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.
Well, looking at the cable industry I can only say that deregulation has simply resulted in higher cable bills. Prior to deregulation I paid $9.95 U.S./month for cable, now I am looking at $51.00/month and the only new channels available to me now are things like shopping channels, multiple MTV channels and other crap I have no interest in. In fact, what they have done is packaged channels I did watch into more expensive premium packages meaning I can no longer get Speedvision or others I am interested in without paying even more.
The technology exists for us to be able to purchase channels ala-carte yet we still have to pick "packages" and only have access via the cable companies or the dish companies. Perhaps Apple could help things out the way they have the music industry?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Usually, I'm a big free market proponent, but even I can see how media consolidation is a bad thing for the average American consumer.
Right now, we have four major television networks: ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS. Watch each network's nightly news broadcasts; they're not all that different. And although news organizations like to say that they're unbiased and "just reporting the facts, ma'am", the way in which you present "the facts" gives a strong indication as to your opinion of it.
"Republicans Hand Wealthy Americans Large Tax Break" vs. "American Citizens Will Pay Less in Taxes" gives a pretty good impression of what the writer thinks of the tax breaks.
And on electricity, in a lot of areas! As well as price competition, it gives you some interesting options - like Green Mountain, who offer 'clean' power (depending on the area, usually generated entirely from wind, sometimes with some hydro or similar) for a slightly higher price.
Unfortunately, SBC just got our legislature here in Illinois to let them double our rate, because... it's... err... good for campaign contributions I guess.
I think their reasoning was something about DSL - if they got the rate hike, they could offer DSL to more people?
I'm sick of the BS "I own the network and don't want to play nice with others" argument the Bells push. It's about time to remove the Bells ability to do things like that. What it should be is, for all phone, internet, cable, or other such services, there should be one player that owns the network and make the equipment investment. But they would not be allowed to sell any of it to regular consumers. Instead, they should only be allowed to lease the use of the equipment to anyone that wants it...the Bells, private ISPs, private cable companys, anyone. That way there is no conflict of interest that there is in the current system. All the companies are on equal ground. Consumers have a true choice on who to use. You don't like one company, move on to the next one. It won't matter, because the service is all on the same network, just different content. Interoptibility is flawless. There would finally be true competition to provide the consumer with the best experience.
But unless MAJOR restructuring happens, we'll never see this. The consumer is just the ragdoll being fought over by dogs. Only one dog is a terrier and the other is a rottweiler. Either way, the consumer still has teeth sunk into them.
many counties and cities have laws which will not allow you to lay a fiber into homes if similar thing already exist (even if it is owned by some monopolist). this means they will keep the prices so high that the total of (price*subscriber - cost) is the highest irrespective of what the price should have been if it were open market. Let us say, their internal research says following:
1) at $300 rate, we can get 10000 subscribers
2) at $30 rate, we can get 100,000 subscribers.
3) the cost per subscriber is $10
Now guess, what route they will take? obviously the first one. if competitors were allowed, you would see about $12-$15 rate, but thanks to monopoly; the rate is now $300!!!
Some cities may have some oversight commission which will prevent such high prices, so they may settle slightly lower price. but they can always lie and say their fiber maintanance cost as $200.
this is not my invention; this is exactly what is happening in local phone and cable market. i have exaggerated the figures in the example but overall the strategy is same. look at how the long distance rates have fallen over time (my per minute cost for long distance is 60% lower than decade ago) while local phone rates are going up (i am paying 40% more).
But the new developments and apartment buildings will probably get fibre because its cheaper for the telcos.
We've been paying a surcharge for years for this and there's zilch implemented. My old building that was built in 1949 had twisted wire pair clad in cotton. I thought it was the wire for the friggin' door bell.
The newer ones have had four condictor plastic clad wire sincethen until now. As for fibre to your house, or even street switch box... Fuggedaboudit...
They wait until the infrastructure suffers an irrevocable breakdown (like a pole falling over, an underground pipe getting a back-hoe through it or fire and explosion at a CO,) before replacing a foot of wire.
And even then they're going to use left-over copper wire until its all gone.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I doubt that.
The "infrastructure" you speak of was built on public property with monopoly protection. It really belongs to everyone. Just giving it to one company gives that encumbent company the ability to rape the public who get to pay the cost of creating uneeded duplicate ifrastructures while suffering the use of ageing equipment. When you live by public protection, you die by it as well. I'd love to see just anyone able to build infrastructure, but I don't think that it's either possible, permitted or required. Alternate networks will be built and we will all pay for them and then the bells will buy the up when they fail because they don't have to co-operate now. Ready for another century of pay per minute rape telco service?
I doubt the telecom act of 1996 was meant to create an industry that relied on cheap prices by the bells and only on reselling.
No it was not. But my fiber that runs from one side of my house to the other and can't hook into the network everyone else is using does me no good. A network only works if the players co-operate. The Bells have promissed us Broadband Stagnation. This is all just more of the same.
Society is really screwed up when this what we have to do to escape such a rape.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Here's an opposing viewpoint:
The Myth of Media Concentration: Why the FCC's Media Ownership Rules Are Unnecessary
Here's a snippet:
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to modify or even repeal its restrictions on ownership of broadcast stations. Opponents argue that changes to these rules would reduce diversity in an already concentrated market - warning that big media "monopolies" are already limiting what Americans see and hear.
They are mistaken. Despite many mergers in the media industry in recent years, Americans today actually enjoy more diversity and competition in the media than at any other time in history, thanks to cable TV, Internet, the licensing of new broadcast stations and other factors.
Rather than media monopolies, consumers face a bewildering and unprecedented amount of choice. Instead, the real danger to Americans is that outdated and unnecessary FCC restrictions will limit improvements in media markets and technologies, limiting the benefits that they can provide.
"You don't govern just by polls and surveys," he said. "We have to exercise difficult judgments and abide by the law. If all of our rulemaking was just a case of put them out and take a referendum, things would be a lot easier."
referendum
\Ref`er*en"dum\, n.; pl. -da. [Gerundive fr. L. referre. See Refer.] The principle or practice of referring measures passed upon by the legislative body to the body of voters, or electorate, for approval or rejection...
democracy
\De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.] 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
Not only doesn't the British government not "own" the BBC, it is legally prevented from interfering with its operation.
The BBC, IIRC, is overseen by a board of 12 governors, who are appointed by Parliament's upper house. These appointees are drawn from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. The governors act as the corporation's shareholders; setting and monitor targets; hiring and firing management; and generally making sure that the population gets its money's worth. The governors don't have any say in the running of the corporation. The board's meetings are minuted and are publicly available
Part of the BBC's constitution, and UK law, is that the BBC is free from any political affiliation and that its freedom is guaranteed.
I see alot of people here debating the monopolistic impacts of a single company running fiber to a house. Just because Verizon runs fiber to your house doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the data services comming into your house.
Go outside and count the number of cables comming into your home. The average home has three types:
Non-twisted copper pair (voice grade).
Coaxial cable (rg-59 or rg-6).
3 phase 220 power lines.
Data can be transmitted on all three types without fiber. The coaxial cable option will definitely give fiber a run for its money. The new DOCSIS 2.0 spec is 30 Mbps symetric!
I'm already getting 10Mbps/1Mbps across my cable connection without fiber to my home. By the time the telcos get their act together cable will have scaled to double or triple its current speeds. Granted, it's not as "cool" as saying you've got fiber, but i'll tell you i prefer surfing the web over my cable connection versus the fiber T1 at work.
There is always competition to supply where there is sufficent demand.
-ted
It seems to me he isn't following his "promise" of promote democracy.
I would understand if he called the US Government a republic. But why do so many public figures, elected or appointed, praise the ideals of a democracy but insist on following the processes of a republic? If he wants to promote democracy, he should listen to the petitions and keep the restrictions on entertainment conglomerates.
my blog
When I was in college radio at MIT, we were so paranoid about the FCC. Did we run enough public service announcements (PSA's), were we serving the community, did anyone play anything offensive on the air, etc. Your station license was up for renewal every year, and you spent weeks before the renewal running announcements about public comments and other BS just in case someone wanted to try and grab the frequency from you. Now (from what I understand), renewals are every five years, and I can't remember the last time I heard a TV or radio station mention that their license was up for renewal. So much for public ownership of the airwaves. Support your local stations and pirate radio.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
>However, I don't think that every city block should look like a Fort Apache from a Hollywood western because of the number of poles required to run lines to their own customers.
Most power poles are either owned by the city or your local electric company. In the first case they are public property and rented to telcos, etc. In the second case, they are usually still public property since few places have privatized electricity.
Even if they are private poles, a company would be stupid to stop you from using them (at a modest fee).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Yes, that is the exact argument Michael Powell of the FCC is making. But the flaw in that argument is that the same four or five large media conglomerates control all those cable and satellite channels, and newspapers, and magazines, and popular Net sites. So what may appear on the surface to be choice is really just a redirecting of the same old corporate spigot into many different rivulets of the same message. Only the pretty packaging changes. The point of view remains the same.
Why does this matter, and how does your UK situation not really apply? Because times have changed. It used to be people got their news primarily from the newspaper, and there was an abundance of papers to choose from, each with a point of view. In the last couple of decades things have changed. Now most people get their news from TV. Just as people are coming to depend on TV the most for information, the sources of information are consolidating into a handful of choices, all controlled by multinational corporations with fiscally conservative perspectives and spin on the news.
What is the future of information going to be like? Look at U.S. radio once Clear Channel leveled the field, smoothing over independence and innovation and leaving only the same choice in each town as in every other town. A homogenization of perspective has happened.
The same is about to happen to national news, or rather an accelerating of this effect is about to be seen. Choice of viewpoint will be reduced and marginalized, and as people get their viewpoint primarily from TV what they will get spoon-fed will be the same everywhere.
Those of us who are tech-savvy can still get alternate points of view on the Net...at least for now. But just wait. As cable companies control more and more of the Net experience, it will become irresistable for them to start tinkering with what we can or cannot see online. Remember, those cable companies are controlled by those same 4 or 5 multinational conglomerates. As those companies control every form of media, they will eventually strike against alternative perspectives that remain. We'll complain, but who will listen? Look at how this FCC decision has gone. Public comment? They don't care! The public airwaves? Ha! Go away, kid, you're bothering me...
------------
I'll take this one, begging the original poster's pardon.
How does what you say have any basis in fairness or common sense
Whenever I see the phrase "common sense", I mentally reach for a shotgun.
What you say makes "sense", if you selective the proper facts and ignore all others that contradict you. It's not common sense, or economics: it's economic theology.
A private company is not an entity in a pure economic thought experiment.
For one, Verizon is government subsidized. Yes, I said they are welfare recipients. For, every dollar they weepingly spend on infrastructure, they DEDUCT FROM THEIR TAXES. When you or I buy a car to go to work, we don't deduct the finance charges, actual payments, refinancing costs, or debt sale costs that Verizon does. Verizon gets this government handout so that it may... actually, I never did understand why. They are powerful, and they get to do this. Period.
Secondly, if Verizon screws up, they DEDUCT THEIR LOSSES FROM THEIR INCOME TAXES. The "risk" that they take is government insured, because the taxpayers will be further taxed to make up for the money Verizon will not pay if they screw up.
Third, Verizon may or may not be granted tax relief from local governments for installing various doodads. Another taxpayer-paid welfare grant.
Fourth, when you create a network that is essentially granted to you by access and rate giveaways by the Federal government, you can set up an effective monopoly -- not only over physical infrastructure, but over the content that is provided over that network. Powell has many times indicated that political bias is hokey-dokey in a medium, because so many other media exist to balance it. So, an ISP who is also a provider can control the messages going over its network. Not only a physical monopoly, but a political one as well. Somehow this would be a bigger showstopper for Powell if that bias was not hard-right, I think.
Now, this monopoly does not have to exist. But Powell's economic theology insists that it must, because, like most libertarians, ignores all factors that do not bear on the illusion of a clean sheet economic problem, ie, a company provides a service, competition can try to compete, all is good. His ideology ignores back room dealings (mainly because he is a consummate backroom artist, being a lobbiest for the telecom companies in his off time!), nasty business manipulation, predatory pricing, in short, all the nasty, dirty tricks that were rampant in the old Standard Oil trust days that have come again.
And, the standard isn't recouping investment. Businesses are there to take over a market, not make back their money. They have no limits.
Private busineses are there to steal a much as possible. This is balanced by government elected by the people which regulates the rascals.
What has happened is that Bush's people have appointed the industry lobbyists to be the regulators of the industries they represent. The rights of the people to actual competition for services is being ignored: businesses are treated as feudal lords who should bear no oversight.
This is true, but (correct me if I'm wrong here) aren't the telcos demanding an end to this arrangement as a condition for the expense of improving the infrastructure? That's the "big news" you're talking about and it's what I'm afraid the FCC will give them.
That's a pretty wimpy requirement and one that will mean a whole lot less if the FCC does its expected deregulation on Monday. Right now, we get effectively no choice of channels, which is mostly merely inconvenient, but has the potential to be much worse. How likely is it that a cable company, would continue to carry a channel that ran documentaries critical of their sponsors for instance? That's wielding too much power in my book.
Ugh, yes! No argument here. And the television tax? Who came up with that one? I guess we should count our blessings, eh? ;-)
Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
do you want fiber access from your house or do you want verizon to make lots of money?
what incentive do they have to provide you with servce?
the incentive is profit but that means that they could provide access only to the most well off and make a profit. if working so you can pay for overpriced services is your thing this is good. it's bad for me.
what is needed is a third party to lay the lines then lease the lines to many providers at cost. a government agency (or something wihtout profit motive) is best suited for this. as long as profit is the motivator we will have spotty, shitty service or service only for those willing to pay a lot.
the fucked up thing that could happen is that verizon runs the lines and, with a flurry of advertising (think qwest "you will be watching movies on demand soon!"), the stock price rises. then they quietly claim it's too expensive to complete, write off the project and leave the fiber dark.
dunno, we'll see. but i predict that community based wireless networks are far more likely to provide service (to me) than this.
fear is the mind killer
I wrote a really smarmy reply to this post, but have decided just to sum it up instead.
Verizon lays it's fibre in the public trust. They run it across the yards of countless homeowners and through countless miles of public land. That gives the public some say in what Verizon does with that fibre. So when you say, "So what if Verizon doesn't have to share..." I say, "Then get that fibre off that fibre off my land."
>Environmental Protection. The phrase "The fox guarding the Henhouse" applies to any private company. And I doubt that people who want less government would want the Sierra Club providing this function.
:) Take the GST, for example. A Canadian tax with collection procedures so complicated, some question wether it actually gathers enough to pay for it's own administration (it does, but it doesn't leave a whole lot left). However, minus the cost to business (passed on to consumers) this tax costs much more than it brings in.
;-)
We'd be better with neither. The EPA lies through it's teeth, despite court orders not to. The Sierra Club does whatever the hell it likes regardless of laws (stupid or not).
I say let the people decide for themselves what level of "environmental protection" is right for them. They could either democratically vote to hire a company to support their views (locally, of course) or, better yet, simply speak with their wallets.
>Fire and Emergency Services. I can see "Sorry, your insurance doesn't cover this type of emergency - what is your credit card number". Yes, I know some ambulances are run by private companies.
And all Doctors take the hippocratic oath. You'll be "saved" despite having no funds. However, if you want quality, speedy healthcare, better than what we (in my province, for example) have now, you _should_ have to pay. It only makes sense, and it gives people just one more reason not to sit on their duffs jobless.
>Tax Collection. Sorry, can't trust non-government entities.
I'd have said the opposite.
And then there's the dreaded audits... Help!
The fact is that if we were to completely privatize everything reasonbly possible, taxes would be so low I doubt there'd be enough to collect to make it interesting to defraud.
>It's always easier to cut a few corners to do a crappy job.
And, at the same time, you can spend more and get the other half of the customers.
That's why both wal-mart and Saks 5th Avenue sell clothes. They're both the same end product, just one of the companies doesn't cut corners. Both of them operate just fine, and give consumers a choice.
Perhaps I _want_ to cut certain corners? Maybe a gravel road to my house would suit me just fine rather than a paved one? Maybe I live so far away from a city that having the same level of police protection is wasteful? Perhaps I want more telecommunications service than a 14.4 kbps maximum phone line? I wish I could make that decision rather than a government office miles removed.
>And most non-profit organizations aren't any better - would you want the Jehovah's Witnesses in charge of building permits?
Actually, I'd advocate no building permits. If you own land, you should be allowed to do anything you like with it, as long as you don't endanger lives or harm the property of others (and perhaps a handful of other things).
Zoning regulations (and building permits) are horrible, and, in fact, increased the cost of leasing for my company by 60% because the location we wanted was zoned for Convenience stores only (not computer stores) and we had to find accomodation elsewhere, at an inflated price (which we certainly will pass on to customers, I'm not a charity.
Hey, just my 2 cents!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>He disputes none of their findings, and peer reviews of that study have backed it up.
Huh?
Let me give you a quote from another site:
"Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had "cherry picked" its data and had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency's authority for disseminating its "de facto regulatory scheme" that intended to prohibit passive smoking."
So, let's see, no they weren't lying. In other news, everyone on earth is white. How did I come to that conclusion? I only interviewed the British Royal Family.
So, on one hand, no, they're not lying. On the other hand, they're lying to themselves.
>Whenever anybody so much as mentions cigarettes, he just votes whichever way best conveys "I love Philip Moris!" The guy's a hack.
And you libel a perfectly innocent man without providing any proof to back up your claims. People like you are the foundation of bad EPA studies like this one.
>The only reason that story gets spread around is Junk Science linked to it, and so everybody assumes it's cool and rebelious to talk about it.
No, it gets spread around because NUMEROUS studies have shown it to be false. Here's a link to at least 8 major international studies that have shown that SHS doesn't cause lung cancer. And, moreso, improves the health of young children (don't believe me? Ask the WHO). In fact, here's some facts the EPA gave judge Osteen to "back up" their case.
Svendsen Study (1987): No Dose Response Effect
Kalandidi Study (1987): No Dose Response Effect
Masi Study (1988): Strongest effect in Men for exposure before age 17 yr.
Kauffmann Study (1989): Increased risks for respiratory symptoms did not reach statistical significance
Hole Study (1989): No significant increase in risk of symptoms
Schwartz and Zeger (1990): Over-reporting by exposed subjects may bias results
Clearly, if this is the best evidence the EPA has, it's pathetic.
>More or less, if you're trying to be Libertarian, you have to make sure the new system makes enough extra money to still hold a profit after you clean up the corpses of the poor people that are going to starve to death.
You clearly don't have the slightest clue about libertarian ideology. Study it more and get back to me when you understand it better.
BTW: Far more people died in communist gulags and exploding nuclear power plants than have ever died under a free market, democratic system. There is positively no evidence to back up your case, as far as I can tell.
>If, for example, you vote to eliminate building permits, you have to be willing to pay to deal with the increased number of abandoned Barbie Dream-Deathtraps that will produce.
Why would I pay for that? That's a communist notion, that the populous should pay for the mistakes of the one. The builder of the deathtrap would be the one to pay, clearly. Where you got the idea that you and I should pay, well, I really don't know.
>There's plenty of wiggle room in the death/money scale, but between the costs of the hyperspecialization you're looking for in telecommunications, and the luxury-centered healthcare system, I think you're going to have to either get used to the stench of rotting corpses, or cut off your $2000 a month DSL line.
??? You are confusing me. More people have died as a result of communism than any other system. Look at what Communist China does when it has problems. People are only expendable when they have no self-control.
Wow. I really don't have much else to say other than that you should put down the hammer and sicle for a moment and consider why communist flags are blood red.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
but they can always lie and say their fiber maintanance cost as $200.
:P
Reminds me of the time the SBC rep told me what a deal I was getting on voice-mail, since it cost SBC 'almost $100' for each account to be set up with it. That must be one very expensive technician doing that work to set it up.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.