[opendtv] Re: And now he's confusing kids
- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "brewmastercraig" for DMARC)
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 09:16:52 -0400
On Sep 22, 2018, at 9:14 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Shutt wrote:
ISDN was always charged by the minute, and the rate varied with
destination.
Jeez, John, this is the most you've ever written! Yes, and telcos also
charged by the minute for regular old analog phone calls, initially. But they
finally had unlimited plans. Long before the Internet. So what? It also makes
their own job easier, when they can simplify their accounting.
Uhhhhh Bert. It was the ability to create a network that could track and charge
for every call that produced massive revenues for the Telcos. It was the most
important part of their business. That unlimited local plan paid for the last
mile, but the long distance network was the real money maker.
The LAST THING the telcos wanted was competition for long distance service. It
made a major component of their networks obsolete, and allowed consumers and
businesses to invest the money saved into new technologies.
And with "net neutrality" we are talking about charging content
providers for the bandwidth they use, or limiting the amount of
bandwidth they have available to them for what they pay.
That has nothing to do with net neutrality, John. The accounting procedures
are a totally different matter. Net neutrality simply means that your local
monopoly (if not absolutely, just about) telecom service cannot get in
cahoots with users of the telecom, to allow or block at will, for whatever
reason strikes their fancy. (As MVPDs have always done.)
Bert is correct. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality - no ISP is
blocking any legal Internet service. There is NO INCENTIVE for them to do so.
I’m still paying Cox almost $80/mo to use their cables. I’m paying AT&T $40/mo
for VMVPD service. And I’m paying AT&T about $200/mo for four smart phone lines
with unlimited long distance, 10 GB of data and a world of services that did
not exist when I was paying more than $200/mo for one business telephone line
at my office.
When cable TV first arrived in our neighborhood, I asked why the Baltimore
channels weren't available. I could get them all OTA, why not on cable? They
said no, we can't do that.
So Bert. Why did they limit your access to Washington D.C. stations?
Clue: FCC regulations, imposed when broadcasters got pissed off because some
stations were willing to compensate the cable companies to carry their distant
signals. Hence the entire Must Carry regulations of the ‘80s, which evolved
into retransmission consent in the ‘90s. It’s called protecting the local
market structure of broadcasting in the U.S.
Having been accustomed to totally neutral OTA spectrum, that turned me off so
much that I passed. Then I saw what these guys did to their monthly fees, in
the first year, and that was all it took. Never had any desire to become
suckered into anything like that.
So you got suckered into watching a bunch of free crap, while the quality
content moved behind pay walls. Then the broadcasters used retransmission
consent to drive up the prices that the 1992 Cable Act was ‘supposed” to
control.
Now, this genius of an FCC Chairman thinks it would be cool for the Internet
to become that way. It's a true travesty.
Only in your warped mind.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
