🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <788knd$2os_006@news.eden.com>, fgoodwin@eden.com writes...
> 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 cable companies at this point in time do not control the primary
source of telephone service into the vast majority of households in
America.  The local bell operating companies do.  Living without TV
or internet surfing is one thing, living without a telephone is 
quite another.


> >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?


The simple fact that the telcos have tremendous influence on who
they decide to interconnect with (and how easy they make it for 
them) certainly does have plenty of impact on who you get internet
services from.  The telcos have a history of foot-dragging and 
obstructionism when it comes to this sort of thing, although you
will of course never get them to admit it.


> >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?


No.

For the umpteenth time: TV or internet service is not the same kind
of essential service as telephone service is.  Until such time as the
telcos have provided a real opening to other entities to compete in 
the traditionally monopolized local telephone market,  and that 
competition is active and providing a significant level of competitive 
service, there will be no "easy entry" for them into the LD markets or 
other market areas since once that is granted their motivation to 
provide access to the local phone market is nearly gone.


> >> 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?


The telco's would love to paint all this regulation as onerous, and I 
have to admit I have a bit of trouble shedding a tear because we are 
removing their holy "initiative".  That they don't 'try' is often more 
a matter of politics than practicality.  Just like SBC's recent political 
ploy with their preannouncement of el-cheapo DSL service, in the hopes 
that the regulators would provide them relief AFTER they announced the 
service.

For the 2nd umpteenth time, the telco's are charged with providing a
viable alternative to the local phone market before they get the 
"cookie" of expanding their business into other markets.

As it is, the telco's are re-consolidating to the point where a 
consumer's ability to choose is going to become severely restricted
once again anyway.. I suppose you'll claim that's a good thing too. 

(on a side note, I shudder to think what the consumer environment is 
going to look like in 10 yrs with all these megamergers... Hughes just 
bought out their 2 biggest DBS satellite competitors too, for example)



> >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?


First of all, telephone companies had nothing to do with internet providers
because modems were developed to do things with a wire which was originally
designed and provided for something else: talking on the phone.  OTOH 
Cablemodems were *designed* for internet access: apples and oranges.

Try to get conventional cellular service from anyone other than the 2
mandated carriers.  For over 10 years it was impossible.  Nowadays there
are some "PCS" competitors but they are at a severe disadvantage and 
their infrastructure is way behind and will probably never catch up.
(not least because of technological restraints.. they *still* can't
use the 800 Mhz band which requires far fewer cell-sites for the
same geographic coverage)

Why was this "duopoly" granted in the first place?  To provide an
incentive for investment in infrastructure.  The wireless buildout 
would have occurred far slower if this were not the case.

Same is true for cablemodems.  If it weren't for some unifying entity 
such as @home to partner with cable companies who have a patchwork of 
coverage around the country, the whole cable internet access thing may 
have ended up stillborn with dozens of disparate standards, systems 
that didn't interconnect, incompatible hardware, bla bla bla.  Not
to mention marketing costs etc.

Cable companies hardly have historical expertise in internet 
connectivity, they needed some technological partner to handle that 
side for them. Should they have all gone their separate ways?  I'm 
not sure that would have been prudent. (some of them have however, 
but you don't hear much about them on a national scale)

Once the cablemodem infrastructure hits critical mass, then I see it
as self-evident that the competition in such areas as who one's ISP 
can be will naturally increase.  Right now it's in its infancy and
the current situation isn't too terribly surprising.


 
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