in by year end. There is satellite broadband. There is WiFi, and muni-WiFi alternatives. And broadband over powerlines is now a technologically viable third wire into the home.
In short, the neutrality-ites are ignoring all of the competitive success to date, and are completely dismissing all the new competitive entrants in the queue as irrelevant.
Its clear to me the duopoly argument is a smokescreen to hide Neutrality-ites preference for government price regulation over a competitive free market.
