🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.1112a46d9ab83099897af@ispnews.walltech.com>, For_Email@ddress.see.below_plea.se (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:
>In article <788knd$2os_006@news.eden.com>, fgoodwin@eden.com writes...

>> 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.

Like I said, the telcos exercise *no* controll over who you select as your 
primary ISP.  Nothing you said above changes that simple fact.  Please explain 
to me how telco interconnection had *any* affect on your decision of a primary 
ISP?  You cannot, because it does not!

Since you didn't address my AT&T / TCI comment, I take it you approve of their 
decision to disallow any choice in your primary ISP?  Is this how you define 
competition? 

>> 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.

A non sequitur.  I agree with you, but that's not the point.  If cable service 
isn't "essential" then the telcos should not be burdened with any regulation 
when they enter that market, right?

>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.

The '96 Telecom Act makes that a requirement only for entry into LD.  There's 
no such requirement for the telcos to enter other markets.  The FCC hasan 
entirely different thicket of regulations regarding telco entry into cable, 
completely unrelated to competition in the local (or LD) market.

>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. 

Never said that -- all I'm saying is that competitors should play by the same 
rules.  You claim the cable cos. should not be regulated to the same extent 
telcos are when they try to offer local phone service, as if the nascent cable 
market could be crushed by the bad-old telcos.  Do you seriously think AT&T 
hasn't the financial and technical wherewithal to withstand a challenge from 
telcos who are still smaller than they are?

>(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)

So where is the hue and cry from the consumers against the AT&T / TCI merger?  
I've yet to hear it?

>> 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

Fine -- doesn't this contradict what you said above about telco 
interconnection somehow limiting your choice of ISP?  So which is it?  Do the 
telcos limit your selection of ISP or not?

>designed and provided for something else: talking on the phone.  OTOH 
>Cablemodems were *designed* for internet access: apples and oranges.

I could just as well state that coax was originally "designed" to deliver TV 
signals.  Cable modems are to coax just as analog modems are to copper pairs.

>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.

That's a good example, and one I hadn't thought of.  But even so, the duopoly 
are required to offer their service to resellers.  The cable modem cos. are 
not.

>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.

I could agree, for the sake of argument, that cable modem cos. might need some 
protection from the bad old telcos in order to get the industry started.  But 
when they have a backer the size of AT&T, I find it hard to shed any tears for 
them (to borrow your phrase).  Now that AT&T is in the picture, I see no 
reason why the TCI merger shouldn't be conditioned on a requirement that thge 
merged company make their services available for resale, or unbundle the coax 
so other companies can provide service, or at an absolute minimum, allow the 
captive cable customer to select his own ISP.  Why is that so much to ask?

>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.

And how long do we wait?  ISPs have been around for more than a decade, yet 
they *still* claim the industry is in its infancy and thus the FCC should 
continue its enhanced services exemption.  In truth, the industry wants to 
make that exemption permanent.  Given the tremendous customer growth rates of 
ISPs over the last five years, again, I find it hard to shed any tears for 
them.

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