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.

Comments

I have decided to consolidate Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking to buy all Slashdot ID #'s in the 200,000-300,000 range, and post as one mega user. Anyone willing to sell?

So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[alen]

They spent the money to run it. I work for a CLEC and we have our own phone switches. If VZ jacks up the prices on their circuits, it will only hurt us for a little while since we flip customers to our own network. 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. If you want to be a player in telecom then you need to invest in some infrastructure.

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[alen]

I'm only an exchange 2000 admin, but any capital expenditure is tax deductible. A few years ago we were trying to convince management to treat us as consultants for the cost benefits to us and the company.

The tax code is designed to foster business growth, not an excuse to socialize everything. Other companies are free to sell stock shares or bonds in order to pay for their own fiber projects just like Verizon does. Verizon owns something like $50 billion in debt to various bond holders. That's how they and a lot of other companies and governments finance capital projects like running fiber. Sell bonds, build, hope you make money on it and then pay for it over a few decades plus interest.

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[u19925]

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).

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[kableh]

They've been subsidized by the government for years, and they have right of way on public lands to lay their fiber and copper. I'd say the networks are just as much ours as they are the phone companies. That was the arguement for the open access provisions of the Telecommunications Act.

And yea, if you want to be a player in telecom you have to make that investment, but do you really think that even the Bells have the clout to purchase all the right of way and coordinate with thousands of different buyers to lay the networks by themselves? That was why the government stepped in and helped, and that is why we demand a return on OUR (the taxpayer's) investment, namely, a competative market for the consumer.

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[NialScorva]

Or perhaps we should realize that they are natural monopolies and stop pretending that they are anything else. Deregulation has been a huge failure. Look at the manufactured California energy crisis.

Look at the airlines. If they only reason they exist at all is because the federal government keeps pumping billions of dollars into them, why should we pretend that they should be private industry?

Some things just make more sense to be handled by the federal government.

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[shepd]

>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).

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[drgroove]

There is an inherant flaw in the concept that any of the 'Baby Bells' actually built their networks.

Keep in mind that once upon a time, the Federal Government controlled all telephony.

The Fed deregulated their telephone infrastructure, creating a monopoly - AT&T.

Eventually, a Fed antitrust suit via the DOJ broke AT&T into several 'Baby Bell' phone companies; each taking with them the network infrastructure for their specific geographical location.

However, as the original network was built by the Federal Government, the funding for that network could only come from one source - taxpayer dollars.

The networks have obviously been rebuilt several times since then; however, the point remains that the US telephony infrastructure had its genesis throught public funding.

The current system does not work. Why? Because phone companies - which inherited their networks from the breakup of AT&T - are running their business with an inherant conflict of interest. Each Baby Bell has been asked to both provide telephony service, as well as to allow 3rd party companies access to their networks, in order to provide competitive telephony service.

The model needs to be changed.

In order to be completely impartial and competitive, a separate company or companies should be established, which manage only the network infrastructure for the phone system.

Then, any company which wished to 'lease' or 'rent' the network for the purpose of providing telephony service to consummers would be able to do so.

In this way, there would be a two-stage system, with a central governing body which controls the infrastructure, and separate service providers which charge consummers access to that infrastructure. This would eliminate the conflict of interest that is present in the current system, where the owner of the network is also a service provider to consummers, and therefore in direct competition with others who wish to sell telephony service.

The idea that more companies should invest in additional infrastructure does not make sense for local telephone service. This concept, if carried out, could have dire consequences on the environment (ie, imagine a 10-fold increase in the number of telephone polls and wires across a city!). A network already exists in each city in the US - the problem is the way control of the network has been established.

This same concept could theoretically be applied to all communications systems. Cable lines, cell towers, long distance satelites - all of these could have a controlling body, which impartially allows any number of resellers to use their infrastructure to offer services to consummers.

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[chriso11]

I haven't seen a single thing, other than the court system, that would make any sense to be handled by the feds (or any other level of government). Even the police are worried -- they know rent-a-cops do the same job at half the cost, and that if there were a free market, they'd be booted in no time.

I'll have to disagree with that. Let me provide several examples:
The post office (USPS). The post office is now an independent business, but coupled to the government. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like having to deal with private companies for that (company A won't deliver to Iowa, it's not profitable, company b only supports packages of this minimum size... yadda yadda). Plus, the USPS has done a great job on combating fraud.

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.

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.

Tax Collection. Sorry, can't trust non-government entities.

Military Defense. Sorry, I don't like the idea of private armies. Sounds too feudal to me.

I don't trust most businesses because they are there to make money. It's always easier to cut a few corners to do a crappy job. And most non-profit organizations aren't any better - would you want the Jehovah's Witnesses in charge of building permits?

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[lobsterGun]

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."

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[shepd]

>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.

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. :) 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.

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!

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[tez_h]

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).

Yes, and I'd advocate no driving licenses. If you own a car, you should be able to do anything you like with it, as long as you don't run over people or crash into others' cars (and a handful of other things).

Of course, this is a view that relies on an almost entirely rational, common-sensical, well-behaved society. But since real societies are filled with those with less than an acceptable consideration for others and those who seem to actively defy common sense, we need to test and verify before allowing people on to the road or to build a building.

-Tez

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[bezuwork's friend]

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).

But are you qualified to judge 'harm' to someone elses property? Leaving resolution of such disputes to the property owners involved would probably not provide an optimal solution.

Government regulations sometimes suck, but they suck less than anarchy of any variety.

(1) Actually, while the government can remedy illegal property use, property owners have a large burden of judging the harm even under ordinaces. I have an anal neighbor couple who cut down a tree on my property and last year removed a bed of ivy from my property. Both instances involved the harms of trespass and destruction of property. The police didn't want to get involved. It was up to me to judge the harm and respond if I chose.

(2) Why would a relaxation of regulations result in anarchy? Even with ordinances and regulations, violations occur and end up in court. Without ordinances there would still be the common law to remedy undesiriable property use. Such things as trespass, trespass on the case (generally used for indirect trespass such as noxious fumes or smells, flooding from a neighbors water reserve, etc.), and so forth could still be remedied in court. And the courts would create new common law for any property use deemed undesirable by society which wasn't covered by existing law.

I think the grandparent poster was mainly referring to the seemingly overabundance of ordinances these days against property use which violates so-called public sensibilities.

Look to the extreme of regulation - homeowner's associations. While these are built on contract law and not government ordinances, the authoritarian control is perhaps similar. Thank god I don't have a homeowner's association - I am sure that I couldn't handle it. I hear stories of people who are continually in fights with their associations and self-appointed neighbors who patrol the back sides of property looking for violations. The restrictions seem to get on people's nerves sooner or later. They can control what color can be used to paint the house, what fences are allowable, what plants can be used. Ouch!

Idealistically, I agree with the grandparent post. Live and let live - let each owner use his or her property as he or she wishes so long as it does not endanger others or infringe on other's rights.

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[shepd]

>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.

Re:So what if Verizon doesn't have to share fiber?

[Martin Blank]

but they can always lie and say their fiber maintanance cost as $200.

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. :P

Verizon's Fiber

[Klerck]

...so if Verizon runs fiber to your house, you'll be able to get Verizon service or none at all.

Isn't that how it should be? If Verizon foots the cost of rolling out thouands and thousands of miles of fiber, shouldn't they be the only ones who can use it?

That's a bit different from phone lines which were subsidised through tax money and therefore should be open to all. If Verizon is the one paying for the fiber, then it should be theirs to use alone if they please.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[Spytap]

Doesn't the problem then become that Verizon can charge whatever they want becaus eno other company can then also lay wiring to said houses? If you have someone right where you want them, would you trust a company whose primary objective is to make profits and become larger to do what's right for their customers or for themselves?

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[alen]

Isn't the goal of all companies? Defeat your competition? If verizon can't make a profit on the fiber who in their right mind will loan them the money to pay for it?

If someone wants to lay fiber then they need to figure out a business model and then sell some bonds to pay for it. That is the way capitalism works.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[Cyberdyne]

Doesn't the problem then become that Verizon can charge whatever they want becaus eno other company can then also lay wiring to said houses?

Why not? With the existing infrastructure - electricity, cable TV, telephone - the government prohibited competition. This, obviously, created a monopoly for each utility; all the regulatory effort of the last decade or two has gone into reversing the damage from that. With fiber, however, who is prohibiting some other company from laying fiber just like Verizon?

If you have someone right where you want them, would you trust a company whose primary objective is to make profits and become larger to do what's right for their customers or for themselves?

The answer is not to let the government (or their favored company) get you right where they want you. Don't let Verizon be given a monopoly in the first place!

If the infrastructure is too expensive for one company to afford, let them group together to build a shared local network - much the same way Internet peering points work: each ISP wanting to hook up has to pay their chunk of the running costs. That way, nobody gets screwed.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[Sabalon]

With fiber, however, who is prohibiting some other company from laying fiber just like Verizon?

Your local corrupt city council, who has been greased quite well by Verizon (or whoever) to somehow assure that the needed permits for company #2 never get issued.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[mpthompson]

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.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[danheskett]

How does what you say have any basis in fairness or common sense.

Company #1 spends BIG MONEY to physically lay tons of wire. You then force that company to give away their hardwork - for sometime for a fee and then eventually for FREE - as soon as its done?

That is stupid. STUPID. I'd like to find out where you work, force you to give me 50% of what you make for free. That's what you are suggesting.

Verizon is proposing a big fiber network. Lots of expense. Lots of money. This time around with this telecom network there isn't the government granting them automatic monopolies. If Company Y wants to create a competing network, LET THEM INVEST THEIR OWN MONEY.

Forcing companies to materially help and support the competition is wrong, immoral, and bad for commerce AND the consumer. It forces higher costs, discourages innovation and risk taking, and stigmatizes the development of new technology. Who wants to create something new and exciting if the government is just going to force you to give it away before you recoup your investment?

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[stand]

Company #1 spends BIG MONEY to physically lay tons of wire. You then force that company to give away their hardwork - for sometime for a fee and then eventually for FREE - as soon as its done?

I'm not suggesting they give it away. I'm saying they must be prevented from locking out competition. Competition is good, right?

Verizon is proposing a big fiber network. Lots of expense. Lots of money. This time around with this telecom network there isn't the government granting them automatic monopolies. If Company Y wants to create a competing network, LET THEM INVEST THEIR OWN MONEY.

We're talking fiber to the home networks here. Are you proposing that company Y run a second line into my house to compete with Verizon's line? That is stupid.

Forcing companies to materially help and support the competition is wrong, immoral, and bad for commerce AND the consumer. It forces higher costs, discourages innovation and risk taking, and stigmatizes the development of new technology. Who wants to create something new and exciting if the government is just going to force you to give it away before you recoup your investment?

I'm curious to know how allowing a single company to dictate the terms of my connection to the Internet is good for me, good for competition or good for commerce. There's no doubt it would be good for Verizon.

Again, I'm not saying the Verizon shouldn't be compensated for their efforts to connect us with a high speed network, that's why others should be forced to license the lines from Verizon to use them, but neither should they be entitled to recoup that investment in perpetuity. Nor should they be allowed to selectively lock out whoever doesn't play by their rules simply becase at one time they invested in laying some fiber.

We must realize that Verizon (or any one company) is not going to act in the interest of the public good. If we want the Internet to remain the medium of openess and innovation that it is, we must demand that those interests be balanced with those of the companies that build the infrastructure. Otherwise the Internet just becomes a world wide shopping mall.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[Catbeller]

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.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[Catbeller]

Try reading Adam Smith sometime. He not only laid out the market rules for business: he laid out warnings for monopoly and abuse, and the need to control business to prevent such.

Capitalism is a zero sum game. A GAME, not a way of life. We live in a real world, and we need to control gamers so that they do not own everything worth owning, including our futures.

A privately owned network can not only freeze out competition and hike prices. It can progressively control free expression on its network, clamping down on opposing voices and smothering democracy.

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[beakburke]

On the one hand you tout adam smith, on the other you call capitalism a "zero sum game", which is not at all the case. Are you going to make any real cogent points here, or am i just feeding a troll spouting nonsense and blather?

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[stand]

For telephone, Verizon are already required to interconnect with other telcos, at regulated rates: the only monopoly element would be line rental/local calls.

Internet/data traffic: Not regulated per se, but if Verizon change their peering arrangements it'll be big news. Until then, you're free to access anything you want over it.

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.

TV: Cable and satellite companies are required to carry all the local channels, as well as carrying "community access" programming.

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.

If you want to see a truly failed regulator, look at the FCC's UK counterpart, Oftel...

Ugh, yes! No argument here. And the television tax? Who came up with that one? I guess we should count our blessings, eh? ;-)

Re:Verizon's Fiber

[gotih]

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.

Less than an hour to make those calls...

[tbase]

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.

Re:Less than an hour to make those calls...

[nanojath]

That line of condescending BS from Powell towards the end of the article regarding the fact that he doesn't really see public comment having much anything to do with public policy really burned my bacon, to the extent I felt compelled to address it directly in my comments to the FCC (just submitted).

"Let me also add a comment in direct response to the comments of Mr. Powell to the effect that "You don't govern just by polls and surveys." Public comment is neither a poll nor a survey, it is a vital element of democracy, required by law. And it is apparently critical as the FCC has clearly lost the understanding that their mission is to serve the American public. If the representatives of government choose to treat the voice of its citizens as unimportant, the its citizens will replace these representatives."

Re:Less than an hour to make those calls...

[hondo77]

If the representatives of government choose to treat the voice of its citizens as unimportant, the its citizens will replace these representatives.

Unfortunately, Chairman Powell is not a representative of the public. He is an appointed, nepotistic bureaucrat out of our reach come election day.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ted Turner in Washington Post

[jdunlevy]

The Washington Post also has an opinion piece by Ted Turner on the approaching FCC decision on media owner ship (decision on Monday). Among other things, he writes:

I am a major shareholder in the largest of those five corporations, yet -- speaking only for myself, and not for AOL Time Warner -- I oppose these rules. They will stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete. If these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to launch CNN.

Re:Ted Turner in Washington Post

[Zirnike]

I like this. The dude knows how to separate his professional responsibilities from his personal ones. A lot... and I mean A LOT... of politicians could take a hint from him. I can't say that I support his views on a lot of things, but I think I can respect this comment, at least.

Re:Ted Turner in Washington Post

[bigjocker]

I oppose these rules. They will stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete.

I'm quite impressed with this statement, coming from somebody who would greatly beneficiate from such rules being passed.

We surely need this kind of thinking to be expressed a lot more in the IT business.

Imagine what would be of the software world if Bill Gates had made that statement when Microsoft first had the chance to stablish a monopoly:

"I remember where I came from, and if these practices would have been enforced by IBM, Xerox et al by the time I was nobody, I would still be nobody"

When you think of it, even $CO is what it is today because laws like these ones did not exist.

Re:Ted Turner in Washington Post

[Malcontent]

Oh yes and it was all Ted Turner's fault. He called the local office to make sure they got your screwed up because he did not like you very much. This is because he is very interested in you as a person. He has followed you from your birth to today and has daily updates on what you do, who you talk to, where you go and of course what channels you watch on TV.

Some of his co-workers claim that his obession with you and your life is the reason aol-warner stock has taken a beating and there is probably some truth to that.

Deregulation from a consumer perspective....

[BWJones]

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?

Re:Deregulation from a consumer perspective....

[zztzed]

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.

Re:Deregulation from a consumer perspective....

[BWJones]

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.

To what end? To me this is the same logic the RIAA and the record companies were using to prevent folks from getting the songs they wanted ala-carte. These guys don't have to worry about piracy in the same way and if I want the history channel, a couple of discovery channels, local and national news with some sports channels for equestrian stuff and motorsport, I should be able to order and pay for just those channels. No shopping channels, no pop culture channels, etc...etc...etc...

Re:Deregulation from a consumer perspective....

[Electrawn]

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.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell Interview

[Flabby Boohoo]

NPR ran an interview with FCC Chairman Michael Powell this morning, it is available here.

I must have missed it...

[Goldberg's Pants]

When was the FCC sold to the telco's and the media?

Register hypocrisy?

[Cyberdyne]

It will difficult to exercise democracy when the ubiquitous national oracle propagates only those biases that four or five multinational conglomerates wish to see propagated, and which are backed up by co-owned newspapers and radio stations.

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!

Re:Register hypocrisy?

[Malc]

Having lived in both countries, I would say the UK system is better. TV is of higher quality. It's also vastly cheaper. The TV license fee isn't a tax per se - it doesn't go in to the government's coffers. As it is, your numbers are a bit low.

At about £10 per month (USD$16/CAD$23) it's really excellent value for money - I was paying (I ditched it) nearly CAD$70/mo for cable (basic cable is something like CAD$44), and ended up mostly watching the BBC or a couple of channels I could watch for free over the air. This license fee doesn't just pay for the 8 television channels, but also 10 national radio networks, 50 local radio stations, and more. I don't know if it includes the World Service too. One has to admit that the BBC's web site is one of the best news sources on the internet. On top of that, the UK has better broadcast quality too having gone wide screen years ago, and now free digital services too.

The BBC is high quality and provides tough competition for the other commercial channels who would otherwise slip in to the low-quality mediocracy that plagues N. American "free" TV. In fact, some of the newer channels like Channel 5 could very well be American. Personally I didn't like having the choice of hundreds of channels on digital cable here in Toronto... most of the time there was nothing on, and flipping through the channels provided mostly adverts. Bah!

Re:Register hypocrisy?

[Nexus Seven]

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.

Re:Register hypocrisy?

[FunWithHeadlines]

" 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! "

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...

------------

Re:Register hypocrisy?

[IamTheRealMike]

Compared to the UK situation, where 2 of the 5 analogue broadcast channels are part of the tax-funded BBC?

It's not exactly a tax. The government has no control over how it's spent for one thing, and changing it is very hard.

Keep this in mind: For years, the UK had just three different TV companies - the largest one state-owned

The BBC is not state owned. I don't know why people think this. The government have no control over it, short of a somewhat mythical (and in the Dyke era almost certainly dead) old-boys network.

Rather, the BBC is controlled by its Director General, and there is a controlling board too. Major changes, like launching new channels, have to get the approval of the media/culture secretary iirc.

So, the state acts as a check/balance. It cannot influence journalistic integrity however.

Powell backs out of Nightline interview...

[aquarian]

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.

Re:Competition is a good thing in theory...

[malfunct]

Actually the parent has a point, he just failed to actually finish saying it.

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.

Support costs

[Malc]

"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.

Media stranglehold

[mtcrowe]

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.

Re:Wrong way to do it.

[Cyberdyne]

There is a similar system here in the US on phones. The baby bells own the lines but then lease them at wholesale (regulated rate) to other telcos to provide local phone service.

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?

HA!

[s4m7]

Does anyone still remember when the FCC was supposed to HELP the consumer, by regulating the communications industry on our behalf?

now, the FCC serves to help monopolies, by regulating the consumer on the industries' behalf. Why is it that mechanisms to prevent consumers getting screwed always wind up being used against us?

key point missed

[Uhh_Duh]

I don't understand how forcing a LEC to share their infrastructure promotes growth. It does the opposite.

Would you pay billions to deploy an infrastructure if you were going to be forced by the FCC to let your competition use it? Hell no.

Come on people. Forcing businesses to share what they build is only going to make them not build it in the first place. Letting them keep what they build will encourage competition and give multiple carriers a fair shot at the same market. Granted, the little guys aren't going to be in a position to deploy billions of dollars in Fiber to homes that are only willing to pay $50/mo for service (I don't see this as a winning venture no matter HOW you look at it) but that's what VC's are for I guess.

If it's a profitable venture, the money will be on the table for more than one person to go after it. If it's not profitable (once again, Fiber to the home at $50 a month? Sorry kids, this isn't magic fairy land) then nobody will touch it anyway.

Capitalism is a beautiful thing.

Re:key point missed

[Uhh_Duh]

The airwaves are a slightly different story, since there's a finite amount of space available on which to broadcast FM radio signals that can be received by consumers with a $5 radio. Want to know what happens when someone's not regulating the airwaves? Turn your CB to channel 19 and experience a world where money doesn't control what you can broadcast.

Private infrastructure is a completely different story. You simply can't expect someone to lay out billions of investment and then DEMAND that they let their COMPETITION use it! How would you feel if you bought a house and the government passed a law that said you had no choice but to let transients sleep in your living room if they wanted to. That's YOUR house and YOUR money. You will let whomever you wish sleep there. Why is private infrastructure any different? If you don't want to pay their fees, then don't. The price can't be set any higher than people are willing to pay or nobody would buy it and they wouldn't roll it out in the first place.

Isn't it nice when nobody tells you what you have to do? It goes both ways.

Re:key point missed

[theLOUDroom]

Capitalism is a beautiful thing.

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.

I'm sick of the BS...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Private monopolies vs. public monopolies

[cheezfreek]

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.

And this is better than a public, government-run-and-regulated monopoly how exactly?

FCC...

[jdreed1024]

Why do we even _have_ the FCC?

I mean, sure, I know why they exist, and why they were created. (And yes, we'd probably be worse off without them, but still, I don't think I'm the only one frustrated with their recent behavior) They were created to regulate and designate the airwaves in the public interest. Except lately they seem to have forgotten those last two words. Cable deregulation was not in the public interest (unless people are interested in paying higher prices). Massive media conglomerates are not really in the public interest.

Seems the FCC is more concerned with helping the big Telcos and special interest groups, instead of caring about what the people have to say.

But I guess that's par for the course in today's government.

If your house is already built, go suck an egg.

[crovira]

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.

Re:If your house is already built, go suck an egg.

[praedor]

Good thought. I think I'll rent a backhoe and repeatedly cut their phonelines around the local area until they run out of twisted sister pair and put in the good stuff.

Perhaps I could keep frying their lines by pumping power outlet juice down the wire periodically when there are storms in the broad vicinity so it can get blamed on lightening strikes.

So what if I get to pay for services I don't get?

[twitter]

I work for a CLEC

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.

Can I send my bills?

[StarTux]

To the FCC chairman? This will create a monopoly and hence drive up prices...As an analogy in my apartment I can only get DirecTV and boy, they are so expensive! Not sure if cable has changed, but I was paying about $30 ess for the same service.

Now it looks like fiber to the home is going the same way, huge price and with little choice.

Chairman of the FCC should be given two choices; Resign or be fired.

StarTux

What happened to democracy?

[sdibb]

While Powell said he values public input on the rules, it ultimately will be of little help in crafting ownership laws that stand up in court.

"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.

Beware: already largely happened in Canada

[Sara Chan]

In most big cites in Canada, CanWest Global Communications owns at least the dominant newspaper and one of the top television stations. In Montreal, the second-largest city, it owns the lone English-language daily newspaper as well as one of two private English-language television stations. In Vancouver, the third largest city, it owns both daily newspapers and two of the top three television stations. It also owns numerous other newspapers, including the major daily in the Canadian capital (the Ottawa Citizen), as well as television stations reaching 94% of English-speaking Canadians.

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

Re:Beware: already largely happened in Canada

[jat850]

Even worse, CanWest is pro the current Liberal government

Wow. You must be watching a different Global than I watch ... Kevin Newman (and the rest of Global News) has such an anti-liberal slant it's not even funny. Have you EVER watched the segment called "The Last Word"? I would guess that the CanWest Global network is far more right-leaning than pro-liberal.

TAKE ACTION! ACLU action website has a quick way

[Mr.FreakyBig]

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.

But... but... but, but, but....

[Thud457]

"TV is a non-essential service. Ditch it and stop whining."

Where should I get my NEWS from?!!

Simple.

[RatBastard]

The answer is very simple: our government is for sale.

Fiber monopolies

[zerofoo]

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

Re:Fiber monopolies

[praedor]

Nice, for you privaledged city-slickers. Fuck the many citizens in rural areas. I suppose we should be happy we got power (only because the government forced it, 'cause no company would EVER have run power lines to rural areas if allowed to merely base such decisions on profit motive). Fiber would benefit rural and city dwellers equally. We (rural-ites) would be able to get the same high-speed telecom that city dwellers take for granted. Satellite doesn't count because it is 1) overpriced, and 2) suffers horrific latencies, and 3) it's the ONLY option vs 56k dialup.

Revamp the infrastructure with fiber and suddenly there is competition throughout the country for broadband connectivity. Hopefully, fiber would put the satellite losers out of business.

Having just one company, say Verizon, run fiber to, say, my home, and then restrict me to Verizon service or none is unacceptable. First, this makes them a monopoly that WILL (not might, WILL) overcharge and cackle about it. Second, Verizon is a huge privacy violation - selling customer information without shame or limit. They can kiss my horse's puckered a-hole.

FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell

[panaceaa]

FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell apparently thinks "democracy" is great when it applies to elections, but not to government policy. In his '99 FCC Commissioner statement, he said:

The Commission here avowedly promises ... to initiate public debate on "whether, and how, broadcasters' public interest obligations can be refined to promote democracy and better educate the voting public."

However, after Bush has appointed him as chairman and he's no longer at the whim of an election, he changes his story. Here is his quote in the Washington Post article:

"You don't govern just by polls and surveys. ... If all of our rulemaking was just a case of put them out and take a referendum, things would be a lot easier."

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.

What???

[uberdave]

Sell bonds, build, hope you make money on it and then pay for it over a few decades plus interest.

<Imagined Corporate Rant>
*Hope* you make money? Over a few decades?? Listen pal, we've got to show a profit, and we've got to show it this quarter. Decades? I plan to be sipping umbrella drinks on a beach somewhere in a decade, not wondering if we'll finally get a return on our investment. Wake up and smell the business plan, friend. Make money now! Make money fast! Screw everything else.
</Imagined Corporate Rant>

Re:What???

[alen]

If that is your opinion then you need to look at the balance sheets of some fortune 500 companies and read some of their stories. Microsoft loses money on products and services for years before they become cash cows. GE lost money on plastics for over a decade before they turned it into a cash cow. Taking the long term view is what separates successful companies from those that will go chapter 11 in the next downturn.

Re:What???

[charon_on_acheron]

Unfortunately, you are both right. So many established businesses now think they have to make a profit right now that they do all sorts of stupid/crazy/illegal stunts to show they are making that profit. Every quarter's earnings statement seems to be the most important thing in the history of the company, because they have to keep the stockholders happy with big profits. This was part of the Enron debacle, and has revealed the lengths a company will go to to show a profit. (Even while the officers are robbing it blind.)

It does seem like some of the Fortune 500 companies are going to go down in the next decade, because they think the short term is more important than the long term.

People used to be scared of the FCC

[John3]

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.

Re:People used to be scared of the FCC

[corbettw]

Along the same lines, it seems like radio stations are getting away with a lot more nowadays when they're owned by big companies. Clear Channel (everyone's favorite group of oligarchs) owns many of the stations here in LA, including Star98.7, the one I listen to the most. Their morning show, Jamie and Danny (starring Danny Partridge), is getting worse and worse about calling people "assholes" on the air. Personally, I don't care. But you just know there's some little old lady in Pasadena, having a conniption everytime Jamie yells "asshole" like she's suffering from Touret's.

What About Democracy?

[Popsikle]

While Powell said he values public input on the rules, it ultimately will be of little help in crafting ownership laws that stand up in court. "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." - From the Washington Post Article... Isnt that the point of a Democratic Government? We the People, For the People, By The People? Or am I on crack, and thats not the way It it supposed to work!

apples and oranges

[Selecter]

On a national level, yes, things were worse than now. On a local level, there were THOUSANDS of local radio station owners. What you are talking about is 3 or 4 companies that own half the radio shows in america, in addition to putting ONLY THEIR OWNED SHOWS on those stations. THAT IS NEW. That did not exist in the old days, while they may have used content that only 4 or 5 companies produced, the stations themselves were owned by thousands of different owners. For you to say that the newspapers owned the radio stations en masse is incorrect. They owned some of them, yes. That does not invalidate my point, which is most of the license holders ( provided they where in the game before 1941 ) got their licenses FOR FREE. And you cant do that now. You cant even get a LPFM license anymore.

The Bush Government is Hostile To Geeks

[lysurgon]

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!

Re:The Bush Government is Hostile To Geeks

[Shadow99_1]

Um while I'm not a huge supporter of the republican party, I also am not foolish enough to think that a democrat is going to be such a better thing for my interests in tech matters... I watched the Democratic debates & they were a bunch of losers who couldn't stand up for an issue one way or another...

Unfortunately though no other party or platform would ever get voted in these days... Which is kinda funny since until about the 40's it was unheard of for the USA to have only 2 parties... Often their were 5 or 6... With so much power in only 2 camps & no real differences (lets be honest they will say whatever they think will get them votes these days) between them, it's a buyers market for getting anything passed you want...

Re:An opposing view: Myth of Media Concentration

[rhakka]

hardly. You have a choice of genres sure, but choice in viewpoints?

One company running 1000 channels is not a choice of 1000 viewpoints, it's one viewpoint with 1000 faces.

Just for an indication of how insidious the problem is, how many stories on this have you seen in the major media outlets? Gosh, this must not be very newsworthy. Or perhaps the few companies that run the major media outlets don't think you need to hear about it very much. Odd, huh?

The AT&T breakup was wrong

[Skapare]

The AT&T breakup was wrong. It was done the wrong way. A breakup was needed. But it wasn't obvious at the time the way the breakup needed to happen. The way it should have been done, which is more clear now, is to totally separate the infrastructure from everything else. And it is still possible to do this now with the coming fiber infrastructure.

What we need is an infrastructure company that does nothing else but infrastructure. That company would own the infrastructure and the access point facility. But they would not be allowed to be in any level of business beyond that in exchange for having the infrastructure monopoly. They would not provide dialtone. They would not provide IP routing. They would also not provide point to point circuits except to common carrier businesses.

Every common carrier would pay the same price to have access to the infrastructure. There would be one price for full dark fiber. There would be another price for partial bandwidth on a multiplexed fiber. Homes should have a minimum of 7 fibers, and businesses of course would have more as needed. But 7 is enough for a massive amount of service in today's terms. One fiber can run hundreds of TV channels and gigabits of digital bandwidth.

The advantage of this split, is it separates the infrastructure monopoly from fair competitive information and communications services, allows choice, and even allows multiple concurrent services. The big money is in the information and communications services, so this will help boost the economy, too. The infrastructure company would be allowed to charge actual costs plus a reasonable profit for a stable long term return on investment.

Washington post owns a lot of media

[morcheeba]

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.

Re:An opposing view: Myth of Media Concentration

[benzapp]

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.

Say what?

If it wasn't for the internet, this statement would be completely laughable. We aren't talking about the internet anyway, we are talking about RADIO. Why bring in other media forms. It is going to be 10 years before wireless internet truly makes radio obsolete, and even then... what about rural areas.

There is NOTHING on TV or the radio. NOTHING. It is a complete crapfest. The folks at the Heritage foundation are just incapable of admitting that in some cases, government regulation is good.

A modest proposal on FTTH

[windowpain]

This doesn't answer the main questions posed by the proposed deregulation but here goes.

If we are to have regulation why not prohibit the company that builds fiber to the home (FTTH) from being an ISP. It would be in the fiber business, not the Internet business. Any and all comers could use the fiber for a fee. AOL, MSN, Earthlink, whomever. All would be served equally by a company that had no axe to grind. No ILECs screwing CLECs and screaming about having to share their infrastructure with competitors.

Japanese FTTH good model

[TinBox]

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.

Examples shot down, one at at time.

[abulafia]

The post office (USPS). The post office is now an independent business, but coupled to the government. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like having to deal with private companies for that (company A won't deliver to Iowa, it's not profitable, company b only supports packages of this minimum size... yadda yadda).

Your assertion seems to be that lowest-common-denominator mail delivery paid for by others is something you want. Is that true? Personally, I send things via private carriers, either local bike messangers or Fedex. I've had a lot of problems with USPS mail, including a case of theft by a USPS employee. This is the sort of thing government monopolies encourage. Theft by an employee of Fedex results in a termination of that employee, and some compensation to me. Theft by an employee of a government run monopoly results in nothing for me, an expensive "investigation", and promoting the thief to a point where he can't steal anymore.

Plus, the USPS has done a great job on combating fraud.

Sorry, did you want a postal service or a law enforcement agency? There is a difference.

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.

Hm. You're halfway there. Have you looked at the behavior of, say, the EPA? You'll find the board is loaded with former executives of companies that pollute a lot. Much like how the FAA is loaded with people from airlines. The very existence of an agency that writes rules for a given function ensures that the agency in question is dominated by people who represent the regulated activity. "The fox guarding the Henhouse", indeed.

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.

This still happens. For a long time, I lived in a very rural town in the SW US. When someone's house was on fire, the local fire department first looked up whether or not they'd made "donations" recently. If they hadn't, it took longer to find them. Same with the local hospital. If you think a monopoly run by government fixes this, you're dreaming. You don't even have to go to small towns for this - look at how government officials get preferential treatment for home monitoring, etc. in any city.

Tax Collection. Sorry, can't trust non-government entities.

And you trust the IRS?

I'm not being flip here. They are the collection agency of the government. They have a monopoly on force for collecting whatever is determined appropriate by an arcane process from you. They are judged by how well they do that.

Military Defense. Sorry, I don't like the idea of private armies. Sounds too feudal to me.

Perhaps. Current uses of military power would appear to be entirely feudal, but ignore that. The US used to imagine armies to be raised by grave threats, and dispanded thereafter. After WWII, this changed. What exactly was the reason for this? Think about it some.