Reading more telecommunications scholarship today, I'm struck by how analog the discussion is.  Broadband networks are analogized to department stores, bridges used by railroads, road systems -- it's as if interactivity never happened, and we're all just part of a global production chain.  We consume, they provide, the only question is who gets to charge for what.  Whoof.

Well, so if broadband access is a department store (sure, I'll play on your field) is it all Macy's?

Effectively, yes.  We have very few choices here in the U.S.

According to the FCC's July report [pdf]:  about half of us have two choices of broadband provider (DSL and cable); a third only have one choice; and about 13% have no broadband service from either DSL or cable.  Satellite, wireless, and the much-hoped-for BPL (broadband over power line) make up about .5% of residential broadband access.

Verizon is confident enough about the situation for its subscribers that it wrote to me (and millions of other people) saying it intended to charge a new fee.  I wrote back saying "inappropriate and unlawful" but they weren't taking messages.

Starting August 26, 2006, Verizon Online will begin charging a Supplier Surcharge for all new DSL customers, existing customers with a DSL monthly or bundle package, and existing DSL annual plan customers at the time their current annual plan expires. This surcharge is not a government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to help offset costs we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL service. The Supplier Surcharge will initially be set at $1.20 a month for Verizon Online DSL customers with service up to 768Kbps and $2.70 per month for customers with DSL service at higher speeds.

I don't think we've got a very competitive marketplace if this company can impose another fee on a commodity service.  Prices should be going down, not up.

In the Netherlands they're paying 7 euros for 30Mbps symmetrical service.