Slashdot Mirror
More on Media Consolidation/Deregulation
I'll try to accumulate some links not previously posted. William Safire comments. The Register has an editorial; see also The Guardian for more on the British perspective. Associated Press story. The Washington Post has a good and lengthy (and rare) piece. The phone companies are making a cynical political announcement that they've agreed on a standard for fiber-to-the-home; that doesn't mean they'll ever use the standard, and indeed they've already promised *not* to roll it out anytime soon. Note that the FCC is removing any requirement for the Bells to share their fiber, so if Verizon runs fiber to your house, you'll be able to get Verizon service or none at all.
The FCC is set to vote on their secret-none-more-secret changes to the media ownership regulations on Monday. If you like the direction commercial radio has taken in the last few years, don't worry about it. If not, moveon.org has some good resources for who to call.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
NPR ran an interview with FCC Chairman Michael Powell this morning, it is available here.
Compared to the UK situation, where 2 of the 5 analogue broadcast channels are part of the tax-funded BBC? (Along with 5 or more national radio stations, a couple of magazines, a serious web presence, and a newspaper with a very similar agenda).
I really don't think having "only" four or five different TV companies available (to non-cable/satellite subscribers) is a problem - especially when so many people have cable or satellite, giving them literally hundreds of different channels to choose from. Not to mention a huge number of newspapers and magazines, and of course the Internet!
Keep this in mind: For years, the UK had just three different TV companies - the largest one state-owned, and the smallest subsidised. No cable (that came in the 80s), no satellite (same). With or without these changes, US viewers without cable/satellite will have more choice than UK viewers. I'm not holding the UK up as some sort of media Utopia, but it's hardly the disaster area these guys seem to predict!
They just covered this topic on Ted Koppel's Nightline. Barry Diller (who is *against* this deregulation, BTW) appeared along with 1 or 2 other big players. Michael Powell was supposed to appear too, but conveniently cancelled. I say "conveniently" because I really think he's trying to quell the debate now that it's gathered steam, and move forward June 2 with no resistance.
It's not the cable companies preventing you from ordering these channels a la carte, it's the channel owners. The packages are sold to cable companies as packages, and they're required to be sold to consumers as a package.
Competition is good unless the network effect is extremely strong.
Basically that means competition is good at bringing down prices but sometimes the benefit of having a single solution that everyone uses is more than the reduction of price that would come with competition.
In this case however I think we have something thats more anti-competative. Phone company A runs fiber to a house (either because they got to the area first or the person in the house requested company A) then when the person with that line decides that company B might have a better service the cost to change companies is prohibitive because company A won't sell its fiber line, or more to the point company B won't use the line from company A that the person already purchased and instead wants them to purchase another line.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
"so if Verizon runs fiber to your house, you'll be able to get Verizon service or none at all."
I would have thought a telco could make lots of money by rolling out fiber connections and then leasing them wholesale at above their costs. They won't have to support end users and the costly call centres, services, network infrastructure and bandwidth that that involves. They'll just have to provide the same infrastructure services that they need to provide anyway.
Where I live, I can get DSL from the my local telco for CAD$45 (1.2mbs), or from a small ISP for $50 (3.5mbs). Apparently the local telco charges ~CAD$20 for DSLAM port leases. I'm glad I'm not paying for useless tech support or a heavily subsidised ISP portal that I would never use. It's easy money: I think they only support the CO, and line from there to the outside of my house.
Dish Network allows you to purchase individual channels for $5 each. You can get their Top 50 package w/ locals for $30 (One receiver) and then add Soap Channel (In the top 150) for $5.
Easy enough.
Not all local governments are corrupt in the manner you describe. On the San Francisco Penninsula there is the San Mateo County Telecom Authority (SAMCAT) that encourages multiple telecom and cable companies to offer service throughout San Mateo County. The major hurdle here is not getting local governments to grant multiple franchises in the same geographic area (this has already been done on multiple occasions), but getting the competing telecom and cable companies granted a franchise license to actually spend the money on infrastructure to offer competing services in the current down economy. In most communities there still is only a single choice because the established provider is the local 800lb gorilla, but at least there is some hope for real competition once the industry starts growing again.
The owner is staunchly pro-Israel (his name is Israel Asper): so all CanWest media must provide pro-Israel news coverage of the Middle East. Journalists who don't follow this can be fired or suspended. And all CanWest newspapers are required to print company editorials on national and international issues. Even worse, CanWest is pro the current Liberal government: so the government has done nothing during the past few years while CanWest spread.
The Economist had story last year and another story the year before giving details.
__________________________
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Goethe
So, instead of just feeling bad, powerless, screwed, angry about this mess, do something about it. I did. Go to ACLU Action page to send nice boiler plate text e-mail/faxes to each of the various decision makers in this process.
http://DeanForAmerica.com
May 27, 2003
Howard Dean today wrote to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, urging the FCC to
avoid further deregulation of the American media. The text of the letter:
Dear Chairman Powell,
Americans cherish the freedom of the press -- and the diversity of the
press that ensures they can get access to the truth and to the information
they need. The Bush Administration may not appreciate that freedom and
diversity, but they should not tamper with it.
On June 2nd, the Federal Communications Commission should decide against
allowing a single company to own multiple television stations, radio
stations, and newspapers in a single town. The Bush Administration has
urged the FCC to remove regulations that protect every Americans' right to
a free press. This latest attempt by the Bush Administration to undermine
the American ideals enshrined in our Constitution is wrong.
This deregulation, like so many actions pushed for by the Bush
administration, would benefit a few at the expense of the rest of us.
Modifying the ban in most cities on cross-ownership of television and
radio stations and newspapers will have serious repercussions for every
American. A similar deregulation of radio, through the 1996
Telecommunications Act, has resulted in a 30% decline of
independently-owned radio stations in the United States. This decline has
reduced Americans' access to local news via radio. According to a May 27
Bloomberg story, in at least one instance local authorities were delayed
in broadcasting important emergency information to the local populace
because the "local" radio station was broadcast from out-of-state.
Accelerating the disappearance of independent local media by further
deregulating television and newspaper ownership is the wrong direction for
this country.
In my travels around the country, I have discovered that this proposed
deregulation is one of the foremost issues on peoples' minds. I am asked
about it everywhere--in small towns in New Hampshire, and in major cities
across the nation. The American people are concerned about the future of
their media, and the effect this decision will have on them. Thousands of
Americans have written the FCC to oppose this rule, and members of
Congress from both parties have voiced their protest and requested that
you testify before them on the matter. Yet the FCC appears poised to
ignore the interests of regular Americans by allowing a few massive
conglomerates to gobble up our local news sources.
This proposed deregulation threatens the ideals of America--the ideals of
openness, free speech, free expression and free discussion, which are the
backbone of our Constitution and our democracy.
Therefore, I urge you to take the following actions:
1) Delay the June 2nd vote by the FCC.
2) Testify before Congress so that the Representatives of the
American people can have the opportunity to question the representatives
of the Bush Administration.
3) Allow for, and consider, additional public input. The FCC must
provide sufficient opportunity for public input on a decision that effects
every American.
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Good luck getting any real pro-tech stuff passed with Team Bush running the show. These people are the apotheosis of cronyism. In spite of this getting a little media attention, I think the whole thing will go down to the liking of the big corporations (Fox, ClearChannel, Disney, Verizon, etc). The haggling will be over who in the corporate club gets the choice concessions, not over whether "the public" has any rights to be considered.
If you ask me, government should have a stake in infrastructure to keep costs down and competition open. This consistantly proves to be the best model for entrepreneurial economic success by the most parties. Look at how the national interstate highway system (which costs billions a year to maintain) is such a success, vs the railroad system. I expect nations with nationally supported (and open) tellecommunications infrastructure will weild a significant economic advantage over those which rely on profit-based monopolies/oligargies to move their bits around.
I would advise slashdotters to get involved in the upcoming political process (the 2004 presidential election) if they care about the future of technology vis-a-vis regulation. To my mind, the only thing that can stop the person-centric information revolution and kill the end-to-end net is crony regulation that will force people to use non-open software on non-open networks to do the important things (e.g. transactions, contracts, digital media, etc).
Currently I like Howard Dean, who hopefully will be maneuvered into becoming The Internet Candidate. It's an exciting time. Participate!
Howard Dean for president
It's nice to see the washington post for regulation. They've got quite a media empire: 3+ newspapers, newsweek magazine, 6 over-the-air tv stations, a large cable network, Kaplan, and several internet ventures, including part of BrassRing.com
It's a nice media empire that fits well under the old FCC rules. There is little overlap in the markets served. The tv sations are all in different cities, and the newspapers serve different locations and formats.
I wish them success in overturning the new fcc rules bought by bush's corporate supporters.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Uhh_Duh you don't get it.
Capitalism work great for some things, but is terrible for others.
Capitalism is terrible in monoply situations. If you bothered to learn some economics, you would learn about the concept of "monopoly price".
These companies own sole rights to run the fiber. How many set of telephone poles go by your house? Exactly. Capitalism (in the sense that you're talking about) is a terrible thing is this situation, because even if someone else is willing to do it better, cheaper, they can't.
Cconsider this situation:
Telco A owns all the rights to run fiber throughout a city. They decide to run fiber to 15% of the city, as this maximizes their profits. They charge the monopoly price. No one else can run fiber, since they own all the rights.
Now what if they had to lease their fiber?
Several things happen:
-
They can no longer charge the monopoly price. This is bad for them and good for consumers.
-
They are allowed to charge for the use of their fiber. This allows them to make a reasonable profit, and maintains the incentive to run fiber.
-
They have an incentive to run fiber to places others are willing to provide service to, but they aren't.
Under this situation, the only time fiber isn't run is when no one is willing to lease enough of it to pay the cost of its maintenence. Under your idea of glorious capitalism, fiber isn't run anywhere the market will not support the cost or real fiber maintence plus service at a monopoly price.Thus more fiber gets run more places.
Q: Why doesn't the telco just lease the fiber, even if they aren't forced to?
A: Because it destroys their ability to charge the monopoly price. If they lease it at a competitive price, their monopoly price will be undercut. If they lease it at a price which will not allow anyone to undercut their monopoly, not one will lease it from them, since they wouldn't be able to make money doing so.
Life is too short to proofread.
The FTTH system used in Japan actually encompasses ISDN, ADSL and FTTH services. It is a very balance system for the LBOC, ISP's big and small, and Consumers. You contract for your FTTH, ADSL or ISDN service with your LBOC and the apporpiate fee is added to your phone bill $9-$40 depending on which service. Then you contract any ISP that is connected to this network $9-$30 depending on your ISP. For an ISP to connect to this nationwide LBOC network is primarily just the cost of the appropriate size circuit between the closest LBOC switching point and the ISP. an Example of this would be my service 100Mbps FTTH LBOC fee- $40, ISP fee- $15 (dynamic IP). LBOC is happy making their cut, ISP is happy because they make their fee without having to invest in traditional expensive items like RAS's, DSLAMS and maintenance. All that equipment is handled by the LBOC. And the consumer has extremely high bandwith connection. If the customer is unhappy with their service due to speeds, lack of or quality of other services ie email etc., they just change providers from the several thousand connected to the LBOC. Really this is not that different than the old 56k model where the LBOC handled the phone line the ISP connected to the phone network via PRI circuit etc. except the ISP can scratch the cost of RAS's.