how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1261 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | What leads to higher prices? I'm always amused by consumer groups saying that not doing things their way will lead to higher prices.
Consider this situation--how exactly will forced service to areas which don't economically support build-out NOT lead to higher prices from the provider overall? I mean, somebody's got to pay for extending that fiber that will be underused?
In reality, we see that this is one more wealth-redistribution effort--make video/broadband service in richer areas more expensive so that there will be lower prices in less expensive areas.
I can hardly wait 'till they begin advocating parking taxes on suburbs with wide streets and lots of parking to subsidize parking garage fees for those who live in areas where there are only "underserved parking needs"....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
1 edit | Well, you hit the nail completely on the head here.
The choices are between low priced services some and no service at all for many, higher priced services for many and no service for some, or high priced services for everyone and low priced services for a few.
Obviously the telcos prefer the first model and the cable companies are already in the last model.
Consumer groups have preferred the middle model.
Which one an individual prefers probably depends on if you are part of the some, the few, or the many 
But to address the question of: "what leads to higher prices?"
The answer is "Not infrastructure". Yes, someone has to pay for that underutilized fiber, but we are all well aware now that paying for the fiber is what makes television expensive. Paying for the programming is what makes television expensive. Ultimately, cheaper television comes in two forms: providing service to as many people as possible and making programming cheaper. The first one is easy, the second one is something that will never happen without intervention.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| reply to calvoiper
Here's my question, regarding 'cherry picking' (btw, I love cherries, what's wrong with picking them?). How many documented cases of 'cherry picking, red-lining, etc. have there been in mature, fully built out systems, either cable or telco/dsl, and in what cities are these non served areas located? | | |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by viperlmw:How many documented cases of 'cherry picking, red-lining, etc. have there been in mature, fully built out systems, either cable or telco/dsl, and in what cities are these non served areas located? Well, by definition a fully built out system cannot have cherry picking
The question to ask is how many systems have been fully built out absent buildout requirements?
Better yet, what is the level of deployment of advanced services in communities with buildout requirements compared to the level of deployment of advanced services in communities without buildout requirements? What does this comparison look like if you control of demographics (i.e. is there an ideal strategy based on the community)?
And the real kicker question, how many communities have been bypassed because of a buildout requirement? How many communities have been bypassed despite having no buildout requirements (particularly relevant since buildout is waived for overbuilders in so many areas)?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:In reality, we see that this is one more wealth-redistribution effort--make video/broadband service in richer areas more expensive so that there will be lower prices in less expensive areas. Wealth redistribution ??? How do you get that ? Most of these groups are simply asking that broadband service be available in all areas. The telcos are going to do like they have always done too and charge everyone the same amount for the same service.
--
Prove it... | |
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:Here's my question, regarding 'cherry picking' (btw, I love cherries, what's wrong with picking them?). How many documented cases of 'cherry picking, red-lining, etc. have there been in mature, fully built out systems, either cable or telco/dsl, and in what cities are these non served areas located? GREAT QUESTION. The problem is there isn't any watch dog groups keeping track of this stuff. The data that is accepted by the government on cherry picking and broadband penetration is generated by the telcos (their's already been a couple of BBR news stories about this in 07.)
I can tell you in Dallas that if your in Highland Park (the rich neighborhood) you have your choice between cable, AT&T UVerse and even the power company pulled its first fiber lines there a few months ago. How's the rich neighborhood where you live? Probably the same. | |
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:Here's my question, regarding 'cherry picking' (btw, I love cherries, what's wrong with picking them?). How many documented cases of 'cherry picking, red-lining, etc. have there been in mature, fully built out systems, either cable or telco/dsl, and in what cities are these non served areas located? Salt Lake City Utah, last year I believe, it was in the news that a company signed a franchise to build out a rich neighborhood without taking care of the poorer ares they passed on the way there. Did not stay in the public eye long, just another example of government bought by the industry.
About 4 or 5 years ago, AT&T did not want to serve the poorer areas in Layton Utah. Not enough profit from those people. The city stood firm, AT&T called the city's bluff, Comcast decided that they did not need to cherry pick and won the franchise.
There, two examples.
A few weeks ago your exact same question was asked, and several people gave examples. I guess if you ask the same question enough times people will get bored responding and then you can say "See? No cheery picking proved."
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:... But to address the question of: "what leads to higher prices?" The answer is "Not infrastructure". Yes, someone has to pay for that underutilized fiber, but we are all well aware now that paying for the fiber is what makes television expensive. Paying for the programming is what makes television expensive. Ultimately, cheaper television comes in two forms: providing service to as many people as possible and making programming cheaper. The first one is easy, the second one is something that will never happen without intervention.
[I think you meant to say that "paying for the fiber is NOT what makes television expensive."]
I'm not so sure that "intervention" is required to see cheaper programming, even if it would be permitted under the First Amendment. YouTube is certainly providing inexpensive programming.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to bmn
It's wealth redistribution because it conveys a benefit (a second source of TV programming) to a population which the provider doesn't want to serve (allegedly) because it's too expensive to serve--the return on equity doesn't support the investment.
What a build-out requirement does is force additional expense on the provider--expense which is recovered from all ratepayers in the regulated area, thereby subsidizing the additional expense of "build-out" by charging more to the people who the company really wanted to build to in the first place.
There is no free lunch.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:said by marigolds:... But to address the question of: "what leads to higher prices?" The answer is "Not infrastructure". Yes, someone has to pay for that underutilized fiber, but we are all well aware now that paying for the fiber is what makes television expensive. Paying for the programming is what makes television expensive. Ultimately, cheaper television comes in two forms: providing service to as many people as possible and making programming cheaper. The first one is easy, the second one is something that will never happen without intervention. [I think you meant to say that "paying for the fiber is NOT what makes television expensive."] I'm not so sure that "intervention" is required to see cheaper programming, even if it would be permitted under the First Amendment. YouTube is certainly providing inexpensive programming. calvoiper Yep, I meant "not"
YouTube provides some programming, but when it comes to the high demand programming that is driving tv costs: live content, sports, exclusive series, sports, full length recent release movies, and sports; YouTube is still lagging behind in content while pay internet sources are still not very cheap.
The intervention I talked about could come from government (and might have to), but it also could come from a sufficient industry shakeup. Likely paths would be:
Restricting vertical integration of media ownership (telcos and cable companies owning channels)
Forbid confidentially clauses on retransmission agreements (or even require public disclosure of retransmission agreements)
Restricting or eliminating channel bundling
Retransmission rate regulation, or similar regulation upstream (for example, using the anti-trust exemption for baseball to require salary caps and regulate tv contract negotiations)
I think the most important types of government intervention are those that make contract details public knowledge. This gives the best possibility of correcting the current market failures without introducing new government failures.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to bmn
said by bmn:said by calvoiper:In reality, we see that this is one more wealth-redistribution effort--make video/broadband service in richer areas more expensive so that there will be lower prices in less expensive areas. Wealth redistribution ??? How do you get that ? Most of these groups are simply asking that broadband service be available in all areas. The telcos are going to do like they have always done too and charge everyone the same amount for the same service. Here's the thing, AT&T is not here NOW. The reason is because they want a statewide franchise. Now these pro-cable idiots think that somehow if they are denied that AT&T will come to their senses and still come here. WRONG. Instead of "cherry picking" certain wealthy communities in cities they'll just "cherry pick" the state and only build in cities that have the highest incomes. Meaning NOT MINE. At least if AT&T comes to my town even if it's just in the "rich" parts they are here and that means eventually they will branch out.
The cable companies know this and that way they get to keep their monopolies on the vast majority of their areas. Anyone that thinks the cable companies are against statewide franchising out of the concern for the consumer, they are delusional. | |
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to RayW
Salt Lake City Utah, last year I believe, it was in the news that a company signed a franchise to build out a rich neighborhood without taking care of the poorer ares they passed on the way there. Did not stay in the public eye long, just another example of government bought by the industry.
About 4 or 5 years ago, AT&T did not want to serve the poorer areas in Layton Utah. Not enough profit from those people. The city stood firm, AT&T called the city's bluff, Comcast decided that they did not need to cherry pick and won the franchise. How can one "win" the franchise? According to federal law there are not supposed to be any EXCLUSIVE franchise deals.
Fact is AT&T is not there now to give Comcast competition. So comcast has can do wahtever the hell it wants. What other option does that town have? If AT&T were allowed in then so what if they start in only rich areas. They are ther and eventualy they would branch out to poorer areas. Of course Comcast loves a monopoly. Of course Comcast has no issue building out in poor areas. They know poor people even on welfare won't go without thier cable.
How nice for Comcast to take money from people that can't even afford to feed their families. I just love how may tax $$$ go to these people for food stamps yet they have enough cash to pay $70 for cable. | |
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by BF69:Fact is AT&T is not there now to give Comcast competition. So comcast has can do wahtever the hell it wants. What other option does that town have? If AT&T were allowed in then so what if they start in only rich areas. They are ther and eventualy they would branch out to poorer areas. If AT&T was going to "eventually" build out to the poorer areas, then there was no reason to reject the franchise, only to negotiate the terms of the buildout (and if you look at new area franchises, normally they have terms of 15% per year that would give AT&T over six years to build out to the poorer areas).
The issue is not rich or poor anyway, even though that is how it is portrayed.
The issue is high density and low density. It is actually the rich areas that are often bypassed because they refuse to pay $70/month for television, they are low density, and those who will pay $70/month are also willing to pay $2k or more for a private extension, something poorer residents cannot afford.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to BF69
said by BF69:How can one "win" the franchise? According to federal law there are not supposed to be any EXCLUSIVE franchise deals. Fact is AT&T is not there now to give Comcast competition. So comcast has can do wahtever the hell it wants. What other option does that town have? If AT&T were allowed in then so what if they start in only rich areas. They are ther and eventualy they would branch out to poorer areas. Of course Comcast loves a monopoly. Of course Comcast has no issue building out in poor areas. They know poor people even on welfare won't go without thier cable. How nice for Comcast to take money from people that can't even afford to feed their families. I just love how may tax $$$ go to these people for food stamps yet they have enough cash to pay $70 for cable. My condolences on such a brilliant come back, the argument that there is no cherry picking is refuted and you bring up the old "they are poor so screw them, they are just a drain" argument. Not everyone in 'poor' areas (we are not talking GHETTO poor now) is without money and on welfare, there are many who have enough for something like internet and entertainment cable, they just do not go out and pay for the extras that boost bonuses for the industry bosses. These folks do not have as many cars, boats, skidoos, mobile homes, etc. as the places that AT&T wanted to serve.
As far was winning, Comcast took over the service because AT&T could not or would not deliver. AT&T left because they did not WANT to reduce the percentage of profit even if it meant more money. Despite your stuttering, that sounds like winning to me and Comcast now has to live up to what they said they would do, so what is wrong with that? Or does your company have a history of making promises and commitments and then downstream say "Oh, we have the money now, so we changed our minds on that." and you think that is normal?
And from what some people said (I do not know, I do not waste my money on cable), AT&T losing was the best thing to happen here. I happen to think AT&T is crooked, but that is another story and a different credit card.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:It's wealth redistribution because it conveys a benefit (a second source of TV programming) to a population which the provider doesn't want to serve (allegedly) because it's too expensive to serve--the return on equity doesn't support the investment. That's not wealth distribution... Wealth redistribution implies that money is being transferred from one group of people to another without their consent. However, in the case of forcing providers to build out at a higher cost to all customers, ensuring that all people have access, the relationship is purely voluntary.
What a build-out requirement does is force additional expense on the provider--expense which is recovered from all ratepayers in the regulated area, thereby subsidizing the additional expense of "build-out" by charging more to the people who the company really wanted to build to in the first place. See, the problem with not having build out requirements is that providers would leave entire areas dark. If it had not been for build out requirements, most of the country would probably be without basic service like telephone and electricity and other services like cable and internet.
The problem here is that these companies are being given access to public access right of ways, so the states certainly should make sure that the use of those right of ways is maximized.
--
Prove it... | |
| reply to RayW
said by RayW:said by viperlmw:Here's my question, regarding 'cherry picking' (btw, I love cherries, what's wrong with picking them?). How many documented cases of 'cherry picking, red-lining, etc. have there been in mature, fully built out systems, either cable or telco/dsl, and in what cities are these non served areas located? Salt Lake City Utah, last year I believe, it was in the news that a company signed a franchise to build out a rich neighborhood without taking care of the poorer ares they passed on the way there. Did not stay in the public eye long, just another example of government bought by the industry. About 4 or 5 years ago, AT&T did not want to serve the poorer areas in Layton Utah. Not enough profit from those people. The city stood firm, AT&T called the city's bluff, Comcast decided that they did not need to cherry pick and won the franchise. There, two examples. A few weeks ago your exact same question was asked, and several people gave examples. I guess if you ask the same question enough times people will get bored responding and then you can say "See? No cheery picking proved." If you are referring to the South Jordan project (Daybreak?), that is a new community which signed on to Qwest's FTTH platform. This is a 'greenfield' build, all new infrastructure. En route to there is Qwest copper serving DSL, so I wouldn't consider this 'cherrypicking'.
As for Layton and cable, AT&T Broadband (formerly TCI there, I believe) was totally fubar in all of northern Utah, and may be considered somewhat of an anomaly. Even so, the cherrypicking didn't happen, for whatever reason.
As for this topic being discussed 'a few weeks ago', I sure missed it, and I am here pretty often. It may have been discussed in a cable forum, in which case I would not have seen it, as I only tend to monitor/contribute to the Qwest forum and News articles, so I'm sorry I missed it. | |
|
