🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.1110e9e18b2daf59897a8@ispnews.walltech.com>, 
For_Email@ddress.see.below_plea.se (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:

>In article <787d45$80u8_002@tri.sbc.com>, fgoodwin@eden.com writes...

>> If DSS is competition to cable, then why isn't wireless to telephones?
>> 
>> If voice service by a phone co. is a "utility", then why isn't voice service 
>> by a cable co. also a "utility"?
>> 
>> If internet access by a cable co. is a "luxury", then why isn't internet 
>> access by a telco also a "luxury"?
>> 
>> When two companies offer the same services, why should they be treated 
>> differently?
>> 
>Because it is not an arguable point that the vast majority of consumers
>get their phone services from ILEC's.. ie the baby bells.

True enough -- and the same could be said of cable: it is inarguable that the 
vast majority of consumers get their cable services from incumbent cable cos.  
Yet the post to which I replied argued that the existence of DSS made the 
cable market competitive.  I would venture a guess that the % of cable 
customers who derive their service via DSS is approx. the same (or even 
smaller) as the % of phone customers who get wireless phone service.

You also argue that since the vast majority of customers get their phone 
service from telcos as opposed to cable cos., the asymmetry in regulatory 
treatment is justified.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that is true, why then when the telcos 
tried to deploy cable service over the last decade, did the FCC impose such 
onerous Sec. 214 requirements on them?  The telco % of cable customers is 
probably as small as the cable cos. % of phone customers, yet the telcos face 
such extremely burdensome regulatory requirements, that many got out of the 
cable business rather than deal with such hurdles.  The cable cos. face almost 
*NO* regulatory burdens to get into the phone business.

Is that regulatory asymmetry justified?

>Telephone service from cable TV providers is a tiny tiny fraction of 
>the market at this point.

True, as is the telco % of cable customers.

>However it is growing, and I fully expect the regulatory environment
>to reflect that reality when it becomes a significant player.  Right
>now it's not.  See below.

The same could be said of the telco's % of cable customers, as I said above.  
Yet telcos are regulated to the hilt in that business, to the point many have 
given up even trying.

>Wireless isn't a competitor to telephones because, like cable-TV hosted
>telephone service, it's deployment is microscopic by comparison with
>traditional telephone service.  It's access is limited by the technology,
>and many households cannot easily receive it.  Whereas any house can 
>be wired for a telephone and the infrastructure to support it is in 
>place in all but the most extremely remote places.

Wireless is as much an alternative to wireline phone service as DSS is to 
traditional cable service.  I don't know the relative market shares, but my 
guess is that wireless has as much or more market share in telephony as DSS 
does in cable.  Why is one a legitimate competitive alternative in one 
market but the other isn't in its market?

Once Iridium is fully operational, wireless will be available everywhere.

>When the wireless companies gain more of a foothold (as they most 
>certainly will in time, given the deregulation of telephone service
>that is now happening) I fully expect the regulatory environment to
>reflect that as well.  

By that, do you mean wireless will be regulated more, or that wireline will be 
regulated less?

>The whole point of the FCC's actions to keep
>certain baby bell's out of the LD market is precisely because they
>are trying to *encourage* just what you complain about: more local 
>phone competition. (ie wireless, cable, or whatever else works)

I'm not "complaining" about local competition.  I've never said AT&T / TCI 
should be kept out of the local business.  I'm saying only that they should 
either bear the same obligations re: interconection, unbundling, etc., or if 
not, then the telcos should also be relieved of those obligations.

IOW: let the players play by the same set of rules.  For the life of me, I 
can't understand why AT&T should be allowed to do things in the local market 
that the telcos cannot.

>(Well what they're really trying to do is enforce the 1996 telecom 
>act, which stipulates such things.)

Agreed.  It's a tough job, but I believe the FCC is doing the best it can in a 
difficult transition period.