Bells' fiber plans spark political flame war

(continued from previous page)

have Lightspeed for the well-off and 'snail-speed' for everyone else, which is the bottom 50 percentile," Markey told SBC.

"We're going to be investing $2 billion in the next year," replied Lea Ann Champion, SBC's vice president for IP operations. Technological advances will permit SBC to move rapidly in offering fiber links to half of its 36 million customers, Champion said.

David Cohen, a vice president at Comcast, said that in general, his company does not like to seek government favors for competitive advantages. But, Cohen warned, "there are some questions about who is going to preserve the interests of localism."

One point of contention is the "franchise fee" arrangement that permits municipalities to bill companies for using their public facilities, such as light poles and sewers, to deliver TV signals. Earlier this week, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg called for changes to franchise fees, saying the Bells should not be charged extra when they start serving up digital TV signals.

"We're being asked to obtain a second franchise," Robert Ingalls, head of Verizon's retail markets group, told Congress on Wednesday. That's "unnecessary and will delay effective video competition for years."

A broader question is whether Congress will dictate TV-over-fiber rules through legislative fiat or whether the companies involved will be left to negotiate their own arrangements. "All of these guys are big boys and can work out these deals among themselves," said Adam Thierer, an analyst at the free-market Progress and Freedom Foundation. "We don't need government to come in and broker contracts."

[bobby_brady]

Once government gets involved

everything goes down the toilet.

[pkscout]

Everyone Should Have the Same Regulation

I think as long as the baby bells have the same rules that the cable companies have this is fine. But I don't see why the baby bells should have additional regulation on their TV ventures when the cables folks don't have any additional regulations on their phone ventures. If the cable companies are having to pay the access fees twice (once for TV and once for phone/data) that's fine. But if they aren't, then the baby bells shouldn't have to either.

Since Michael Powell over at the FCC was too busy fining folks over nipplegate to notice that open access to DSL *and* cable lines was needed for competition, the only hope we have for competition now is between the cable monolopy and the phone monopoly, so let's not screw that potential up too.

[Maelstorm]

Why?

You claim that there should be open access to both phone lines and cable systems. Why? If I'm a telco, and I spend X amount of millions building out a network, then why should I have to share it with my competitors at rates below my cost to maintain it? Remember UNE-P? The competitors get a 50% discount below the telco's cost of maintaining the network in some areas. So, for every dollar that a telco spends on network maintenance, they only get 50 cents back. Not good business sense if you ask me. Yet this is exactly what the government is forcing the telcos to do, and now the cable companies are in the crosshairs. These competitors are not investing anything in the network, telephone, TV, or Internet.

If Brand X Internet wants to compete with cable or DSL, then they need to build their own network, just like the cable companies and telcos did. If they can't, then they need to either negotiate a *FAIR* agreement for leasing the network or get out of the market altogether.

So sir, as your opinion seems to be that of someone who is uninformed about the issue, I would suggest reading up a little bit more about the facts before you form an opinion.

[Tom CyBold]

NAB = National Association of Extortionists

Just as they're trying to stop satellite radio, they're trying to stop
innovation in TV delivery. They need to learn to flipping
compete.

[Knightro2]

Waaa Waaa Waaa

Here is another topic that the cable companies can start to whine about. "But mommy! Mommy! We are the TV guys. . .not them!" I view it as being absolutely fair. Cable companies have been offering high speed internet connections which is in the Bells' market and making competition tougher. But ooohhh nooo! Lets not let the Bells return the favor of higher competition in the Television Broadcast Market by offering their own service!

[C.Schroeder]

Regulate the service, not the physical transport

The physical data conduits into the home (twisted copper, coax, fiber, wireless) should be operated and maintained like a public utility or co-op, i.e. they are shared, municipal resources. This would allow each service to be regulated on the merits of that service, regardless of the provider and physical transport utilized to delivery it. Each provider can then lease as many or as few conduits in each community that makes sense for their business.

It is time to move away from these archaic rules that link specific services to specific physical transports. That would go a long way towards leveling the playing field between competitors. But, someone has to be responsible for operating and maintaining the physical conduit(s) in each community, including insuring equal access TO SERVICES by all citizens. Note, equal access can be achieved with just one physical data conduit.

Line lease

Verizon plans to have one fiber line and to lease out the line to everyone. similar to what you are talking about expect it's mantain by the lovely folks here are verizon.