[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
- From: Chuck Sherwood <chuck.sherwood@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:21:49 -0500
Robert: No cable rates are not regulated which is why they keep going up.
BTW, many of the cable and sports services are owned by the cablecos so they
keep raising rates as vertically integrated monolpolies often do without
appropriate
regulatory oversight. The FCC, Justice and FTC would not think of stepping in.
Good source of information is the National Association of Telecommunication
Officers and Advisors (NATOA). Check out 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 =
> 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
________________________________________________________
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:
