[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
- From: "Daniel Berninger" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:39:14 -0500
Bell envy of the cable co's represents yet another smoke screen. Keep 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 the
normal sorts of corruption tends to limit the threat.
Content represents the number one cost for cable co's. The Bells have no
content costs.
The cable co's understand how to sustain monopolies, but the notion of 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 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 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 Internet
Phone Regulation
>
<snip>
> There is one terribly honest point the Bells make. Why the hell should =
> they
> be pulled apart and eaten while the cable companies are not? Before the
> actual history was explained to me by George Hawley I thought the cable
> companies had built their networks with no government protection. Boy =
> did
> he open my eyes. Further, I saw in Philly what happened when RCN tried =
> 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' in the Subject
field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
Other related posts:
