Prices in the U.S. have about doubled since 2010, when the Stanford economist's paper predicted people want broadband so much doubling was possible.

Morgan Stanley found average prices of $66 in 2017, up 12%. Hidden fees often raise that. When Rosston wrote in 2010, most prices were $30-$45. An economist reading Greg's paper could predict prices likely would double if the companies could just signal each other to raise prices. The paper was written for the Broadband Plan where the staff could see large increases coming. Since costs of delivering broadband are down, regular price increases imply we only have weak competition.

Rosston found people were willing to pay ~$45 more for better broadband, which would increase if broadband became even more essential. (It has.) The only way to stop that was strong competition or regulation. Plan leader Blair Levin could see that, but he told me action for either was blocked at a higher level. I guessed that was Larry Summers in the White House, but never could confirm that.

The disease of monopoly-like price increases is spreading to Germany and Britain. Mike Fries and Liberty Global are doing regular price increases and Deutsche Telekom is following. In Britain, BT has just raised prices and I'm watching the others to see if they match. The strategy is like the Americans. Increases that aren't so high the regulator would step in but enough to lead to much higher prices in a few years.

Half the U.S. has only one choice at 25 megabits or better. Few of the rest have more than two.

"My love and reverence for this country comes from living in the house of Raj and Radha Pai. My parents know a little something about the American Dream. They came to this country 46 years ago with literally no assets other than $10, a transistor radio, and a desire to achieve that dream." Pai is a brilliant lawyer steeped in politics. He surely realized his job could disappear if Trump noticed the speech Pai gave in honor or Ronald Reagan.

Pai will go down in history as a man who killed Net Neutrality, or tried to. There's more to him than that, including the courage to stand up for his very strong beliefs.

He's wrong in many of those beliefs: AT&T has made clear that killing neutrality will not lead to the increase in investment Pai expects. T-Mobile & Verizon will build in 3.5 Ghz spectrum without the concessions Pai is about to give them; much, probably most, of the money he thinks will go to expanding broadband is wasted.

But he's right that immigrants should not be scapegoats.  

The question: how to arrange "robust interconnection" of the Internet without being dependent on ICANN. Vladimir Putin is creating an alternate root, with support from India and China. Columbia Professor Eli Noam convinced me a "network of networks" was possible and could be a good thing in theory. I doubt ICANN will actually shut out the Russians, but it's reasonable for Russia to protect itself.* My question here is technical. Thousands of people, especially at the IETF, have worked to build the Internet we have today. The principles are simple; the implementation is demanding. So I'm asking engineers, "What technical systems must be built to ensure robust interconnection, assuming everyone wants to work in good faith?"

     ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi confirmed to me there was no technical reason the Chinese, Hebrews, Verizon or any other competent party couldn't set up independently. Vladimir Putin intends to test that, creating a new root that is not controlled by a California organization. The primary benefits of "The Internet" could be maintained so long as there was "robust interconnection." Fadi added the rub was how to ensure that robust interconnection. 

    I think Fadi was worried about censorship, a real issue.

In 2014, the ICANN CEO promised to make ICANN more truly global. China, now one-third of the Internet, has never been represented on the ICANN board and is bypassed on most issues.* No wonder they are creating alternatives. Since so many in "Internet Governance" seem not to know this, I'm reprinting the transcript from an event in the Manhattan Borough President's office. The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFk-fcuTEM

"Our danger really was that the Chinese were going to announce they will have their own Internet and run away with their own root and leave us kind of a second Internet. That was the biggest danger we were facing. (Audience question) What would happen if they did? (Fadi continued) If they did, and it's a good point, if the Chinese separated their Internet I think the Internet as we know it - as a single platform to share ideas, to share commerce, with a minimum of barriers, with a minimum friction - inevitably if they separate the root we will have friction between the networks. They'll put rules, they'll connect walls.

Kathy Brown has announced her coming resignation as CEO of the Internet Society. It's her decision. She has strong support, continues to be one of the ablest policy advocates in D.C., and has the energy to work very hard. I've known her for many years to be one of the most decent executives in D.C. For the Internet Society, she brought the Internet Governance Forum back from a near-death moment to be a vibrant forum for discussing Internet issues.  (See below for Ms. Brown's view.) 

Kudos are pouring in. Vint Cerf writes, "I would highlight Kathy's astute hiring of talent during her term as CEO and her expansion of the role of ISOC as a supplier of factual data and a defender of the Internet's openness. ISOC was very prominent in the WCIT controversies as a defender of the Internet and in the IANA transition that was by no means a slam dunk. There were real challenges to this change from extremely powerful interests in the US Congress and in international settings. Kathy's most recent contributions came at the IGF in Geneva where she was her usual candid self, laying out real challenges and real goals to guide attendees into the future. She brought to ISOC a pragmatic optimism which I hope will continue under new leadership." 

Google and Facebook continue to fail at blocking what society considers abusive. It may not be possible to do so without a truly massive team examining videos. Despite the German government threatening $millions/day in fines, government pressure everywhere, advertisers fleeing and thousands hired, the control systems are failing. 

Alexi Mostrous, Head of Investigations at Murdoch's Times of London, just before yearend reports, "Child predators are using YouTube as a 'shop window' to showcase abused children before exchanging explicit footage and images with paedophiles around the world. One Brazilian paedophile posted a dozen videos of young girls to YouTube this month. Most were ten seconds long and showed the children standing silently, licking their lips or dancing. One showed a masked child aged about ten saying: “Hey guys I got new underwear.”

Each video was emblazoned with the paedophile’s email address. When an undercover reporter made contact, the man boasted he had 315 gigabytes of material showing 'naked' children.

Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, "The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers." #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)

The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran's sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.

There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend.

The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can "prove" capex went up or went down by selecting the right data.

No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. The two new board members are both Americans, Sarah Deutsch & Avri Doria. Almost all the board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy. I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues. 

China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board. The same for Russia. That's been true for at least 10 years. Avri's a friend and I respect Deutsch, but ICANN continues to exclude over half the Internet users. (Picture is Fadi on the right and me on the left. Thanks, Joly.)

In particular, CEO Fadi Chehadé in 2014 promised "a seat at the table" to Chinese Premier Li.