[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 15:38:53 -0500
Dan,
Very interesting. I had no clue they paid 10% of revenues. I feel like =
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 =
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 =
or is
much of the content owned by cable companies and thus not available to =
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 =
one
and not the other, especially as the offerings converge?
Bob
Robert Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[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 =
Internet
Phone Regulation
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 =3D
> 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 =
=3D
> did
> he open my eyes. Further, I saw in Philly what happened when RCN tried =
=3D
> 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
________________________________________________________
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:
