Internet co-creator says U.S. broadband competition has ‘evaporated’ - Yahoo! News

Internet co-creator says U.S. broadband competition has ‘evaporated’ - Yahoo! News: Cerf didn’t offer any concrete suggestions for ways to make the American broadband market more competitive, but generally dismissed the idea that deregulating broadband services would magically lead to more options and lower prices for consumers.

Mr. Cerf's dearth of suggestions to increase competition is because there are none as long as he's talking about investor-owned telecommunications infrastructure competition.  What's needed to end years of these continuing lamentations by Cerf and others is publicly- or consumer-owned open access fiber to the premise infrastructure where service providers pay for network access and compete for customers.  As Andrew Cohill aptly put it a few years ago, the current investor-owned model is broken because it's about as economically inefficient and nonsensical as having package delivery predicated on Federal Express or UPS to first have to invest in building private roads so their delivery trucks can reach customers.

Monopoly power of U.S. telcos harms national interest, Internet protocol developer Vint Cerf says

Internet protocol developer and Google Internet evangelist Vint Cerf warns the existing structure of U.S. telecommunications providers impedes Internet access and harms the national interest. Cerf criticizes the monopolistic market power of the telcos, which allows them to hold out for regulatory concessions before investing in their infrastructure -- infrastructure he says is as vital as roads and highways.

While not calling on the government to bust up the monopoly, Cerf says providers need to be restructured, according to a Canadian account of a recent interview Cerf gave to a Silicon Valley blog:

Cerf said large internet service providers (ISPs) need to be split into two entities — one wholesale arm that sells access to the company's network to other firms, and one retail arm that sells internet access to customers. The wholesale arm would have to sell access to other service providers at the same rate that it charges itself.

The model has been adopted in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, where Cerf said it is working.

Vint Cerf: Single purpose phone, cable systems and legacy regulation impede broadband expansion

Some observations from World Wide Web creator Vint Cerf. They show that we're in a transition period between yesterday's single purpose, proprietary analog-based telco and cable systems and an evolving digital Internet Protocol-based platform that can deliver the Web, voice and video. Cerf's observations suggest this transition explains why many broadband black holes persist in the U.S. since the nation's current infrastructure was not designed and built to deliver universally accessible IP-based services. Nor is the current regulatory scheme that treats the Internet as an afterthought -- an optional "information sevice" -- rather than an essential telecommunications service.

Cerf also pays homage to the notion that IP-based infrastructure is a natural monopoly like publicly owned roads and highways that by its nature does not lend itself to market competition:

You don't have multiple roads going to your house for example. Instead, it is a common resource. I said something like "maybe we should treat the Internet more like the road system."

Cerf correctly notes that competition to deliver IP-based services isn't likely to develop among the legacy telco and cable providers since the old regulatory framework isn't designed to foster competition for them. He posits that like the early telephone system, subsidies will be needed to ensure universal access.

If broadband service is essential to the national economy and to citizens, given the present means by which it is implemented, and given that it appears unlikely that the usual competitive pressures will lead to discipline among the competitors, perhaps we need new national rules to assure that the service is openly and equally accessible to any application provider and to all users. Equal does not mean that everyone pays the same amount. In particular, higher capacity might be priced at a higher rate. Provision needs to be made, however, to deal with high cost (to the provider) areas using a new form of Universal Service or some other subsidy.