🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <787m0q$20qq_002@tri.sbc.com>, fgoodwin@eden.com writes...
> 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?


Yes.

Ignoring the fact that the 1996 telecom act was specifically designed to
promote additional local-telephone-service competition such as the cable
companies can provide, there is this nasty little detail about being in 
control of both the delivery system and the content.  Having both creates 
a dangerous precedent.

For example, historically our laws prevented the ownership by a single
entity of multiple media outlets in a single market.  ie you could not
own both a dominant TV station, newspaper, and radio station in a 
single area.  There is a very good reason for this: it hands the power
to control the dialogue to a very small group of people/entities.

During the Reagan administration many of those kind of media restraints
were loosened, which led to things like infomercials and much more 
consolidation and centralization of media holdings. (an unfortunate 
occurrence IMHO)

The point being that the philosophical impetus behind regulating
the telco's entry into content businesses was that they had the
ability to dictate the kinds of information that flow into your
home -- a far cry from the traditional "common carrier" role that
they have played for so long.  This is no trivial issue.  Those
who control the only set of telephone wires into the home can also
exert pressure to control what you can use them for.  ILEC's have
already shown that they can play hardball with their competitors
and make life difficult for them.  What that is in fact doing is
using their monopoly position (owner of wireplant) to limit your
choices when it comes to communicating with who you want to.  Once
again, this is no trivial issue.

Until it is demonstrable that every home has access to multiple
telephone providers, then there will be justification for assymetric
treatment of the incumbents versus new competitors.  The regulatory
structure actually is helping to *speed up* that choice by providing
incentives to the competitors such as cable companies.



> >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?


Because television is not by conventional logic an "essential service",
the regulation of it is not nearly of the same imperative that telephone
service is.

IE, I think it's fine that I can contract with any ISP I want and they're
not regulated.. "buyer beware".  If they BS me or screw me over with 
crappy service, it's annoying but the loss of my ability to web-surf
is not by definition life-threatening.  

On the other hand, if electric/gas service were in the same situation, 
and some sleazy "competitive" utility company decided to cut-off an 
elderly woman's heating for no good reason, she might die as a result.  
I'm also glad I don't generally have to worry that my imaginary cut-rate 
"competitive" water company has a high level of viruses or cancer-causing 
heavy metals in my water supply, because there are federal standards and 
the utility is regulated. Etc, etc.  Thus the importance of regulating 
"essential" services, of which telephone service is a member.

There is this growing tendency in the U.S. to presume that all govt
or regulation is automatically bad.  Very dangerous presumption IMHO.



Phil


-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization          [see below]
-----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millenium-------------
References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . c o m