The Verizon-cable deal would end competition and incentives to innovate

[Commentary] There is a growing divide in the United States between the people who can afford top-notch Internet access and those who cannot. The best way to close that gap is with more competition. But we're moving in the opposite direction.

Unless federal regulators scuttle the anti-competitive pacts just struck between the nation's largest phone and cable companies, we are witnessing the end of broadband competition. Verizon Wireless recently announced major deals to acquire valuable chunks of the public airwaves now held by Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox and Bright House Networks. The most stunning part of these deals is a side agreement between the erstwhile competitors to resell each other's products. You'd be able to buy Verizon Wireless service from your friendly neighborhood cable company, or get cable modem and cable TV service from the Verizon Wireless retailer around the corner. That would put an end to any hope for nationwide competition between truly high-speed Internet service providers, while dousing any chance of next-generation wireless services competing against cable and telco broadband. That means higher prices, fewer choices and less innovation.

Things weren't supposed to turn out this way. The last time Congress overhauled the law, in 1996, it decided that competition was the best way "to secure lower prices and higher quality services." But the Federal Communications Commission has generally favored deregulation over rules that would promote competition. Competition was supposed to make broadband more affordable. Having the largest wireless provider and the largest cable companies repackage each other's products simply won't do that.

[Wood is the policy director for Free Press and, overall, a pretty great guy]