Competition/Antitrust

I think there are three distinct broadband gaps that together define the broadband availability gap – the rural broadband gap, the urban affordability gap, and what I call the competition gap. Nobody is talking about what I call the competition gap. Most places in the US have only one ISP that can deliver fast broadband of speeds greater than 100/20 Mbps. Why does this matter? It is becoming clear that the majority of people and businesses nationwide want relatively fast broadband.

The open access fiber network business model consists of a network operator who builds, manages and owns the fiber network and multiple ISPs who sell wholesale access to the network and resell it to residential and business customers. The ISPs are responsible for all the customer acquisition and support costs/activities, while the network operator is responsible for network operations. This type of shared network model is very popular in Europe largely because regulators have mandated it to level the competitive playing field.

On October 2, AEI hosted an expert panel to discuss how price controls might affect broadband affordability and ways to ensure broadband is affordable for all Americans. The panel featured New Street Research’s Jonathan Chaplin, Duke University’s Michelle P.

USTelecom hosted its annual Broadband Investment Forum, in which internet service providers (ISPs) and policymakers came together to discuss the most poignant issues in the industry. One of the sessions featured Brightspeed CEO Tom Maguire and Ziply Fiber CEO Harold Zeitz, who shared their respective approaches to fiber deployment and how they view the broader competitive landscape. When Brightspeed began operations last fall, its initial goal was to try and hit as many households as possible, said Maguire.

There is an easy way to simplify the upcoming battle between the Federal Communications Commission and big internet service providers (ISPs) over Title II regulation and net neutrality. The public expects the government to regulate industries that are essential. That’s the reason we regulate electric companies and drinking water quality. It’s the reason we regulate meat and drug safety.

This paper examines how the quality of Internet service from existing providers is affected when voters in Colorado approve referenda eliminating a barrier to their local governments providing broadband service. Using a difference-in-differences framework, the research design exploits variation in the timing of a community’s approval of a referendum in order to examine whether incumbent private providers adjust their speed offerings in response to the signal that public entry is more likely.

A discussion about why universal access to affordable, robust broadband is a matter of social justice and necessary for a thriving democracy. That might seem obvious to many of you—how can one fully participate in our society, our economy, our education, health care and financial systems or our democracy without a broadband connection?

One of the most questionable facts circulating in the broadband industry is that a large percentage of homes in the country have multiple internet service provider (ISP) options. A recent U.S. News and World Report states that the FCC data shows that 94 percent of homes have a choice of three or more ISPs. I’ve seen similar statistics elsewhere, and it’s not hard to see that this information comes from the latest FCC mapping data. I’m not surprised to find that the FCC maps show that 94 percent of homes in the country have three or more ISPs claiming the ability to provide service.

The variation in the affordability of internet access is the focus of the latest Internet Poverty Index (IPI) 2023, which projects the distribution of individuals who are priced out of a basic package of mobile internet and are thus living in internet poverty. Based on the latest IPI data, World Data Lab predicts that 1.05 billion people are currently living in internet poverty. Since 2015, the internet-poor population has decreased by 685 million or around 40 percent. The reduction in internet poverty has been driven by a universal

The Federal Trade Commission announced a new proposed rule to prohibit junk fees, which are hidden and bogus fees that can harm consumers and undercut honest businesses. The FTC has estimated that these fees can cost consumers tens of billions of dollars per year in unexpected costs.