Cable Opens Up > Cable has NO EXSCUSE TO CRY!!!

reply to vic102482

Re: Cable has NO EXSCUSE TO CRY!!!

said by rahvin112:

---

The "Taxes" being debated here aren't real taxes. They are discussing the USF, this fee isn't paid to any government but is a direct slush fund for the ILECs to support the deployment of telephone service to unprofitable regions.

Telephone service is by it's nature a critical service because it provides quick access to emergency medical assistance, cable TV or internet access fulfills no such emergency need nor is there a need for universal deployment of Hispeed internet.

Because of this the FCC decision IS correct and the court is WRONG. Universal access to the cable lines will only serve to increase costs to the cable company and as a result make everything MORE expensive.

The FCC has been pushing the deployment of 2 to 3 major broadband providers in every market. This strategy is focused around Cable, ILEC's and Wireless/BPL. By having large companies like Cable and ILEC's providing similar service in the same market TRUE competition will exist and prices will serve the consumer (witness Verizon's price drops). The intent is that each Major internet provider then moves into each others monopoly market, ie the Telco's begin selling TV and the Cable companies being selling telephone and then every market in the US with a cable company then has at a minimum two providers of phone, data and TV.

The ILEC's are fighting this tooth and nail. In reality they do have a point, DSL should not be susceptible to USF fees, but again the ILECs supported that because it's gravy slush money for them. Now they want the cable companies to charge their customers USF fees and probably at the same time will demand that THEY get the money instead of the cable company.

There should be no USF on data transmissions. There should never be a Universal data line guarantee.

---

reply to rahvin112

said by rahvin112:

---

cable TV or internet access fulfills no such emergency need nor is there a need for universal deployment of Hispeed internet.

---

said by rahvin112:

---

Because of this the FCC decision IS correct and the court is WRONG. Universal access to the cable lines will only serve to increase costs to the cable company and as a result make everything MORE expensive.

---

said by rahvin112:

---

There should be no USF on data transmissions. There should never be a Universal data line guarantee.

---

reply to vic102482
If cable was deployed using taxpayer money like we see with USF and grants to telcos then damn straight they should be forced to open the lines. I think they should open the lines no matter what...but if the network is 100% paid by corporate monies (no gov't grants, subsidized loans, etc) then the network is their to do with what they please.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports

said by oliphant5:

---

If cable was deployed using taxpayer money like we see with USF and grants to telcos then damn straight they should be forced to open the lines. I think they should open the lines no matter what...but if the network is 100% paid by corporate monies (no gov't grants, subsidized loans, etc) then the network is their to do with what they please.

---

reply to rahvin112
How are the courts wrong in this matter? Did you read through the decision? Basically, there are 3 kinds of "service" defined for communications in general in the US:

1. CABLE SERVICE - one-way transmission of stuff to consumers, with a small provision for 2-way communication, provided that it is only the consumer making interactive requests for programming. Cable service is regulated by local franchises, which require up to a 5% tax to pay communities for ripping up roads and such.

2. TELECOMMUNICATIOS SERVICE - basically, transmitting data around the national communications infrastructure. Now this is the tricky part... This service originally was defined to describe telephone infrastructure, but as the internet grew, it has become painfully obvious that the internet backbone/infrastructure is what is *really* important (of course this is debatable, but this is the point really in contention between cable and telecos). Because of this, the courts have CORRECTLY ruled that cable companies do, in fact, transmit data around the national communications infrastructure. Of course, the cable companies also operate as an INFORMATION SERVICE, which is what the court said - they said that the FCC was incorrect in saying that cable companies were *only* INFORMATION SERVICES, but they are actually both INFORMATION SERVICES and TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES. Because the telephone service was built with massive public support... this type of service is highly regulated and taxed by the public.

3. INFORMATION SERVICES - this refers to the handling, storage, access, and movement of content over the telecommunications system. basically, your ISPs. They handle connecting you to data.

Now, as mentioned, the big point of contention is the designation of cable companies as part Telecommunication Service. The tricky thing is, the cable companies will say it is not fair for them to be regulated on this matter, because they built the cable system on their own, without public support.

While this is true that the public did not directly or willingly support the cable infrastructure deployment, the public *did* subsidize the internet and telephone development and infrastructure. So, the country, as a whole, has EVERY RIGHT to tax the cable companies, that want to get at *anything* on the internet. And, the cable companies have every right to refuse and go build their own, separate internet if they like.

Additionally, the American people, over the past 30 years have UNWILLINGLY subsidized the growth of the cable industry via the 1986 cable-rate deregulation debacle, which let the cable monopolies jack their prices by some 60% over 3 years! Plus, with the complacency of the FCC, the cable companies were still able to jack prices by more than 50% over what the FCC had originally estimated by the mid 90, DESPITE a failed 10% reduction and a laughable attempt at creating a 2-tiered pricing structure that basically let cable companies make/own new television channels which would go on the extended tier and which they could charge whatever they wanted. The result - virtually unregulated price jacking of the extended tier pricing structure due to horizontal ownership of the content production and distribution systems.

So... the courts were right. If the FCC is not going to make a legitimate, universal and balanced set of regulations for ALL communications in the US, keep slapping them down.

we need two sets of regulation. One set that manages any communications infrastructure be it cable, wireless, telephone. The other set manages any type of content management, be it broadcast spectrum, digital data, or voice over copper. Then, we would just have uniform media companies.

The 9th Circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation. Fully 9% of their appealed judgements are overturned. The ruling labeling telecommunications service as data transmission is where they erred. Telecommunications directly implies voice communications (at least to me). The court is in effect redefining telecommunications as any data service and calling voice data.

The FCC has drawn the correct line and segregated data from voice. Their error is in forcing line sharing on data products. The correct rule is that the ILEC's must share their system in the leasing of whole lines, but there should be no line sharing. The voice network is subsidized for providing universal service on a critical life safety product. Data should not have any such guarantees. Congress did create this problem by forcing the USF onto DSL products and using the money to subsidize internet access for schools.

In my opinion the proper path is for the regulation of DSL be dropped completely handing the networks back to the ILECs and allowing them complete control over any FTTH deployment they do. All voice service should be held to the same regulations and be subject to the same USF fees including Voice over cable (not data and not VOIP). If done correctly prices would increase in the short term (as ILEC's build out their systems) but within a decade competition from the Cable companies and ILEC's competing broadly in each other's markets will drive down prices to bargain levels. Wireless, satellite and cellular will provide the third leg of competition and with three competitors in the same markets the situation can only be good for consumers.

The caveat would be if the ILEC choose the path of suicide and didn't upgrade their systems. Then we would have cable and WISP for broadband (and possibly 4G cellular), and I'm not sure that would be enough competition to prevent price collusion.

I would also like to point out that the public never subsidized the deployment of the internet we know today. The major backbone providers built their backbones using private capital. The original ARPA network may have been funded by tax payer dollars but that network no longer exists in any form. QWEST, Level III, Global Crossing, ATT, Worldcom and Sprint all built their networks with private capital under the promise of unregulated data service to business. In addition your claim that the public subsidized a cable TV through deregulation is interesting but I believe incorrect. TV is not a utility and not a necessity. Power, Water, Sewer, Gas and Telephone (911) are utilities that are necessary, TV is an entertainment product and deserves no such designation.

said by rahvin112:

---

The 9th Circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation.

---

reply to rahvin112

said by rahvin112:

---

There should be no USF on data transmissions. There should never be a Universal data line guarantee.

---

reply to vic102482
I have to agree too. Data transmissions should NOT be a universal privledge. I think if that is the case then maybe the USF should be dropped from DSL service. Through em a bone on that... after all, DSL is a data service.

reply to rahvin112

said by rahvin112:

---

The "Taxes" being debated here aren't real taxes. They are discussing the USF, this fee isn't paid to any government but is a direct slush fund for the ILECs to support the deployment of telephone service to unprofitable regions.

Telephone service is by it's nature a critical service because it provides quick access to emergency medical assistance, cable TV or internet access fulfills no such emergency need nor is there a need for universal deployment of Hispeed internet.

Because of this the FCC decision IS correct and the court is WRONG. Universal access to the cable lines will only serve to increase costs to the cable company and as a result make everything MORE expensive.

The FCC has been pushing the deployment of 2 to 3 major broadband providers in every market. This strategy is focused around Cable, ILEC's and Wireless/BPL. By having large companies like Cable and ILEC's providing similar service in the same market TRUE competition will exist and prices will serve the consumer (witness Verizon's price drops). The intent is that each Major internet provider then moves into each others monopoly market, ie the Telco's begin selling TV and the Cable companies being selling telephone and then every market in the US with a cable company then has at a minimum two providers of phone, data and TV.

The ILEC's are fighting this tooth and nail. In reality they do have a point, DSL should not be susceptible to USF fees, but again the ILECs supported that because it's gravy slush money for them. Now they want the cable companies to charge their customers USF fees and probably at the same time will demand that THEY get the money instead of the cable company.

There should be no USF on data transmissions. There should never be a Universal data line guarantee.

---