- Related Stories
-
Net neutrality fans lose on Capitol Hill
March 27, 2006 -
Will bigger AT&T spur a broadband TV price war?
March 8, 2006 -
Telecoms, cable firms take franchise fight to D.C.
February 15, 2006
On Monday, the nation's biggest phone company sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission charging that cable companies were trying to skew the political debate on the topic.
"That these dominant cable operators would even attempt to manipulate the political process in this manner shows just how far the current regulatory regime has departed from basic norms of market competition and free and fair debate," AT&T said in its complaint.
Cable companies such as Time Warner Cable were quick to respond, saying they are under no obligation to carry competitors' advertisements. Comcast said it decided not to run the ads because AT&T's claims were false and unsubstantiated. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) earlier this month issued a report slamming the phone companies for distorting the facts.
"Instead of whining about their false and misleading ads being rejected, the phone monopolies should withdraw their ads and start telling the truth," said Brian Dietz, a spokesman for NCTA. "They've played fast and loose with the truth for so long that they've forgotten they could have been competing in the video business for the last 10 years instead of waiting for special favors."
AT&T's complaint to the FCC comes just as telephone companies make significant headway in their quest to push through a federal law that would grant phone companies the right to offer TV service to millions of Americans without having to negotiate separate contract agreements with local governments. On Tuesday, the House Commerce Committee released a draft bill that included provisions for a national video franchise.
Phone companies argue that the current video franchise process is too slow and deprives millions of people a choice of which company provides their TV service.
Cable companies vehemently oppose such legislation, arguing that phone companies should have to go through the same process that they did in order to obtain local franchise agreements.
The war of the advertisements is likely to rage on as the NCTA on Tuesday launches its own ads, which it claims will point out the phone companies' broken promises.
See more CNET content tagged:
AT&T Corp., cable company, debate, agreement, TV
collusion. That's how they can charge protection money from us
to get our TV shows. The RICO act could be put to good use
against cable operators. :-P
I say throw out franchises altogether and let them compete on a
level playing field. And don't give us the expensive infrastructure
argument. Everyone has to invest in infrastructure. Why should
they be exempt and given corporate welfare only to turn around
and rob their subscribers?
And then we wouldn't need to legislate lower cable prices.
Second, there is not a single Cable company in the US that has a monopoly. Have you forgoten about DirecTv and Dishnetwork? THats two competitors against every single cable operator in the US. Plus, Verizon and another phone company are building their own network to do television services. If you want to compete with cable, build your own network and do so, quit whining about it.
Oh, and by the way, cable companies are traditionaly cheaper than any satelite company based on the average home with 3 tv's and a "regular" programing package.
collusion. That's how they can charge protection money from us
to get our TV shows. The RICO act could be put to good use
against cable operators. :-P
I say throw out franchises altogether and let them compete on a
level playing field. And don't give us the expensive infrastructure
argument. Everyone has to invest in infrastructure. Why should
they be exempt and given corporate welfare only to turn around
and rob their subscribers?
And then we wouldn't need to legislate lower cable prices.
Second, there is not a single Cable company in the US that has a monopoly. Have you forgoten about DirecTv and Dishnetwork? THats two competitors against every single cable operator in the US. Plus, Verizon and another phone company are building their own network to do television services. If you want to compete with cable, build your own network and do so, quit whining about it.
Oh, and by the way, cable companies are traditionaly cheaper than any satelite company based on the average home with 3 tv's and a "regular" programing package.
This cable war is getting crazy. And the cable companies are using their franchises as political weapons, the very exclusive franchises, btw, that are in jeopardy!
This cable war is getting crazy. And the cable companies are using their franchises as political weapons, the very exclusive franchises, btw, that are in jeopardy!
SBC with a facade. And the FUD is standard SBC FUD. Nothing to
get excited about - or to pay attention to....
Now to figure out how to avoid having to deal with SBC in any
way....
SBC with a facade. And the FUD is standard SBC FUD. Nothing to
get excited about - or to pay attention to....
Now to figure out how to avoid having to deal with SBC in any
way....
laws. The ads are incorrect in many cases. They claim cable
operators have raised rates some 80%, yet fail to mention that
with that has come internet acccess and in some cases, pone
access. Phone company prices have done the same thing, until
just recently, and in most cases still are just as high. Qwest
wants $100/month for phone, dsl and tv over vdsl. Cable rates
are in many cases less than that. So, as far as I am concerned,
the phone companies are the ones skewing the results.
To set the record straight, here are the demands.
Phone companies want unrestricted access to cable facilities,
including lines, trunks, etc. For this, they want it virtually free of
charge. The modernization of the telecom laws would open up
cable systems for phone companies to use with very few limits.
Today, cable operators are gouged with local loop fees that
make cable internet higher than it should be, but because
telecom industry will not work with cable operators to create
loops that are beyond their systems, they are forced to pay these
artificially high rates to get bandwidth for internet and phone
services.
The bottom line is that the cable industry wants free access to
facilities they had no investment in, and still wants to be able to
gouge for their own services. If telecom wants to play fair, we
will listen, but until then... It is not in anyone's best interest for
this to go through. What will happen is that phone companies
will be able to supersede cable operations and sell on a medium
that they do not have to pay for, making it impossible for cable
operators to stay in business, leaving the telecoms with their
cake and able to eat it, too. How is that fair?
other off. It's essentially a battle for survival when neither side
actually understands the combat arena. And passing any laws now
is an exercise in futility - no one knows what laws to pass. It just
may have to go to a drag out fight for the customer dollar.
Except for Qwest - Qwest will screw the customer no matter what.
laws. The ads are incorrect in many cases. They claim cable
operators have raised rates some 80%, yet fail to mention that
with that has come internet acccess and in some cases, pone
access. Phone company prices have done the same thing, until
just recently, and in most cases still are just as high. Qwest
wants $100/month for phone, dsl and tv over vdsl. Cable rates
are in many cases less than that. So, as far as I am concerned,
the phone companies are the ones skewing the results.
To set the record straight, here are the demands.
Phone companies want unrestricted access to cable facilities,
including lines, trunks, etc. For this, they want it virtually free of
charge. The modernization of the telecom laws would open up
cable systems for phone companies to use with very few limits.
Today, cable operators are gouged with local loop fees that
make cable internet higher than it should be, but because
telecom industry will not work with cable operators to create
loops that are beyond their systems, they are forced to pay these
artificially high rates to get bandwidth for internet and phone
services.
The bottom line is that the cable industry wants free access to
facilities they had no investment in, and still wants to be able to
gouge for their own services. If telecom wants to play fair, we
will listen, but until then... It is not in anyone's best interest for
this to go through. What will happen is that phone companies
will be able to supersede cable operations and sell on a medium
that they do not have to pay for, making it impossible for cable
operators to stay in business, leaving the telecoms with their
cake and able to eat it, too. How is that fair?
other off. It's essentially a battle for survival when neither side
actually understands the combat arena. And passing any laws now
is an exercise in futility - no one knows what laws to pass. It just
may have to go to a drag out fight for the customer dollar.
Except for Qwest - Qwest will screw the customer no matter what.
IMHO, forcing someone to share somehting that they built using thier money, people and other resources is just flat wrong.
It is also wrong to subject citizens to a monopoly in phone service, cable service or any other service or product - as competition gives users the best value for any product.
It seems that the simple (in concept - not implementation) solution here would be an infrastructure company that built and supported high-bandwith home and business access for sale/rent to all competitors at the same rates.
Laws would need to be passed that proohibit the infrastructure firm(s) from promoting competitive products or investing in (in any manner) any company utilitizing its infrastructure.
Then, all phone companies, cable providers, tv stations, etc that wanted high-bandwidth access to homes would be charged the same amount (regardless of size) and the service providers could concentrate on content while the sole bandwidth provider could concentrate on providing reliable high-bandwidth access for consumers.
Yes, I know....it looks as if the infrastructure provider would have a monopoly on providing infrastructure and high-bandwidth access to users' homes. S/he would.
But, the cost would be the same among all service providers - giving a level playing field.
You cannot have unlimited infrastructure providers because you have limits to the number of cables one can string through a neighborhood, and the number of poles and towers that people want littering the skylines.
And, no. The government should not be in charge of infrastructure - although an oversight committee would be a good thing. We don't need the fking up something so important.
In fact, it may be a good idea that a non-profit agency run the infrastructure company with caps on salaries of the workers and presidential officers.
Although this solution is not perfect, it is a damn sight better than the one we are stuck with now.
- What about seperate infrastructure ownership?
- by Jim Hubbard March 28, 2006 3:22 PM PST
- I hear (and understand) all of the arguments about infrastructure and who can use it for what and at what cost.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(28 Comments)IMHO, forcing someone to share somehting that they built using thier money, people and other resources is just flat wrong.
It is also wrong to subject citizens to a monopoly in phone service, cable service or any other service or product - as competition gives users the best value for any product.
It seems that the simple (in concept - not implementation) solution here would be an infrastructure company that built and supported high-bandwith home and business access for sale/rent to all competitors at the same rates.
Laws would need to be passed that proohibit the infrastructure firm(s) from promoting competitive products or investing in (in any manner) any company utilitizing its infrastructure.
Then, all phone companies, cable providers, tv stations, etc that wanted high-bandwidth access to homes would be charged the same amount (regardless of size) and the service providers could concentrate on content while the sole bandwidth provider could concentrate on providing reliable high-bandwidth access for consumers.
Yes, I know....it looks as if the infrastructure provider would have a monopoly on providing infrastructure and high-bandwidth access to users' homes. S/he would.
But, the cost would be the same among all service providers - giving a level playing field.
You cannot have unlimited infrastructure providers because you have limits to the number of cables one can string through a neighborhood, and the number of poles and towers that people want littering the skylines.
And, no. The government should not be in charge of infrastructure - although an oversight committee would be a good thing. We don't need the fking up something so important.
In fact, it may be a good idea that a non-profit agency run the infrastructure company with caps on salaries of the workers and presidential officers.
Although this solution is not perfect, it is a damn sight better than the one we are stuck with now.