Ruben,
Telcos don't pay franchise fees in most cases to the best of my knowledge
and are now doing their best to avoid paying them as cable companies do,
even as the telcos begin to roll out video service.
On the other hand, cable companies DO pay them. In addition, yes
they also provide local access channels for the communities they serve. I
don't know how you can interpret that as some sort of monopoly for either
cable or telcos. These channels are USED by the local communities. They are
PROVIDED by the cable companies at no charge and with no restrictions in
ADDITION to the fees paid to the community. Often the cable companies also
provide studio services for the community's use. They are no monopoly. The
communities are not required to use them and there is no restriction against
the community using a different medium such as over the air radio or TV,
Internet, etc., to communicate to their citizens.
Also, you keep confusing my references to cable, with your
interpretation of telco. This seems to happen often on this list. They are
NOT the same. Yes they are starting to converge but they are different
industries with vastly different origins under vastly different regulatory
infrastructure.
To repeat a point, you go on to make statements about these
industries that indicate an almost total lack of understanding about how our
economy functions. Yes let's suppose all companies in both of these
industries went belly up tomorrow. You think no one would notice? Let's
see. The techs and engineers would not report to work, they'd be seeking
other jobs. Their motives just aren't as altruistic as yours I guess, for
they are in it for the money as they have families to feed. The vehicle
fleets would be auctioned off. The multi-million dollar switches and routers
in the headends and COs would be sold off to help satisfy debt to creditors.
Soon, video, data and voice services would be failing. Forget that
residential services would drop and people would be unhappy. More
importantly, businesses would no longer be able to conduct business. Layoffs
would ensue. I think it could come precipiticiously close to bringing our
whole economy down.
Given the choices I think many people would actually choose the model we
have now.
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Ruben Safir
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > As to it not being about profit, I could not disagree
> more. Who is it
> > supposedly making such a decision? Certainly no one in control of
> > enough resources to make a substantial increase in broadband
> > penetration. If so they'd be gone pretty quickly for fiscal
> > incompetence.
> And this is where the lie is.
>
> The ability to provide broadband has been built into the
> telco system since the late 1970's and the "franchise fees"
> are the public access channels which provide exclusive
> monopolies to cable and telco to the last mile into the home.
>
>
> This resource should NOT be treated as a property of Cable or
> Telco providers. It is, by definition, 100% a public trust.
> WHO GIVES A RATS @$$ if every cable company and telco company
> goes belly up in the morning. The economy won't even BLINK,
> and it would free up billions of dollars of public
> investment. The current way that common carrier access is
> handled is exactly as if the roads and highways where sold
> lock stock and barrel to FedEx. Rather than the roads being
> a MEANS of competition for serves, they are being used to
> squash innovation.
>
> PERIOD.
>
> Those franchise fees that your complaining about, that is
> CHEAP stuff for the cable companies and something that they
> wouldn't want tampered with, THAT IS FOR SURE.
>
> If your such a genius about business, look up the term Gas
> House Gangs.
> There was a darn good reason the St Louis Cardinals were
> named after them.
>
> Just remember, not EVERYONE everywhere is stupid enough to
> swallow this BS which falls under the file of "What is good
> for GM is Good for America"
>
> Blahhh. It makes me vomit.
>
>
>
> Ruben
>
> > Make the U.S. more competitive? Look around you! It is
> other nations
> > who need to emulate us to attempt to compete with US. And as a
> > relative measure against ourselves, by all the parameters used to
> > measure the health of the U.S. economy (unemployment pct, cost of
> > living, inflation, # people employed, home ownership,
> inflation, GDP,
> > etc.) the U.S. economy has never been better or stronger.
> > So what was it you paid for and who did you pay it to?
> That said, of
> > course we want to continue to improve! Respectfully,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> > > Of Rob Kelley
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:29 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts
> > > Question BellInvestments
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, disingenuous.
> > >
> > > Fiber to the Home, aka the Broadband Scandal, used taxpayer
> > > dollars as its funding. So the telco's say now they may not
> > > get enough profits from the subsidy? The dream of fiber
> > > wasn't corporate profit. It was about making the US
> > > competitive in the new millennium. It was about consumers
> > > paying for and getting the infrastructure they needed. And
> > > we still haven't gotten all we paid for.
> > >
> > > What have we paid for?
> > >
> > > Fast. Ubiquitous. Affordable. Open.
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here's another good one on the wisdom of the telcos
> on-going FTTH
> > > > investments, the ROI cable is getting onthe $90 billion
> they have
> > > > already invested,and the possible effects net neutrality could
> > > > have on them. Thought provoking. Jim
> > > >
> > > > > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> > > > >
> > > > > Read the full article at:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6316081.html?display=Bre
> > > aking+News&referral=SUPP
> > > >
> > > > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > By Ted Hearn 3/14/2006 7:54:00 PMWall Street analysts told a
> > > > Senate committee Tuesday that the billions of dollars
> being spent
> > > > by AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to compete
> with cable
> > > > might not produce a profit.
> > > >
> > > > "There is a high degree of skepticism that the substantial
> > > > investment underway at the [phone companies] to deliver
> broadband
> > > > networks to the home will deliver a satisfactory return on the
> > > > incremental investment," said Luke Szymczak, vice president of
> > > > JPMorgan Asset Management.
> > > >
> > > > AT&T and Verizon are installing high-capacity fiber lines to
> > > > rapidly deliver voice, video and data in a high-stakes
> battle with
> > > > cable.
> > > >
> > > > "The costs of these networks are far beyond what the returns of
> > > > the new services can provide," said Craig Moffett, VP
> and senior
> > > > analyst of U.S. cable and satellite broadcasting at Sanford C.
> > > > Bernstein & Co.
> > > >
> > > > The two analysts appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee,
> > > > which is expected to vote on a bill next month that would ease
> > > > phone-company entry into cable markets and perhaps include
> > > > network-neutrality safeguards.
> > > >
> > > > The battle between cable and the phone giants has put sharp
> > > > pressure on the stocks of both industries.
> > > >
> > > > Aryeh Bourkoff, managing director at UBS Warburg LLC, expressed
> > > > concern about the regulatory climate facing cable after the
> > > > industry invested more than $90 billion on network upgrades to
> > > > roll out digital TV and high-speed-Internet access.
> > > >
> > > > He referred to possible network-neutrality and a la carte
> > > > programming mandates, as well as less burdensome franchising
> > > > requirements on phone companies, as negatives for cable.
> > > >
> > > > "As media consumption over the Internet develops at a
> rapid pace,
> > > > I believe it is too early to introduce regulation on key issues
> > > > such as a la carte pricing and packaging and on net
> neutrality, as
> > > > the market is still in its early stages," Bourkoff said.
> > > >
> > > > Moffett, an opponent of network-neutrality mandates by
> government,
> > > > warned that if network owners were barred from creating a "fast
> > > > lane" on the Internet to generate more revenue to cover capital
> > > > expenditures, they would have to recover much, if not all, of
> > > > their cost from subscribers, whose monthly bills would
> likely rise
> > > > substantially.
> > > >
> > > > "Mandated net neutrality would further sour Wall Street's taste
> > > > for broadband-infrastructure investments, making it
> increasingly
> > > > difficult to sustain necessary capital returns, and it would
> > > > likely mean that consumers alone would be required to foot the
> > > > entire bill for whatever network investments do get
> made," Moffett
> > > > said.
> > > >
> > > > Investors dislike policy upheavals in Washington that distract
> > > > them from focusing on market fundamentals, said Kevin Moore,
> > > > wireline telecom analyst at Wachovia Securities.
> > > >
> > > > "We have enough to worry about in considering the
> rapidly changing
> > > > competitive and technological environment. In other
> words, we want
> > > > regulatory stability and certainty," Moore said.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Want to see more? Become a subscriber today and sign up for
> > > > > Multichannel Newswire, our daily email, FREE with your paid
> > > > > subscription:
> > > > > http://www.multichannel.com/subscribe
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > > > Un/Subscribe:
> > > > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > > Un/Subscribe:
> > > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release
> > > Date: 3/9/2006
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > Un/Subscribe:
> > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
>
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe:
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release
> Date: 3/9/2006
>
>
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
