[opendtv] Re: Consolidation of Internet companies
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 01:22:21 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> Here's an exercise for you. Assume every state had its own broadband
>> provider. That would be 50 companies, each operating only in that
>> state. In principle that should satisfy Copps' complaint about too
>> much consolidation, right?
>
> I doubt it.
But it satisfies his stated complaint. Which is why listening to misleading
sound bites is so aggravating, in this example AND in the broadcaster national
caps example.
> The problem, as always, is the huge investment needed to compete. The
> cost for new fibers/wires is difficult to justify, except perhaps for
> municipal utilities that own the rights of way.
Right. I agree. So that's why the FCC needs to carefully craft this ruling.
I've said this before, and I'll repeat it. The part of the system that has to
be heavily regulated, because the "barrier for entry" is simply too high, needs
to be focused down to the smallest possible subset of components. In this case,
it's the physical plant, meaning the cabling and rights of way, that become the
biggest obstacle. So that's what the FCC should concentrate on, wrt Title II
classification. Not all the other subsystems an ISP service needs to support.
> Wireless solutions offer great promise, but once again, regulatory
> policy favors the entrenched oligopolies;
Wireless also requires large infrastructure investment, especially in high
density areas. It's main advantage is that wireless can afford local
competition, where cabled cannot. So again, if wireless is to play a big role
in broadband Internet service, perhaps the FCC should also consider classifying
a piece of that system under Title II.
> The original caps were created to keep the networks from gaining too
> much power over FOTA TV. They evolved to keep station groups from
> controlling too much spectrum. The limits now serve to keep anyone
> from developing a viable service in "free spectrum;" likely to
> encourage broadcasters to take the money and run.
As far as I know, NBC, CBS, and ABC had nationwide coverage always. So no
matter how you slice it, broadcaster national caps never made a lot of sense.
Not in the way the lazy rhetoric implies, anyway. Politicians and trade scribes
often indulge in dramatics and theatrics, implying that issue A has anything to
do with problem B. "Voices heard" over the airwaves, by individual US citizens,
are way more a function of local caps than national caps, and it's always been
so. And yet, you'd never know, listening to the complainers.
If each TV network owned a set of nationwide O&Os, we would be no worse off
than we are today, in this regard. Or someone would have to explain to me how
it would be worse.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
