[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
- From: "Robert Lee" <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:58:08 -0500
Thank you. This is great. Lots of good stuff.
Are cable rates regulated? The trajectory of my family's cable bills =
has
been in the opposite direction from that of my PSTN bills. Btw, I no =
longer
have any PSTN bills! Vonage over cable, 3 cell phones (6 family =
members).=20
Also, what about a further content issue. For example, the Comcast =
people.
They own one or two sports teams, an arena or two, used to own QVC, etc. =
I
know they have a big deal with ESPN.
Is there much controversy about the possible restriction of content as =
the
PSTN tries to carry TV?
I hope my questions are not ridiculously na=EFve.=20
Robert Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Chuck Sherwood
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:40 PM
To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes =
Internet
Phone Regulation
And one more issue that I forgot to mention, as of the '92 Telecom Act, =
the
cablecos are permitted to pass through to the subscribers all of the
franchise fees.
Chuck Sherwood
Chuck Sherwood wrote:
> To All: Not sure where Dan got the 10% number since the '84 Cable Act
limits franchisee fees to 5% of gross revenue. Granted they do pay =
other
small fees to states and the FCC but all of these fees are the cost of =
doing
business. Regardless of
> the fees that are paid to Local Franchising Authorities, the cablecos =
make
profits that make the telcos drool. Now regarding content, the =
programming
services pay for carriage on cablesystems just like shelf space in the
supermarket and then they
> give the operators 2 minutes out of every hour on every satellite =
service
to sell as local avails. And the cablecos get a percentage of every =
sale on
the home shopping channels. One other thing the LFAs lost big time when =
the
FCC reclassified
> cable modem services in March and the big fight over S. 150 was an end =
run
that would have eliminated all fees when as we move toward VoIP and =
IPTV.
>
> Chuck Sherwood
> Community Media Visioning Partners
> (508) 385-3808 (voice)
>
> Joshua.Barrett@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > MSOs pay the cities taxes, franchise fees, and right of way fees. =
They =3D
> > also pay county taxes.
> > Another huge expense is pole permits fees. We have to pay the =
electric =3D
> > company and or phone company
> > a monthly rate per pole to attach cable and fiber. Some fees are =
based =3D
> > on the total number of subscribers and some are based on homes =
passed. =3D
> > MSOs also have to provide cable in the classroom - one video and one =
=3D
> > data outlet for school libraries.
> >
> > The MSOs only own the content that they produce. (local content) The =
=3D
> > programmers distribute their content=3D20
> > via satellite to cable headends. We then distribute the content to =
the =3D
> > cable subscribers)
> >
> > http://www.makethemplayfair.com/
> >
> > http://www.cox.com/facts
> >
> > The biggest selling point we have is that we provide more good jobs, =
=3D
> > local investment, and local content than the satellite people. If =
the =3D
> > ILEC started selling video via phone lines they might not be able to =
get
=3D
> > a franchise from the city.
> >
> > Disclaimer - This is my personal opinion only.=3D20
> >
> > Josh Barrett
> > Voice / Data Sales Engineer
> > Cox Business Services
> > Tulsa, OK
> > Desk: (918) 669-4893
> >
> > =3D20
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Lee [mailto:robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:39 PM
> > To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes
> > Internet Phone Regulation
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > Very interesting. I had no clue they paid 10% of revenues. I feel =
like
=3D
> > =3D3D
> > an
> > idiot. That is an enormous amount. What do they get for that? Do =
the
> > municipalities maintain the lines, etc?
> >
> > If the Bells are going to supply video over the PSTN how will they =
wind
=3D
> > =3D3D
> > up
> > supplying the content? For example, will they be able to get ESPN? =
Are
> > there exclusive deals with arms length partners of the cable =
companies =3D
> > =3D3D
> > or is
> > much of the content owned by cable companies and thus not available =
to =3D
> > =3D3D
> > the
> > PSTN? Seems like that would become a very large lever to be plied.
> >
> > Seems to me the cable companies have the better part of an =
unregulated
> > monopoly and so my question remains: How can the "government" =
regulate
=3D
> > =3D3D
> > one
> > and not the other, especially as the offerings converge?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > Robert Lee
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D3D
> > [mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Daniel Berninger
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:39 PM
> > To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes =
=3D3D
> > Internet
> > Phone Regulation
> >
> > Bell envy of the cable co's represents yet another smoke screen. =
Keep =3D
> > =3D3D
> > in
> > mind the cable co's pay franchise fees of various sorts to the local
> > governments on the order of 10% of revenues. Local governments =
hold
> > renewal of the franchises as a stick against the cable co's, =
although =3D
> > =3D3D
> > the
> > normal sorts of corruption tends to limit the threat.
> >
> > Content represents the number one cost for cable co's. The Bells =
have =3D
> > =3D3D
> > no
> > content costs.
> >
> > The cable co's understand how to sustain monopolies, but the notion =
of =3D
> > =3D3D
> > cable
> > co having a better regulatory status than the Bellco's is false.
> >
> > If the Bells were indeed offered a chance to switch regulatory =
regimes =3D
> > =3D3D
> > with
> > the Cable co's , I don't think you would get any takers.
> >
> > The game here on both sides is the pursuit of unregulated =3D3D
> > monopoly....not
> > "regulatory parity".
> >
> > Dan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Lee" <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:49 PM
> > Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes =
=3D3D
> > Internet
> > Phone Regulation
> >
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > There is one terribly honest point the Bells make. Why the hell =
=3D3D
> > should =3D3D3D
> > > they
> > > be pulled apart and eaten while the cable companies are not? =
Before =3D
> > =3D3D
> > the
> > > actual history was explained to me by George Hawley I thought the =
=3D3D
> > cable
> > > companies had built their networks with no government protection. =
Boy
=3D
> > =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D
> > > did
> > > he open my eyes. Further, I saw in Philly what happened when RCN =
tried
=3D
> > =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D
> > > to
> > > run a second cable network. The city stopped them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Lee
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________
> > The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond
> > monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with =
'unsubscribe'
=3D
> > =3D3D
> > in
> > the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
> > http://www.intercommunication.org
> >
> > ________________________________________________________
> > The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond =
=3D
> > monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with =
'unsubscribe'
=3D
> > in the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at =
=3D
> > http://www.intercommunication.org
> >
> > ________________________________________________________
> > The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond
monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' =
in
the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
________________________________________________________
The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond
monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' =
in
the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
________________________________________________________
The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond monopoly
in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject
field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
Other related posts:
