Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC. The bulk of the discussion was regarding his take on the regulatory framework that encourages, influences, and inhibits broadband access in the United States. In it we see Martin’s underlying values in supporting the FCC decisions recently ruled upon in the US Supreme Court.

I think its important when companies invest capital in purchasing equipment and deploying service to customers they’ve got to be able to have a regulatory environment that let’s them recoup in the long run that investment or they won’t make that investment. That’s one thing the commission and I’ve been focused on to make sure companies have the opportunity to invest and upgrade their infrastructure and recoup that investment if they’re willing to make it and bring those new services. We have the benefit today that both the cable and the phone companies are trying to deploy and upgrade their infrastructures.

In light of the ongoing pricing wars between ILECs and local cable companies, it seems clear that low profit margins on line-sharing is not a real disincentive for these companies at all. All that this deregulation is accomplishing is limiting the choices we as end-consumers have in regards to the services we enjoy in a broadband environment. In California, SBC currently offers DSL lines wholesale to independent ISPs at prices that are at roughly 50% of the old tariff. This is being done not only voluntarily, but it was SBC’s idea. If artificial competition is whittling away at these companies’ margins to such an extent that they cannot deploy more infrastructure, why would they go out of their way to reduce their margins even further? I smell a rat.