🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.111165d9f6aeb2899897ad@ispnews.walltech.com>, For_Email@ddress.see.below_plea.se (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:

>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.

"Dangerous" for the telco, but OK for the cable co?

>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

Won't AT&T exercise that same control over the content on TCI's coax?

>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.

Gotta disagree with you.  In fact, you have exactly backwards.  The telcos in 
fact exercise *no* control over who you select as your ISP.  AT&T / TCI will 
allow you *no* choice.  And this is a "good" thing?

>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.

Fine -- then the same argument could apply to cable service: let the telcos in 
with no constraints but regulate the incumbent.  Fair enough?
 
>> 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.

So why did / does the FCC regulate telco entry into cable so onerously that 
many don't even try?  If the service is not "essential" whay are the telcos 
burdened with such regulatory contraints as to make it infeasible as a 
business?

>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.

Try to contract with any ISP if you're buying TCI cable modem service -- they 
will let you, but only if you pay extra for it, in addition to paying for 
*their* ISP.  Can you imagine the public outcry if the telcos tried this?

>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.

So why not obligate AT&T / TCI "phone" service to follow the same regulations? 
 If it's so "essential", shouldn't they have to meet the same requirements the 
telco meets?

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

Fine -- regulate the cable cos. when they offer phone service.  Regulate the 
ISPs when they offer phone service.

Don't regulate the telcos when they offer cable service.  Fair, right?

-- 
========================================================================
*   Fred Goodwin, CMA          Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page       *
*   fgoodwin@eden.com      http://www.eden.com/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm   *
========================================================================