Verizon today said it is “dispelling the myth” that it is a monopoly, responding to claims from Netflix and others that Verizon and other broadband providers have too much market power in the territories they operate in.

Netflix has argued that it had no choice but to pay Verizon, Comcast, and others for direct access to their networks because these big ISPs rarely compete against each other, giving each one control over large portions of the country. This is especially true in the cable market; Comcast has acknowledged that it’s too expensive to compete against other cable companies, so incumbent providers avoid building in areas where other incumbents already exist.

But Verizon’s FiOS fiber-to-the-home service is competing against cable, and Verizon wants everyone to remember that.

“Central to the rationale that Title II advocates persist in using to justify common carrier regulation is the claim that broadband providers supposedly enjoy a ‘terminating access monopoly’ that allows them to restrict consumer choice and disadvantage competitors,” Verizon Public Policy VP David Young wrote in a blog post today. “This is simply not true. And today, we filed a declaration by Professor Janusz Ordover, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics in the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, and Dr. Andres Lerner [an antitrust consultant] confirming that there is no ‘terminating access monopoly’ for wireless broadband… The declaration also makes clear that there is no terminating monopoly in the case of Verizon’s wireline broadband services, including Verizon’s FiOS broadband service, since these services face near-ubiquitous competition with next generation cable broadband.”

The Federal Communications Commission may soon reclassify broadband providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act in order to enforce net neutrality rules. But Young wrote that “the lack of a ‘terminating monopoly’ eviscerates the case for Title II reclassification.”

The Ordover/Lerner declaration commissioned by Verizon for the FCC’s net neutrality proceeding cites criticism from Netflix and advocacy groups such as Free Press.

Ordover and Lerner argue first that there is significant competition in the wireless broadband market, which isn’t surprising given that there are four major nationwide wireless carriers. The “terminating access monopoly” argument is generally applied to wireline broadband where ISPs have great regional power, but Ordover and Lerner have a response here, too.

“While an analysis of wireline broadband services nationwide is beyond the scope of this paper, our analysis has determined that the ‘terminating access monopoly’ framework also does not apply to the wireline broadband Internet access services that are offered by Verizon based on the nature of those services and the competitive conditions in the markets where they are offered,” they write. “While industry observers and commenters typically frame their arguments to focus on areas in which a cable operator competes against a DSL network that offers much lower speeds, or is the only option, Verizon faces significant competition from next-generation, high-speed cable services in almost all areas in which it offers wireline broadband services, including virtually all areas in which it offers its FiOS services. In addition, customers can and do regularly switch broadband providers in these markets, and content providers have the same ability as in the wireless context to pass costs back to end user customers and to encourage customers to switch providers if Verizon were to increase the cost or degrade the quality of their content services.”

Netflix obviously disagrees. In a November 2014 FCC filing, the streaming video company complained about the fees it pays Verizon and other ISPs for direct network connections. “Rather than providing access to ISPs across the country or the globe, as large transit providers do, ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon merely accept data onto the networks serving their respective subscribers’ broadband access services,” Netflix Public Policy VP Christopher Libertelli wrote. “Because those ISPs have terminating access monopolies, those fees are not (and indeed cannot be) disciplined by competition in the transit market.”

Netflix has argued that it should get free access to the ISPs' networks. Title II reclassification wouldn't necessarily restrict how much ISPs can charge Netflix, but if broadband providers were common carriers, Netflix could complain to the FCC if it believed ISPs were charging unreasonable rates.

The FCC is examining Netflix's deals with ISPs, but net neutrality rules may apply only to how ISPs treat Internet traffic after it enters their networks. Netflix's deals with Internet providers ensure smooth entry into their networks, but they don't provide any prioritization thereafter.