Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more arguably a public resource.
Except that most of today's cable systems were built while municipalities could, and did, grant exclusive franchises. Overbuilding an incumbant cable operator is as expensive and risky as becoming a CLEC - probably the reason that neither CLECs nor cable overbuilders are showing much commercial success.
If you can't tell the legal difference between the above cases, I recommend you stay out of this discussion.
As to "small entrepreneurs" - that may have once been true, but I wouldn't call AT&T/MediaOne/TCI, AOL/Time Warner, Adelphia, or Charter "small entrepreneurs." These guys engage in monopoly tactics that rank right up there with those of the ILECs.
1) You quoted me out of context. 2) Do you have a point? Obviously the above are not small entrepreneurs. But then, I never said they were. good luck, fletcher
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more arguably a public resource.
Except that most of today's cable systems were built while municipalities could, and did, grant exclusive franchises. Overbuilding an incumbant cable operator is as expensive and risky as becoming a CLEC - probably the reason that neither CLECs nor cable overbuilders are showing much commercial success.
If you can't tell the legal difference between the above cases, I recommend you stay out of this discussion.
The legal differences quite clear - very different regulatory regimes enforced by different levels of government. The ethical differences are less clear - both ILECs and cable companies grew under monopoly regimes, making use of public rights-of-way. The current, "de-regulatory" environment gives both ILECs and incumbent cable carriers a very unfair advantage over new entrants.
call AT&T/MediaOne/TCI, AOL/Time Warner, Adelphia, or Charter "small entrepreneurs." These guys engage in monopoly tactics that rank right up there with those of the ILECs.
1) You quoted me out of context. 2) Do you have a point? Obviously the above are not small entrepreneurs. But then, I never said they were.
A very simple one: we are not seeing much in the way of serious competition, and HR1542 will simply make things worse. ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************
Also sprach Fletcher E Kittredge
If you can't tell the legal difference between the above cases, I recommend you stay out of this discussion.
The legal arguement comes down to. The cablecos are a monopoly, period. They are abusing their monopoly position to leverage their way into a new market (as an ISP), period. That's a clear violation of Clayton/Shermen, period. The only way that the legal differences apply is if there is regulatory oversight, then the regulations are supposed to prevent these abuses. Without the regulatory oversight (which most of us agree are weak or non-existent), it becomes a clear Clayton/Shermen violation. Regardless...this has little or nothing to do with H.R. 1542, which is still a crappy bill and needs to be smacked back down the Bayou where it can get eaten by a croc (not that I'd wish that on the croc!). Fortunately, Reps. Cannon and Conyers seem to have a clue. Support them! -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
At 17:50 07/05/01, Jeff Mcadams wrote:
The legal arguement comes down to. The cablecos are a monopoly, period.
In parts of the Boston suburbs, RCN has built a parallel cable TV system (with DOCSIS cable modem service also) serving houses that were already (and still are) servicable from Media-One (now part of AT&T Broadband). RCN are actively overbuilding a number of Comcast markets (e.g. Montgomery County MD, Washington DC) and some AT&T/TCI markets (e.g. San Francisco CA) and are working towards an overbuild in several additional markets (e.g. Cox Cable's Fairfax County VA market). Seems to me that it isn't a monopoly if one has more than one CATV company to choose from, which is the case in at least the markets above. Also seems to me that we ought to encourage more companies to follow RCN's lead as competition is a fine thing. Now there might be different markets (probably more of them) where there is currently only 1 CATV company, but even there one has data choices (sometimes DSL, usually always DirecPC) and video choices (DirecTV, DISH). Ran rja@inet.org
On Mon, 7 May 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:
In parts of the Boston suburbs, RCN has built a parallel cable TV system (with DOCSIS cable modem service also) serving houses that were already (and still are) servicable from Media-One (now part of AT&T Broadband).
I live in Newton, MA, and serve on the local cable board - and have first hand experience with so-called competition in the cable arena. We are served by ATT/MediaOne, RCN, and Verizon. RCN is a well managed company and has built a system here that seems to work at least as well as ATT's. And RCN is a lot easier to deal with (ATT sends government affairs flunkys to cable meetings, RCN sends senior operations managers who can make decisions. But.... ATT has started with the lion's share of the market and a profitable position, while RCN is having trouble picking up market share and is in financial difficulty. And, more fundamentally, our overall telecom situation is not very good: - Verizon purports to offer DSL, but just try to order it - ATT offers cable modem service, but they have about the worst technical and operational support I've ever seen: -- as far as I can tell, their network monitoring system consists of waiting for customers to call and complain about outages (actually, the folks in "the noc" can see outages, but the data isn't available to front-line customer support) -- customer support people from voice, data, video are in different organizations - and have to request support from the folks who roll trucks via a web form -- as just one example of how bad it is: last week, two newly installed ATT wires serving my house fell off the pole, onto a busy road - the Mayor's office called Verizon, ATT, and RCN - only Verizon rolled a truck, and all they did was cut the wires - ATT took until the next day to get someone on site - the poles in town are now full, all with obsolete technology (DSL and HFC) - none of the current carriers are going to upgrade anytime soon, and there's no polespace left for a new entrant to deploy something more powerful (like gigabit ethernet) Meanwhile, in my professional role of advising cities and towns on telecom. policy, I get to watch other communities - where the environment isn't as attractive to "competitive carriers" - obtain far better service than in our highly desirable "competitive" market. To cite two examples: Harlan, Iowa: poulation 5000 (city) 13,000 (county-wide): - Farmers' Coop Telco (user-owned coop): provides telephone in city/county, cable in county - Harlan Municipal Utilities (city dept., operates only within city limits): provides water, sewer, electricity, cable tv, cable modems (2mbps and 10mbps offerings, serves businesses as well as residences) - jointly operated ATM backbone serving high bandwidth users Grant County, WA Public Utility District: county-owned electric utility, that's begun to deploy gigabit ethernet, and plans county-wide deployment over about 3 years Miles Fidelman ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************
Also sprach RJ Atkinson
At 17:50 07/05/01, Jeff Mcadams wrote:
The legal arguement comes down to. The cablecos are a monopoly, period.
In parts of the Boston suburbs, RCN has built a parallel cable TV system (with DOCSIS cable modem service also) serving houses that were already (and still are) servicable from Media-One (now part of AT&T Broadband).
While I applaud those areas then, and I think that's a wonderful thing in general, and eventually I suspect good will come out of it, though it might take a while. Situations like that are very few and far between. In Louisville, we have had one or two competing cablecos wanting to come in and build out competing networks. It looks like its not going to happen though as TKR^WIntermedia^WInsight has tied up the city and the newcomers in court over the terms of the franchises and how they relate to Insight's franchise. The cable companies, in most places, are a monopoly, and they act like them. Again though, the RBOCs are trying to use this to say that two wrongs make a right. The current issue before the House is H.R. 1542, and it needs to be defeated. Then (although there need not be the distinction of time that "then" implies...it could happen concurrently, but they aren't the same discussion), the issue of open access on cable networks can be dealt with, and I'll be first in line in whatever forum I can find to say that cable networks need to be effectively opened up. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
participants (4)
-
Fletcher E Kittredge -
Jeff Mcadams -
Miles Fidelman -
RJ Atkinson