how-to block ads
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to marigolds
Re: Good bye to...
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 | |
|
