[opendtv] Re: Chairman Pai blog on bridging digital divide
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:18:11 -0400
On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You still don't get it, Craig. That's precisely my point! You have to "deal
with them," not cave in and play dead, as this FCC seems to want to do. When
market forces can't work, for inescapable economic, technical, or quality of
life reasons, the government is what the people created, to protect our best
interests. It's the lunatic paranoids that assume otherwise.
No Bert. The lunatics are running the asylum.
You point to a few types of utilities for which there is little opportunity for
competition, like water and sewer service. But the reality is we survived as a
nation for centuries without forcing people to use these monopoly services.
I cannot drill a deep well or install a septic tank at my house - the local
utility (owned by the City) worked with the local governments - city and county
- to require me to hook up to these services. Meanwhile, on my property about
five miles from my home I have a well, and can install a septic tank if I
choose to build a home there.
It's all about "the public interest."
The provisioning of electric power is based in three critical infrastructures:
Power Generation
Wide area distribution (the grid)
Local distribution - power lines installed by local monopolies
Everything is interconnected - nobody tracks the electrons put into the grid
from the power generation facility to my home - they come from multiple
generation facilities.
It is now commonplace for large businesses to buy power from lowest cost
providers attached to the grid. In most areas of the country it is ILLEGAL for
residential power users to do the same.
And then there is the legal minefield related to solar power and connection to
the local utilities...
Need I mention the breakup of AT&T and the article deregulation of the
telephone industry?
Regulation as "natural monopolies" has cost us dearly, in lack of innovation,
higher costs to consumers, and "public interest" regulations.
OBVIOUSLY people who want "some" of the content included in MVPD
bundles would like to be able to buy ala carte rather than paying for
all kinds of stuff they do not want.
No need to get bogged down. The general point is that monopolies can get away
with whatever suits them, not whatever suits the customer. For some reason,
you hadn't figured this out. And once again, no one gives a hoot when it's
only an unessential entertainment service. It matters when it's an essential
telecom service.
Monopolies cannot get away with whatever suits them Bert, UNLESS they have the
complicit support of the political/regulatory class. Sorry, but this is well
documented history - please read the The Political Spectrum to fully understand
how this game has been played Bert. It might open your eyes to the
DISADVANTAGES of natural monopolies and regulation in"the public interest."
But what you wrote above is fascinating.
"Nobody gives a hoot when it's only an unessential entertainment service"
Really? SO how is it that these unessential entertainment services have become
powerful monopolies, and hence now need to be regulated?
You cannot have it both ways Bert. But the FCC did.
Cable was blocked from competing with TV broadcasters for decades, required to
carry only local stations, then forced to pay for these FOTA signals via
retransmission consent.
When MVPD services were allowed to compete with the protected broadcasters,
consumers were overwhelmed with choice and the audience for the four broadcast
networks was decimated - from nearly 100% to about 30%.
Were the content congloms subject to more competition? Only briefly, until they
used their political muscle to take over their new competitors.
Then the Internet opened up the opportunity for even more choice. But for some
strange reason you believe that heavy handed FCC regulation of the Internet
under Title II will protect net neutrality. That it will keep the regulators -
with a hundred year history of micromanaging the industries it regulates - from
regulating the Internet.
Only paranoid lunatics could possible believe the regulators will stand down
and protect us. The reality is they are in the business of protecting special
interests - it is a VERY lucrative business.
Walled gardens exist everywhere Bert, especially on the Internet.
So you insist. No, Craig, this is just you being incomprehensibly obtuse,
just to prolong an inane argument.
It is reality Bert.
If I shop Amazon, it doesn't mean I can't shop at Crutchfield. Amazon can't
prevent me from doing so. I can subscribe to Sling TV, without being
prevented from subscribing to Netflix, or watching cbs.com. That's because
these are NOT walled in. Cable systems wall you in. Potentially, broadband
providers can too, if given half a chance. Why? Because they can accrue
benefits by doing so. (I know this came as a super shocker to you recently,
like it never dawned on you how being non-neutral could possibly help an ISP.)
They are all walled in Bert. If not you would be able to use all of these
services WITHOUT paying for them. If you want to watch "The Handmaidens Tale,"
feel free to subscribe to Hulu. Want "House of Cards," you'll need to pay for
Netflix. For "Game of Thrones" you'll need to pay for HBO.
You can subscribe to SlingTV and all of these walled garden services if you
choose to do so. But the reality is you choose NOT TO, and then complain about
the walls...
Cable systems offer a product; take it or leave it. But those walls were
breached a long time ago - regulators forced them to carry all local stations,
and block distant stations when they duplicate local programming. Then
broadcasters were given the ability to shake down the MVPDs in order to sell
them bundles of networks both broadcast and non-broadcast. In the end we got
more choice, but its almost all owned by five companies. Now the same thing is
happening via the Internet.
As for blocking this new competition, wake up. Cable STBs now leverage the
Internet for enhanced services - Comcast and others allow you to access Netflix
and other services via their STBs.
But you know what, Craig? The VERY vast majority of Americans have figured it
out. Across party lines. And contrary to what you proclaimed, they very much
do care.
Yup. The very vast majority of Americans still subscribe to a MVPD bundle AND
an ISP service.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
