[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
- From: jim rogers <jimorogers@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:47:02 -0800 (PST)
I'm not sure why we're having this discussion about
cable monopolies. Are we trying to equate cablecos to
telcos, e.g., the RBOCs? If so, I think we need to
step back from the edge. Granted the cablecos are out
of control with respect to rate increases. But most of
us do, in fact, have an alternative to the monopoly
cable franchise. Actually, most of us have at least
two or three alternatives -- including DBS (usually
two providers) and (dare I say it?) free over-the-air
network programming. No such luck with the telcos.
Most of us residential customers are stuck with the
local RBOC incumbent -- unless, of course, we decide
to toss the wireline provider out of the house and
switch to wireless. But that can be a costly measure.
Let's try, for a moment, to remember what the
Hundt-Kennard FCC had in mind when it allowed the
cablecos to remain virtually unregulated. The FCC, at
that time, saw cablecos as monopolies with the
potential to rock the telcos' monopolies -- the notion
being that sometimes it takes a monopolist to beat a
monopolist. Atually, that strategy worked fairly well
-- at least until Mike Powell stepped in and changed
the playing field. Since the Powell FCC released its
TRO, the RBOCs are now pretty much free to revitalize
their dominance of the residential marketplace,
without much fear of serious interference from the
cable monopoly. The telcos are already in 90% of the
homes in America. Cablecos, try as they will, can't
get much past the 60-65% mark on actual penetration.
If the RBOCs finally do what they appear to be
posturing to do, they will have a huge leg up in the
battle to deliver television programming to U.S.
residences. They've alread done that with the long
distance piece. What makes anyone beleive they won't
do the same thing with broadband? Let's get real,
folks. The cablecos are not the enemy. Like everyone
else in the country, I hate the never-ending cable
rate increases. And when I get to hating them too
much, I'll exercise my option to switch providers. I
just wish I could do the same thing with my wireline
telephony service provider.
JR
--- "David T. Blonder" <david_blonder@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> I disagree with Josh Barret's statement that Cable
> Cos
> adjust their rates based on what the DBS providers
> are
> doing. There is competition, but in most cabled
> areas, cable will own probably 70% or more of the
> market, with the 2 remaining DBS providers making up
> the rest.
>
> Cox, a top 10 MSO but middle of the road player,
> has
> taken a firm stand on sports programming costs,
> threatening to pull ESPN. DOubtful to happen for
> fear
> of losing customers. They will work out a
> deal--whether it be a price increase or a tiering
> arrangement. The bottom line is that cable price
> increases have far exceeded the cPi over the past
> few
> years.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Chuck Sherwood <chuck.sherwood@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Joshua: What about all of the regional sports
> > services carried on cablesystem that are cableco
> > owned and then they also own the teams and get
> > stadiums subsidized by local government? Look at
> > the multimedia content creation and distribution
> > company that you work for!
> >
> > Chuck Sherwood
> >
> > Joshua.Barrett@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > hmmm... Which cable and sports services are
> owned
> > by cablecos? Cablecos =
> > > adjust their rates based on strong competition
> > from DBS and programming =
> > > 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 =
> > > 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. =
>
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________
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:
