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@xxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxx>
Date: August 23, 2005 5:43:34 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 23, 2005 10:01:44 AM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] FCC chief considers forcing cable TV
competition
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/