[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 18:46:42 -0500
Thanks, Chuck. If not regulated, then the permission of the taxing
authorities to pass on tax costs, or any costs, is superfluous. Pricing =
is
done by the "wince theory". You raise prices until the subscribers =
wince. =20
Yet, to be fair to the cable companies, they do not make GAAP profits. =
And
the Bells do. I am sure that has to do with the age of the investments.
Perhaps a more fair measure is cash flow.
Robert Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Chuck Sherwood
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:22 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 =
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 =
=3D
> has
> been in the opposite direction from that of my PSTN bills. Btw, I no =
=3D
> longer
> have any PSTN bills! Vonage over cable, 3 cell phones (6 family =3D
> members).=3D20
>
> Also, what about a further content issue. For example, the Comcast =
=3D
> people.
> They own one or two sports teams, an arena or two, used to own QVC, =
etc. =3D
> I
> know they have a big deal with ESPN.
>
> Is there much controversy about the possible restriction of content as =
=3D
> the
> PSTN tries to carry TV?
>
> I hope my questions are not ridiculously na=3DEFve.=3D20
>
> Robert Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D
> [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
> Internet
> Phone Regulation
>
> And one more issue that I forgot to mention, as of the '92 Telecom =
Act, =3D
> 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 =
=3D
> other
> small fees to states and the FCC but all of these fees are the cost of =
=3D
> doing
> business. Regardless of
> > the fees that are paid to Local Franchising Authorities, the =
cablecos =3D
> make
> profits that make the telcos drool. Now regarding content, the =3D
> 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
> service
> to sell as local avails. And the cablecos get a percentage of every =
=3D
> sale on
> the home shopping channels. One other thing the LFAs lost big time =
when =3D
> the
> FCC reclassified
> > cable modem services in March and the big fight over S. 150 was an =
end =3D
> run
> that would have eliminated all fees when as we move toward VoIP and =
=3D
> 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
> They =3D3D
> > > also pay county taxes.
> > > Another huge expense is pole permits fees. We have to pay the =3D
> electric =3D3D
> > > company and or phone company
> > > a monthly rate per pole to attach cable and fiber. Some fees are =
=3D
> based =3D3D
> > > on the total number of subscribers and some are based on homes =3D
> passed. =3D3D
> > > MSOs also have to provide cable in the classroom - one video and =
one =3D
> =3D3D
> > > data outlet for school libraries.
> > >
> > > The MSOs only own the content that they produce. (local content) =
The =3D
> =3D3D
> > > programmers distribute their content=3D3D20
> > > via satellite to cable headends. We then distribute the content to =
=3D
> the =3D3D
> > > 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
> =3D3D
> > > local investment, and local content than the satellite people. If =
=3D
> the =3D3D
> > > ILEC started selling video via phone lines they might not be able =
to =3D
> get
> =3D3D
> > > a franchise from the city.
> > >
> > > Disclaimer - This is my personal opinion only.=3D3D20
> > >
> > > Josh Barrett
> > > Voice / Data Sales Engineer
> > > Cox Business Services
> > > Tulsa, OK
> > > Desk: (918) 669-4893
> > >
> > > =3D3D20
> > >
> > > -----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 =3D
> like
> =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > an
> > > idiot. That is an enormous amount. What do they get for that? Do =
=3D
> the
> > > municipalities maintain the lines, etc?
> > >
> > > If the Bells are going to supply video over the PSTN how will they =
=3D
> wind
> =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > up
> > > supplying the content? For example, will they be able to get =
ESPN? =3D
> Are
> > > there exclusive deals with arms length partners of the cable =3D
> companies =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > or is
> > > much of the content owned by cable companies and thus not =
available =3D
> to =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > 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 =3D
> unregulated
> > > monopoly and so my question remains: How can the "government" =3D
> regulate
> =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > one
> > > and not the other, especially as the offerings converge?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > Robert Lee
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D3D3D
> > > [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 =3D
> =3D3D3D
> > > Internet
> > > Phone Regulation
> > >
> > > Bell envy of the cable co's represents yet another smoke screen. =
=3D
> Keep =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > 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 =
=3D
> hold
> > > renewal of the franchises as a stick against the cable co's, =3D
> although =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > the
> > > normal sorts of corruption tends to limit the threat.
> > >
> > > Content represents the number one cost for cable co's. The Bells =
=3D
> have =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > no
> > > content costs.
> > >
> > > The cable co's understand how to sustain monopolies, but the =
notion =3D
> of =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > cable
> > > co having a better regulatory status than the Bellco's is false.
> > >
> > > If the Bells were indeed offered a chance to switch regulatory =3D
> regimes =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > 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 =3D3D3D
> > > 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 =3D
> =3D3D3D
> > > Internet
> > > Phone Regulation
> > >
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > There is one terribly honest point the Bells make. Why the hell =
=3D
> =3D3D3D
> > > should =3D3D3D3D
> > > > they
> > > > be pulled apart and eaten while the cable companies are not? =
=3D
> Before =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > the
> > > > actual history was explained to me by George Hawley I thought =
the =3D
> =3D3D3D
> > > cable
> > > > companies had built their networks with no government =
protection. =3D
> Boy
> =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > did
> > > > he open my eyes. Further, I saw in Philly what happened when RCN =
=3D
> tried
> =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D3D
> > > > 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 =3D
> 'unsubscribe'
> =3D3D
> > > =3D3D3D
> > > 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
> =3D3D
> > > monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with =3D
> 'unsubscribe'
> =3D3D
> > > in the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web =
at =3D
> =3D3D
> > > http://www.intercommunication.org
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________
> > > The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting =
beyond
> monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with =
'unsubscribe' =3D
> 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' =3D
> 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:
