more on FCC chief considers forcing cable TV competition

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sid Karin <skarin () ucsd edu>
Date: August 24, 2005 5:57:20 PM EDT
To: Bob Frankston <rmf31a () bobf frankston com>
Cc: dave () farber net, 'Ip Ip' <ip () v2 listbox com>, Dewayne Hendricks  
<dewayne () dandin com>, 'sid karin' <SKarin () ucsd edu>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on FCC chief considers forcing cable TV  
competition


Bob,

Thanks for illuminating this issue with your post on
IP and thanks for the thoughtful elaboration in response
to my brief comment.

I don't disagree.

I do think it will be easier to educate the public with arguments
about access to all providers than with arguments about the innocence
of the bits.  It's not pure, not quite technically correct,
implies some support for franchised "cable" operations
and surely has other down sides as well, but maybe it is
understandable and salable.

I have long argued that the infrastructure should be completely
independent of the content.  I too am distressed by what has
happened and continues to happen.   I see the FTTP efforts
as offering a possible step forward, although I agree that
a major step backward is more likely unless something changes.

    Cheers,

        .......Sid


P.S.  BTW,  I am told by a reliable source that the cable companies
have more installed fiber than the phone companies, albeit
not all the way to the home.






At 8:37 AM -0500 8/24/05, Bob Frankston wrote:

> As I pointed out in http://www.frankston.com/?name=OnePercent the  
> point of
> fiber to the home is to pretend that video bits are special and  
> that you
> need video virtual wires to carry video bits and that those bits  
> are not
> supposed to be available to customers or competitors because of this
> specialness.
>
> They need franchising to maintain the illusion that the bits have  
> intrinsic
> properties associated with the physical path. This is the reason we  
> have the
> Regulatorium -- to maintain the fictions that tie the transport  
> bits to
> their meaning.
>
> After all, the FCC was created to dole out scarcity in a way that  
> assures
> scarcity.
>
> Tragically the FCC seems to be undermining any countervailing  
> forces that
> provide any penalties for these fictions.
>
> In a real marketplace the towns wouldn't have any leverage over the
> interpretations of the bits but then in a real marketplace I  
> wouldn't be
> have to choose which "ISP" owns me and makes my choices for me -- I  
> would
> have the option of creating my own services or buying them a la carte.
>
> Instead we see my choice of owners limited while also removing any  
> illusion
> of bargaining power.
>
> This is the nightmare scenario -- removing regulation without  
> addressing the
> reasons we need regulation. As I said in my essay, we must not be  
> placated
> by getting access to only 1% of the bits (asymmetrically) while  
> they feast
> on the other 99% (apologies, but 1% is a nice sound bite even if  
> the reality
> is far more extreme).
>
> Please, you must educate your neighbors -- Congress only hears  
> votes and
> today voters are willing to pay off the carriers in return for  
> being allowed
> to choose between a few dozen streams of video bits because the lie  
> is all
> they've ever known.
>
> A scam is scam. The providers may even believe it's true since QoS was
> necessary in the early 1900's for those analog networks it must be  
> necessary
> today. Ignorance is no excuse. Bernie Ebbers may have believed he  
> could kite
> forever but ...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 17:01
> To: Ip Ip
> Subject: [IP] more on FCC chief considers forcing cable TV competition
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Sid Karin <skarin () ucsd edu>
> Date: August 23, 2005 5:43:34 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC chief considers forcing cable TV competition
>
>
> Dave,
>
> As the RBOCs deploy fiber to the home the opportunity arises
> to do away with franchises altogether.   Why not make any and
> all video (eg: "cable" companies) available to every consumer
> if they don't each have to each dig up your street to make
> it happen?
>
>      Cheers,
>
>              ........Sid
>
>
>
>
> >  Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >  From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> >  Date: August 23, 2005 10:01:44 AM EDT
> >  To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
>  > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] FCC chief considers forcing cable TV
>
> >  competition
> >  Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com
> >
> >
> >   FCC chief considers forcing cable TV competition
> >  By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
> >  <http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050823/bs_usatoday/
> >  fccchiefconsidersforcingcabletvcompetition>
> >
> >  One little-noticed provision of the 1992 Cable Act could give  
> > the  Federal Communications Commission the power to compel cities  
> > to let  the regional Bells compete head-on with cable TV  
> > operators. And to  do so quickly - no foot-dragging allowed.
> >
> >  At least that's what FCC Chairman Kevin Martin thinks, and if  
> > he's  right he may try to use that authority to widen broadband's  
> > reach  across the USA.
> >
> >  Martin, in a written statement for USA TODAY Monday, confirmed  
> > that  he is considering taking such action.
> >
> >  "Several weeks ago I asked the staff to explore what the  
> > commission  can do to ensure that local authorities are not  
> > unreasonably  refusing to award additional competitive licenses"  
> > for video, he said.
> >
> >  Granting additional franchises, he added, "would promote   
> > competition and stimulate broadband deployment."
> >
> >  The chairman's comment is a not-so-veiled reference to a short   
> > passage in the 13-year-old Cable Act. The provision - Section 621(a)
> >  (1), to be exact - states that local franchising authorities  
> > "may  not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive   
> > franchise" for video.
> >
> >  By some readings, that means cities can't erect obstacles to  
> > keep  out video competitors.
> >
> >  One city wanted Verizon to install a fiber-optic ring to connect   
> > its traffic lights. Another wanted it to provide a wireless   
> > connection for a local library.
> >
> >  Verizon and SBC are spending billions to deploy advanced  
> > broadband  services - voice, data and video - across the country.  
> > Before they  can deploy video, however, cities want them to submit  
> > to the cable  TV franchising process.
> >
> >  The problem? There are thousands of local franchising  
> > authorities,  and each has its own licensing process and timetables.
> >
> >  Verizon has only a few video licenses. SBC says that its  
> > Internet  TV service isn't "cable TV" so it doesn't need a license.
> >
> >  It remains to be seen if the FCC will act. But the mere fact  
> > that  Martin is even considering pulling rank like that is bound  
> > to alarm  local franchising bodies, which are loath to cede power  
> > to Washington.
> >
> >  "The cities are already upset" about ongoing attempts to curb  
> > their  authority, notes Paul Glenchur, an analyst at Stanford  
> > Washington  Research Group. "What you're talking about here is the  
> > usurpation  of local authority."
> >
> >  Blair Levin, who was an assistant to former FCC chairman Reed   
> > Hundt, agrees. But he also thinks Martin's straight shot across  
> > the  bow could aid broadband's expansion.
> >
> >  "It's smart for the chairman to use the FCC's bully pulpit to  
> > warn  the cities against log rolling the Bells" on broadband, says  
> > Levin,  an analyst at Legg Mason Wood Walker in Washington. "The  
> > only  question is at what point does he think he should intervene."
> >
> >  Martin isn't saying. But he clearly intends to stay on top of  
> > the  issue.
> >
> >  Says Martin: "I intend to do whatever I can to help meet the   
> > president's goal of 'universal and affordable access for  
> > broadband  technology' by 2007."
> >
> >  Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >  -------------------------------------
> >  You are subscribed as skarin () ucsd edu
> >  To manage your subscription, go to
> >   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> >
> >  Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
> >  people/
>
>
> --
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>       Sidney Karin, Ph.D., P.E.       858-534-5075 (voice)
>                                            858-822-5443 (fax)
>                                              
> skarin () ucsd edu                                             Professor,
>       Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>       Director Emeritus
>       San Diego Supercomputer Center
>       University of California, San Diego
>       9500 Gilman Drive
>       La Jolla,  CA  92093-0505
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     Sidney Karin, Ph.D., P.E.       858-534-5075 (voice)
                                          858-822-5443 (fax)
                                            
skarin () ucsd edu                                             Professor,
     Department of Computer Science and Engineering
     Director Emeritus
     San Diego Supercomputer Center
     University of California, San Diego
     9500 Gilman Drive
     La Jolla,  CA  92093-0505




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/