[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
- From: "David T. Blonder" <david_blonder@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Yes, Comcast owns the FLyers and Sixers, as well as
part ownership of the Phillies and they put their QVC
interest to John Malone of Liberty Media a few months
ago. Comcast this week just announced a joint venture
with all of the CHicago sports teams to launch a new
RSN next year...stealing the rights out from
Cablevision and Fox. They also own Comcast SPortsNet
midatalantic, which is in the MD/DC/VA area, and the
Carolinas.
Fox Cable Networks, a subsidiary of News Corp. is the
largest owner of Regional Sports Networks (about
19)--well now 18, of which 7 it is in a partnership
with Cablevision (the cable co. that pulled Yes! (the
yankees) for over a year. Fox owns significant
carriage rights for numerous sports teams in all
leagues. In addition--it is reported that the FCC is
on the verge of granting approval to NewsCorp.'s
purchase of a controlling interest in DirecTV. and
states that the FCC is tentatively planning to impose
conditions on the deal (i.e. no blackouts,
arbitrationover price increase, etc.). Fox sold the
Dodgers recently as well.
Cox also has interests in sports teams. I believe the
Padres and the New Orleans teams.
Thare are more, but that is a good smattering of MSO
ownership of either sports rights or sports teams.
--- Robert Lee <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am not sports knowledgeable but doesn't Comcast
> own the Flyers and the
> Sixers and also the arena? Need help here. I know
> Comcast owned QVC.
>
>
> Robert Lee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
> [mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Joshua.Barrett@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:40 PM
> To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart:
> Powell Opposes =
> Internet
> Phone Regulation
>
>
> hmmm... Which cable and sports services are owned by
> cablecos? Cablecos =
> =3D
> adjust their rates based on strong competition from
> DBS and programming =
> =3D
> costs. The cable companies don't need any more
> government regulation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Sherwood
> [mailto:chuck.sherwood@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:22 PM
> To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart:
> Powell Opposes
> Internet Phone Regulation
>
>
>
> Robert: No cable rates are not regulated which is
> why they keep going =
> =3D
> up. BTW, many of the cable and sports services are
> owned by the =3D
> cablecos so they keep raising rates as vertically
> integrated monolpolies =
> =3D
> often do without appropriate
> regulatory oversight. The FCC, Justice and FTC
> would not think of =3D
> stepping in. Good source of information is the
> National Association of =
> =3D
> Telecommunication Officers and Advisors (NATOA).
> Check out =3D
> www.natoa.org. Another great resource is the
> TeleCommUnity folks at
> www.telecommunityalliance.org.
>
> Chuck
>
> Robert Lee wrote:
>
> > Thank you. This is great. Lots of good stuff.
> >
> > Are cable rates regulated? The trajectory of my
> family's cable bills =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > has
> > been in the opposite direction from that of my
> PSTN bills. Btw, I no =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > longer
> > have any PSTN bills! Vonage over cable, 3 cell
> phones (6 family =3D3D
> > members).=3D3D20
> >
> > Also, what about a further content issue. For
> example, the Comcast =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > people.
> > They own one or two sports teams, an arena or two,
> used to own QVC, =
> =3D
> etc. =3D3D
> > I
> > know they have a big deal with ESPN.
> >
> > Is there much controversy about the possible
> restriction of content as =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > the
> > PSTN tries to carry TV?
> >
> > I hope my questions are not ridiculously
> na=3D3DEFve.=3D3D20
> >
> > Robert Lee
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D3D
> > [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 =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > Internet
> > Phone Regulation
> >
> > And one more issue that I forgot to mention, as of
> the '92 Telecom =3D
> Act, =3D3D
> > 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 =
> =3D
> Act
> > limits franchisee fees to 5% of gross revenue.
> Granted they do pay =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > other
> > small fees to states and the FCC but all of these
> fees are the cost of =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > doing
> > business. Regardless of
> > > the fees that are paid to Local Franchising
> Authorities, the =3D
> cablecos =3D3D
> > make
> > profits that make the telcos drool. Now regarding
> content, the =3D3D
> > 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 =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > service
> > to sell as local avails. And the cablecos get a
> percentage of every =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > sale on
> > the home shopping channels. One other thing the
> LFAs lost big time =
> =3D
> when =3D3D
> > the
> > FCC reclassified
> > > cable modem services in March and the big fight
> over S. 150 was an =
> =3D
> end =3D3D
> > run
> > that would have eliminated all fees when as we
> move toward VoIP and =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > 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. =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > They =3D3D3D
> > > > also pay county taxes.
> > > > Another huge expense is pole permits fees. We
> have to pay the =
> =3D3D
> > electric =3D3D3D
> > > > company and or phone company
> > > > a monthly rate per pole to attach cable and
> fiber. Some fees are =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > based =3D3D3D
> > > > on the total number of subscribers and some
> are based on homes =
> =3D3D
> > passed. =3D3D3D
> > > > MSOs also have to provide cable in the
> classroom - one video and =
> =3D
> one =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > data outlet for school libraries.
> > > >
> > > > The MSOs only own the content that they
> produce. (local content) =
> =3D
> The =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > programmers distribute their content=3D3D3D20
> > > > via satellite to cable headends. We then
> distribute the content to =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > the =3D3D3D
> > > > cable subscribers)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.makethemplayfair.com/
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cox.com/facts
> > > >
> > > > The biggest selling point we have is that we
> provide more good =3D
> jobs, =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > local investment, and local content than the
> satellite people. If =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > the =3D3D3D
> > > > ILEC started selling video via phone lines
> they might not be able =
> =3D
> to =3D3D
> > get
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > a franchise from the city.
> > > >
> > > > Disclaimer - This is my personal opinion
> only.=3D3D3D20
> > > >
> > > > Josh Barrett
> > > > Voice / Data Sales Engineer
> > > > Cox Business Services
> > > > Tulsa, OK
> > > > Desk: (918) 669-4893
> > > >
> > > > =3D3D3D20
> > > >
> > > > -----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 =3D
> Opposes
> > > > Internet Phone Regulation
> > > >
> > > > Dan,
> > > >
> > > > Very interesting. I had no clue they paid 10%
> of revenues. I =3D
> feel =3D3D
> > like
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > an
> > > > idiot. That is an enormous amount. What do
> they get for that? Do =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > the
> > > > municipalities maintain the lines, etc?
> > > >
> > > > If the Bells are going to supply video over
> the PSTN how will they =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > wind
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > up
> > > > supplying the content? For example, will they
> be able to get =3D
> ESPN? =3D3D
> > Are
> > > > there exclusive deals with arms length
> partners of the cable =3D3D
> > companies =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > or is
> > > > much of the content owned by cable companies
> and thus not =3D
> available =3D3D
> > to =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > the
> > > > PSTN? Seems like that would become a very
> large lever to be =3D
> plied.
> > > >
> > > > Seems to me the cable companies have the
> better part of an =3D3D
> > unregulated
> > > > monopoly and so my question remains: How can
> the "government" =
> =3D3D
> > regulate
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > one
> > > > and not the other, especially as the offerings
> converge?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Robert Lee
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D3D3D3D
> > > > [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 =3D
> Opposes =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > Internet
> > > > Phone Regulation
> > > >
> > > > Bell envy of the cable co's represents yet
> another smoke screen. =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > Keep =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > in
> > > > mind the cable co's pay franchise fees of
> various sorts to the =3D
> local
> > > > governments on the order of 10% of revenues.
> Local governments =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > hold
> > > > renewal of the franchises as a stick against
> the cable co's, =3D3D
> > although =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > the
> > > > normal sorts of corruption tends to limit the
> threat.
> > > >
> > > > Content represents the number one cost for
> cable co's. The Bells =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > have =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > no
> > > > content costs.
> > > >
> > > > The cable co's understand how to sustain
> monopolies, but the =3D
> notion =3D3D
> > of =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > cable
> > > > co having a better regulatory status than the
> Bellco's is false.
> > > >
> > > > If the Bells were indeed offered a chance to
> switch regulatory =
> =3D3D
> > regimes =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > 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 =
> =3D3D3D3D
> > > > 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 =3D
> Opposes =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > Internet
> > > > Phone Regulation
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > There is one terribly honest point the Bells
> make. Why the hell =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > should =3D3D3D3D3D
> > > > > they
> > > > > be pulled apart and eaten while the cable
> companies are not? =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > Before =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > the
> > > > > actual history was explained to me by George
> Hawley I thought =
> =3D
> the =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > cable
> > > > > companies had built their networks with no
> government =3D
> protection. =3D3D
> > Boy
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D3D
> > > > > did
> > > > > he open my eyes. Further, I saw in Philly
> what happened when RCN =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > tried
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D3D
> > > > > to
> > > > > run a second cable network. The city
> stopped them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert Lee
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
________________________________________________________
> > > > The antidote list discussion covers issues
> related to getting =3D
> beyond
> > > > monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending
> message with =3D3D
> > 'unsubscribe'
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > 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 =3D
> beyond =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending
> message with =3D3D
> > 'unsubscribe'
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > in the Subject field to
> antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web =
> =3D
> at =3D3D
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > http://www.intercommunication.org
> > > >
> > > >
>
________________________________________________________
> > > > The antidote list discussion covers issues
> related to getting =3D
> beyond
> > monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending
> message with =3D
> 'unsubscribe' =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
> > monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending
> message with =3D
> 'unsubscribe' =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 =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
>
=====
David T. Blonder
Home Tel. : 301.589.5975
Work Tel. : 202.616-6506
email 1: david_blonder@xxxxxxxxx
email 2:david.blonder@xxxxxxxxx
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________
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:
