how-to block ads
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | reply to NEP1611
Re: Good bye to...
said by NEP1611  :said by marigolds :All mandatory buildout provisions have been lifted for statewide permits. Good bye upgrades. I disagree. Now that SBC will be a player, along with the cable companies and satellite, there will be, if anything, MORE incentive to constantly upgrade the network and keep prices down. Already satellite TV has proven an effective drag, as odd as this may sound it has held down rates for cable and satellite a lot more than you think. This is turning into a classic oligopoly that will ultimately benefit the consumer. said by marigolds :Good bye legal enforcement of customer service standards. Again this is off base. Do you really think that just because the Government now no longer has authority to insist on standards that companies are just going to do whatever they want? Again, in any competitive marketplace any company can ill afford to take its customers for granted. If anything adding competition will improve customer service. Especially for SBC, the new kid on the block. Oh and by the way if you want to know what lousy customer service is, try going to a state university or government office sometime. "It's not my department" is the usual default response. said by marigolds :Good bye educational i-nets Good bye free educational and government internet access. If it's anything down there like it is up here (CT) the cable company franchise agreeement grants one free Internet connection to each school and library in the district. Furthermore this connection can't be networked or hooked up to wifi or anything like that. (At least, it's not supposed to  ) This is nice but really doesn't really have that much of an impact. At a very small library or school it might, but for a big school would be a drop in the bucket. So I don't see this as a big disaster for cities and towns. Well, in the years I spent as a cable regulator, I almost always saw that no mandated upgrades meant no upgrades. Especially for Texas, where the rest of the country will still have mandatory upgrades for several more years, this is going to mean being placed on a low upgrade priority, especially for incremental SOTA upgrades. Unless, of course, SBC is seriously considering launching a statewide video utilty.
Even with mandated upgrades companies frequently cheated, providing equipment that looked as if it matched upgrade standards, but then would quickly show problems when stretched.
The issue that people constantly harp on is that the United States is so far behind the SOTA in video, communication, and broadband services.
Well, SOTA upgrades are not cost-effective; they are often even a negative net benefit. Cable companies know that if you eliminate i-nets (which is not the same as the free drops that you mentioned above), eliminate origination sites, and eliminate access channels, they can easily operate at 740MHz. Even Verizon's much vaunted FiOS runs on a backbone that is the equivalent of an 860MHz system. If the backbone is only 860MHz, do you think the buildouts are going to magically become 1000MHz systems?
860MHz should have been the target 5 years ago and instead it is going to turn into a moving target in Texas and 1000MHz systems will move off into the future.
The problem is that "constantly upgrading the network" and "keep prices down" are two opposing incentives. Without regulatory oversight, upgrades are going to be done on a net benefit basis. A SOTA upgrade is not even going to pass a cost-benefit ratio test compared to minimal large-scale upgrades (waiting 10-15 years then upgrading to minimum requirements). We should at the very least be aiming for the most cost-effective solution (especially given the long term return on investment involved), but that is not the system on which this industry works. If we really want to see advancement of the information infrastructure in this country, we should even drop cost-effectiveness and work towards a least-cost basis. The money, though, is not in the cutting edge customer but rather in the low-end bundled customer. The SOTA consumer is just an afterthought compared to the mountain of revenue generated by the basic subscriber.
As for some of the other points above.
Customer Service. Right now, video companies can be held responsible. They cannot just dump a customer and refuse to talk to them because they are too much trouble. They are required to resolve customer service issues to the satisfaction of the regulating entity. They have to report their customer service statistics and make them public record. They are required to have a point of pressence in communities they serve. Going to be a lot of fun when you are required to call between the hours of 9-11 am and drop all equipment off at a site 150 miles away in order to disconnect service and not even the state AG can do anythign about it because it is legal. Being released from FCC standards makes them no longer subject to any of these requirements. And yes, the state (as the franchiser) would have the authority to release them completely from federal requirements.
Education i-nets. Most school districts and city governments have a fiber based network connecting the various buildings, often times with remote origination capacity. These networks were built by the video companies as part of their franchise agreements. The video companies own the networks and are required to give the schools and governments access to them. Under the Texas law, after 2008, the schools and governments will have to pay to use these i-nets.
PEG access. This is a far more important issue than most people realize. City governments and schools districts are often required, by law, to broadcast their public meetings. As well, a large number of remote origination services are provided to seniors, schools, and invalids through PEG access. The access to channels to broadcast this content is provided for free right now through PEG channels, and the cost of maintaining the system is paid for out of the pocket of cable subscribers and television advertisers through pass through and access maintainence fees (not franchise fees). Some areas have certainly done a poor job with their PEG access, but other cities (for example, Grand Rapids) have made their PEG services into integral parts of the city's education and public support systems.
Under the new Texas law, as I mentioned, lump sum public access support does not have to be paid anymore, even if it is part of an existing contract. This is because SBC knows that most existing agreements (even those calculated on a per-subscriber basis) are paid on a lump sum basis. So, that is one less set of taxes, right?
Thing is, cities will still be legally required to broadcast their public meetings. School districts as well.
Remote services will still be legally required to be provided to seniors, schools, and invalids. That means that those services will have to be paid for out of a differnet set of taxes. And, now, the cable company will be able to set the rate it can charge for providing retransmission services. No more having to allow free retransmission.
And best of all, they can move those services over to the digital tier, so that anyone who wants to access them will have to pay more to get to them. On the bright side, you will certainly see less citizens using more services for a greater cost.
This particular statewide agreement law makes it easier for telecom utilities to offer only the high net benefit services and to intensify their competition for the mass market consumer while creating a disincentive to pursue the low cost-benefit high end consumer.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by marigolds :Well, in the years I spent as a cable regulator, .... Anybody who has ever dealt with SERIOUS utility regulation, such as most states have or had with regard to electricity, natural gas, and telephone, is ROFL at that statement.
Cable has for decades masqueraded as a "regulated" industry when in reality they have either been virtually unregulated or they have virtually owned their regulators. By "cloaking" new offerings as "mandated" upgrades they have avoided criticism over costs and have inflated the image of their "regulators". They, and their "regulators", have used regulation as a club to discourage new entrants from competing, with the "universal buildout" requirement being one of the worst hurdles to starting competition.
In short, I view anyone who claims to have been a "cable regulator" as someone who was at least an enabler of cable rip-offs, if not an actual participant.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| That's nice.
For my jurisdiction we:
*successfully fought off an effective competition filing.
*sued for and received a 30% decrease in the basic cable rate with no drop in channels and a three year rate freeze.
*successfully fined a company for telephone response time and successfully forced that company to quadruple phone staff.
*approached 20-30 overbuilders on an annual basis.
*successfully recruited a cable overbuilder.
Just because you allow your area to appoint incompetents does not mean that every area does the same.
And since you so like ad hominim attacks rather than addressing the issues involved:
Your comments on universal buildouts reveal your bigotry. Are advance communications services are meant only for the elite and not meant for the masses? Do only those with money and property need to see government meetings, receive weather alerts, and learn of school closures? Should the airwaves only be accessible to those who can afford to live in high property value and high return areas?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| First, name your jurisdiction. If true, this is real news.
Second, I reject your attempt to call me a bigot.
I know that millions of "politically correct" people think that every person in this country should live in exactly the same central-planned house, with a street paved using the exact same materials as every other street in the country, with exactly the same appliances and window treatments--thereby allowing any and everyone to escape any responsibility for their choices in life.
I reject that approach just like I reject the concept that every house in the same city, or county, or state should have exactly the same utility offerings, including video and Internet offerings. Such so-called "standards" accomplish ONLY the following:
1. They serve as a formidable barrier to entry, which both the incumbent provider(s) and the regulators like--the latter because regulators would much rather regulate fewer companies than more companies, both because it's less work and it avoids any chance that competition will make the regulators' jobs superfluous.
2. They delay the implementation of new services, because they must immediately be "universal" rather than incremental. This prevents experimentation with new offerings.
3. They enforce a "mediocrity" in offerings. In truth, they prevent "premium" offerings to "premium" customers. I'm sure that many people would like to outlaw Mercedes autos and force everyone to drive Chevys. That's not the way this country works--at least not yet.
Yeah, I'm sure you'd love to remove any hint of economic or class distinction in the US--but you fail to recognize that those types of things are what drive our ambitions and work ethic. On the other hand, you may well win eventually. In evolutionary terms, after our society spends enough time punishing accomplishment and rewarding failure, the incentive structure is upended anyway.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Iowa City, IA
I suggest you look up the meaning of "bigot" if believe that your opposition to buildout requirements are contrary to the label.
Univeral buildout rules do not apply to new services but rather to basic services (basic and expanded basic televsion, but not digital, telephony, data services, etc.). That is done purposefully to avoid interfering with experimental offerings. Further, experimental offerings are expressly exempt from even the most strict buildout requirements by federal law.
Now how do your points 2 and 3 apply under that scenario?
I do agree that buildout requirements are a barrier to entry, but density standards clearly designate that a cable provider cannot be required to buildout an area which they can prove would be unprofitable unless the residents pay all the cost of the buildout (hence why overbuilders and competition markets are exempt from mandatory buildout rules). It is the cost-benefit ratio, not the net-benefit, that causes investor return driven telecom companies to balk at buildouts.
(Incidentally, cable regulators are unpaid appointed positions; generally not what most people consider "jobs").
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Well, let's take the American Heritage 4th edition definition of "bigot", as reproduced on dictionary.com:
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
My opposition to buildout requirements isn't bigoted--indeed, support of buildout requirements, by using government to force service to "one's own group" would be evidence of "intolerance" of those who would desire to offer video and/or ISP services the same way EVERY OTHER RETAIL PRODUCT AND SERVICE is offered--where the retailer wants to offer it.
All I want is freedom for business to offer services when and where they choose--the same model used for everything from gas stations and supermarkets to physicians' offices and day care centers. No way a desire for that freedom is evidence of bigotry. You're trying to play a race card here, and it doesn't make any part of a winning hand.
Now if you think my strident condemnation of "political correctness", "socialist central planning", and "bureaucratic mediocrity" makes me a bigot about economic systems, that's a different issue--but when you say "bigot" in America today, it's almost universally thought of in racial or ethnic terms--and as I said, those cards don't win here.
I also will point out that you're redefining terms on the fly here, and nobody can argue with a moving target. ("Uh, I only meant universal buildout for "basic" services." But what about digital cable? Is it "basic"? Does your answer apply beyond Iowa City? What speed of broadband is "basic"? At what point will some navel-contemplating bureaucrat decide to double or quadruple the speed required as part of the "basic" buildout and drive my costs through the roof? [With my competitor's encouragement, of course.])
And then there's the REAL WINNER: You won't require me to serve an area I can "prove" won't be profitable. Oh wow! Of course, the bureaucrat passes on the "proof", and nobody compensates me for the effort to "prove" a non-market. What total discouraging hogwash!
And what's this stuff about not requiring mandatory buildout for overbuilders? First, how do you justify treating companies so differently? Second, if the non-initial market entrants are totally exempt from overbuild requirements, how is it a barrier? You've essentially made my point for me--to get competition, you have to scrap the buildout requirements. (Or are you playing the incumbent's game, saying that you're exempt as long as you don't offer anything the incumbent doesn't, but that any new offering has to meet the mandatory buildout? Incumbents LOVE that position because it limits their competition the field that the incumbents define.)
And I'm checking on Iowa City from other sources. You described your successes using quotes--were these taken from some publication? If so, I'd appreciate the reference or link. Maybe there has been successful cable regulation, and Iowa City might be the place--it's small enough, and idealistic enough, to carry it off, I suppose.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by calvoiper :Well, let's take the American Heritage 4th edition definition of "bigot", as reproduced on dictionary.com: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." My opposition to buildout requirements isn't bigoted--indeed, support of buildout requirements, by using government to force service to "one's own group" would be evidence of "intolerance" of those who would desire to offer video and/or ISP services the same way EVERY OTHER RETAIL PRODUCT AND SERVICE is offered--where the retailer wants to offer it. All I want is freedom for business to offer services when and where they choose--the same model used for everything from gas stations and supermarkets to physicians' offices and day care centers. No way a desire for that freedom is evidence of bigotry. You're trying to play a race card here, and it doesn't make any part of a winning hand. Now if you think my strident condemnation of "political correctness", "socialist central planning", and "bureaucratic mediocrity" makes me a bigot about economic systems, that's a different issue--but when you say "bigot" in America today, it's almost universally thought of in racial or ethnic terms--and as I said, those cards don't win here. I also will point out that you're redefining terms on the fly here, and nobody can argue with a moving target. ("Uh, I only meant universal buildout for "basic" services." But what about digital cable? Is it "basic"? Does your answer apply beyond Iowa City? What speed of broadband is "basic"? At what point will some navel-contemplating bureaucrat decide to double or quadruple the speed required as part of the "basic" buildout and drive my costs through the roof? [With my competitor's encouragement, of course.]) And then there's the REAL WINNER: You won't require me to serve an area I can "prove" won't be profitable. Oh wow! Of course, the bureaucrat passes on the "proof", and nobody compensates me for the effort to "prove" a non-market. What total discouraging hogwash! And what's this stuff about not requiring mandatory buildout for overbuilders? First, how do you justify treating companies so differently? Second, if the non-initial market entrants are totally exempt from overbuild requirements, how is it a barrier? You've essentially made my point for me--to get competition, you have to scrap the buildout requirements. (Or are you playing the incumbent's game, saying that you're exempt as long as you don't offer anything the incumbent doesn't, but that any new offering has to meet the mandatory buildout? Incumbents LOVE that position because it limits their competition the field that the incumbents define.) And I'm checking on Iowa City from other sources. You described your successes using quotes--were these taken from some publication? If so, I'd appreciate the reference or link. Maybe there has been successful cable regulation, and Iowa City might be the place--it's small enough, and idealistic enough, to carry it off, I suppose. calvoiper I am not redefining terms on the fly. If you have ever read a franchise agreement or the fcc laws involved, you would know that universal buildout only applies to basic services.
Not cable internet
Not telephony
Not digital cable
Not even expanded basic
That applies to everything under FCC jurisdiction.
Any buildout terms that a company agrees to beyond basic services are not required by law.
Here is how the non-profitable area proof works. You measure the density per fiber mile and if the density does not meet the preestablished standard (normally 20 homes passed), then you do not have to buildout to that area. The burden of proof lies on the homeowner, not the incumbent, but the homeowner can recover the costs.
Overbuilders are not required to buildout because it is a competition market. Incumbents are also not required to buildout in a competition market. Similar, a market with significant satellite competion (known as an effective competition ruling) is also considered a competitive market and mandatory buildout requirements are dropped for incumbents.
Municipal regulation of cable incumbents used to have a lot more teeth, but the 1996 telecommunications act stripped a lot of that and the push towards statewide franchises with PUC oversight is going to remove even more. Cities still retain their police powers, but they will have even fewer enforcement mechanisms (most notably, they will lose their ability to issue fines or force arbitration). With the interest you have, I would highly suggest reading up more on the different provisions governing cable service and perhaps see if you can do more personally.
I didn't quote from any specific source for Iowa City. Those are just from my own personal experiences. The triennual review of the commission I was on is online somewhere, I will see if I can find it. I know I am biased, but our success had a lot to do with having commissioners and staff who meant with cable executives on at least a monthly basis and who actively learned the details of the cable industry and cable regulation and how to apply those details to regulatory situations. Not to mention we had a group of citizens willing to lodge every relavant compliant which was critical material in negotiations. For many jurisdictions (including nearly every state PUC), cable is just an annoyance pawned off on a junior staff member who fields phone calls but rarely follows up.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
