lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
edit:
December 12th, @02:17PM
| Can Someone Explain...
How it is a victory if the bill didn't promulgate net neutrality protections where there were none to begin with? Or if the bottom line on killing the bill is to slow down the telco's video deployment?
Shouldn't the phrase be "A huge victory for real cable companies." |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by lesopp  :How it is a victory if the bill didn't promulgate net neutrality protections were not any to begin with? Or if the bottom line on killing the bill is to slow down the telco's video deployment? Shouldn't the phrase be "A huge victory for real cable companies." All that happened was that it will be more difficult and time consuming and expensive for telcos to rollout TV competition to the cable companies, as you say. How this is a victory for anyone but the cable companies is beyond me.
The only winners here are the local extorionist pols, and the advocates of government running and regulating telecom into the ground. And there are plenty of those. Just look at the posts earlier in this thread.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| said by Resident telecom investor talking point mouthpiece :
All that happened was that it will be more difficult and time consuming and expensive for telcos to rollout TV competition to the cable companies.
Yes, that's why Verizon themselves admit that a national franchise law is unnecessary and the existing system doesn't slow them down at all.
»telephonyonline.com/home/news/ve···_092706/
quote:
Franchising is not holding us back,” said Virginia Ruesterholz, president of Verizon Telecom. “I really don’t see that as a necessity, to have nationwide relief on that.”
Odd. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by Karl Bode : Yes, that's why Verizon themselves admit that a national franchise law is unnecessary and the existing system doesn't slow them down at all. quote:
Franchising is not holding us back,” said Virginia Ruesterholz, president of Verizon Telecom. “I really don’t see that as a necessity, to have nationwide relief on that.”
Odd. And when taken in context (said at an investor conference), it makes perfect sense. She was trying to CONVINCE investors that government stupidity wouldn't jeopardize their continued investments in Verizon and that they could soldier on anyway and still make a profit.
What she didn't have to say, because investors know it well, is that the profits will come thru higher prices. The only ones being screwed are the customers who will pay higher prices because of the government's lack of foresight.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :... and the advocates of government running and regulating telecom into the ground.... so you think this current regime of almost no regulations (or at least no enforcement of regulation) is a huge success? If so, you must be ignorant or own lots of telecom stock.
you think monopoly/duopoly broadband and tv is good for consumers and the U.S.?
you think the U.S. dropping from 1st to 16th (or 21st or wherever we are now) in the world rankings is good?
all this and more has happened under the "no regulation is good regulation" FCC; broadband competition is non-existent and appears headed to stay that way for years to come. The longer it takes to get real competition, the further the U.S. falls behind the world leaders. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to TK Junk Mail
quote:
What she didn't have to say, because investors know it well, is that the profits will come thru higher prices. The only ones being screwed are the customers who will pay higher prices because of the government's lack of foresight.
Feigned consumer empathy is so charming.
The point is that Fios deployment has not been significantly impeded by a lack of a federal franchise. Their relatively quick Fios deployments prove it, and her comments prove it. This, combined with their success at getting statewide franchises passed, makes the federal push largely a non-issue anyway.
Anyway, I take issue with the idea of federal or statewide franchises resulting in broad deployment and competitive utopia. I think that's a BS talking point regurgitated by investors and incumbent executives. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| reply to nasadude
So how will more regulations encourage anything other than more "faux" competition? What's the end goal here in your opinion? Will bunches of companies just jump into the fray and be viable all of a sudden if we regulate more?
I have yet to see the pro-regulation crowd come up with an intelligent explanation for how more regulation will equal more competition. Reality has to set in at some point.
Adam |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| You make no sense. Regulation != competition. The reason the utilities are regulated, is because they are natural monopolies.
Lets look at broadband, and see WHY it's a natural monopoly.
#1: Barrier to entry. The cost of anyone NEW trying to enter the market is prohibitive. The existing telecom infrastrcture was paid for by the taxpayers. The existing cable infrastructure was paid for by the residents.
#2: No close substitutes. Umm, there is no substitute for broadband. Wifi, etc, are all limited, small deployements.
#3: Price maker. Umm, look at 'comcast', the so called 'bmw' of the internet. Overpriced for less service.
#4: Blocked Entry: Umm, telco's buying senators. nuff said.
Granted, the truth is we are a in a cartel a centralized institution is set up to partially coordinate the actions of several independent providers (which is a form of oligopoly). You have cable or DSL. Period.
However, By definition a monopoly allows exclusive sale or purchase of a product or service, however the control and exclusivity of a human need in the hands of another human is at its most dangerous when its basic availability is at stake - sooner or later the exclusivity is mishandled either intentionally or not. Slavery was clearly the ultimate result of monopoly. Look to your own future if we don't stop the megacorps NOW.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| reply to TK Junk Mail
So your point is that presidents of a company will make up facts based on who they want to please. If they are talking to law makers than they will say local franchises hurt deployment and need to be removed. If they are talking to investors they will says that everything's ok, just keep the money rolling in.
If a local community wants to stall technology deployment in it's town, why should Uncle Sam and say they can't do that? Where in the Constitution is the right to tell a local community how to and not to evolve technologically given to the feds?
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Alpine
said by Alpine :So how will more regulations encourage anything other than more "faux" competition? What's the end goal here in your opinion? Will bunches of companies just jump into the fray and be viable all of a sudden if we regulate more? I have yet to see the pro-regulation crowd come up with an intelligent explanation for how more regulation will equal more competition. Reality has to set in at some point. Adam Look at the history on how cell phone systems started in this country and get back to me after you do some reading. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : said by Resident telecom investor talking point mouthpiece :
All that happened was that it will be more difficult and time consuming and expensive for telcos to rollout TV competition to the cable companies.
Yes, that's why Verizon themselves admit that a national franchise law is unnecessary and the existing system doesn't slow them down at all. » telephonyonline.com/home/news/ve···_092706/ quote:
Franchising is not holding us back,” said Virginia Ruesterholz, president of Verizon Telecom. “I really don’t see that as a necessity, to have nationwide relief on that.”
Odd. From later in the same article:
"Though Verizon says it doesn’t need federal franchises, most observers agree they would accelerate and perhaps reduce the cost of Verizon’s video rollout. When Verizon reported having achieved 10% penetration of its video markets after six months in the second quarter, research analysis firm Ovum-RHK suggested those numbers could go much higher if federal franchising becomes a reality" |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
December 12th, @04:27PM
| Observer's suggested? Which observers? Investors like TCH? Free-market deregulatory think tanks?
And Ovum's guessing, probably based on data from the above minded individuals. Doubt they asked the Consumer's Union....or found objective data not spun by people eager to see local voters eliminated from the profit mechanism... |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Maxo
said by Maxo :So your point is that presidents of a company will make up factstailor their presentation based on who they want to please. If they are talking to law makers than they will say local franchises hurt deployment and need to be removed. If they are talking to investors they will says that everything's ok, just keep the money rolling in. Uh Yeah!! Welcome to the real world - buyer beware!!
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Observer's suggested? Which observers? Investors like TCH? Free-market deregulatory think tanks? I really don't have a clue, I was just quoting the same source that you were. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Alpine
said by Alpine :So how will more regulations encourage anything other than more "faux" competition? What's the end goal here in your opinion? Will bunches of companies just jump into the fray and be viable all of a sudden if we regulate more? I have yet to see the pro-regulation crowd come up with an intelligent explanation for how more regulation will equal more competition. Reality has to set in at some point. Adam Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?
The 1996 telecom bill mandated (sounds like regulation to me!) line sharing by the ILECs. Sometime after the bill passed, there appeared these companies called Earthlink, Mindspring,Covad and others that came into being to provide internet service. You remember all those companies doncha? Hardly anyone left now and those that are left are barely hanging on; after all, line sharing was done away with a year or so ago.
For a while there actually was competition, because of a REGULATION requiring line sharing. Now this particular experiment didn't last very long because the ILECs fought tooth and nail against the CLECs, including doing illegal things to prevent them from connecting customers for DSL. Bell Atlantic/Verizon was fined a few $$$B (yes, that's a B for billion) for violating these laws/regulations. Ho hum, what's a few billion to destroy your competition?
I've got a regulation for you: mandate line sharing and severely and immediately levy HUGE fines against any ILEC obstructing or otherwise preventing competitors from offering and connecting service. I don't know if there are any companies out there willing to try again, but we might just get competition. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to Karl Bode
And what happened to them "states' rights" advocates? |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by Maxo :So your point is that presidents of a company will make up factstailor their presentation based on who they want to please. If they are talking to law makers than they will say local franchises hurt deployment and need to be removed. If they are talking to investors they will says that everything's ok, just keep the money rolling in. Uh Yeah!! Welcome to the real world - buyer beware!! My point is that they can't be trusted. Why do you trust them when they say they can't advance technologies with these regulations. They are just saying it so they can do what they want without stipulations. The fact (by fact I mean my opinion;)) is that local governments should have the right to run their local governments the way they see fit. If they want to legislate themselves into the 19th century, that's their right.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
