Again, Jim, you love to mis-represent.
If *you* understood how our economy functions, you'd know that what
would happen if these companies went belly up would be that, after a
short period of dark time, lots of little companies would be formed
(some non-profits like NYCwireless, in fact), that would start to
provide the missing service. Many of these companies would be started
by and employ many of the same technicians and engineers that were
abandoned when their bosses ran their telco and cableco companies
into the ground. Soon, there would be many companies competing,
buying up the (now cheap) resources of the rotting carcasses of those
old telco and cablecos, and putting the existing infrastructure back
to use, but running it in a more efficient manner.
This is what Joseph Schumpeter, a great economist, called "Creative
Destruction". It is the way healthy economies and competitive
marketplaces work.
Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422
Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
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/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
