What Verizon's Op-Eds Won't Tell You About America's Slow, Costly Internet Access

Coverage Type: 

[Commentary] Recently, the incumbent communication companies in America arranged for the publication in The New York Times of two op-eds (in a single week) claiming that America was doing just fine when it comes to high-speed Internet access. But they are trying to confuse you. They are hoping that Americans don't notice that they're focusing on the wrong definition of high-speed Internet access and blurring two separate markets - mobile wireless and fixed connections.

First, the relevant market for everyone is (or should be) high-capacity, low-latency, symmetrical fiber connections to homes and businesses of at least 100Mbps. Second, mobile wireless access sold (at healthy margins) by Verizon and AT&T is a complementary product that isn't substitutable for a high-capacity, low-latency wire at home.

Many Americans are not rich enough to afford the total cost of satisfying their needs for voice and Internet connectivity as well as access to video (or other high-capacity applications) and mobility. And so they choose wireless as the option that satisfies some of their needs at a cost they can afford. But this situation, in which some Americans rely on smartphone access sold by wireless carriers because that's all they can afford, is merely amplifying and cementing existing inequalities in American society. It's a bug, not a feature. You can't cost-effectively enter a classroom virtually using a smartphone, or have a visit with your doctor online, or do many other things that require first-class, very-high-capacity, reasonably-priced access. This problem is about to get much worse as gigabit applications come online.


What Verizon's Op-Eds Won't Tell You About America's Slow, Costly Internet Access