Sender: "Craig A. Johnson" <•••@••.•••> > Sender: •••@••.••• (Glen Raphael) > > As a CPSR member, I have problems with the proposed telecom > document. I apparently just don't get it. Let's see: Apparently not. > > In a direct blow to diversity, the bill raises the percentage > > of national audience that a single person or company can reach > > from 25% to 35%. > > If I'm reading this right, then why isn't it 100%? What exactly is > wrong with a single person or company being able to reach _anyone_ > who chooses to use that medium and feels like dialing that entity > up? Isn't one great thing about the Web that it provides this very > capability? Uh, I think you missed something in the translation from narrowcasting -- the Net -- to broadcasting. Broadcasting is *not yet* interactive, and there is *not* sufficient diversity to warrant raising ownership limits to 50 percent, as the bill would have done, before the Markey amendment was approved limiting the audience share to 35 percent. Markey's amendment kept limits on whether the national networks "can gobble up the whole rest of the country and whether or not in individual cities and towns cable companies can purchase the biggest TV station or the biggest TV station can purchase the cable company and create an absolute block on other stations having the same access to viewers having the same ability to get their point of view out ad does that cable broadcasting combination in your home town." You need to think about the *distribution channels* and how a 50 percent or above audience reach would be reflected in reality, rather than in some grandiose abstraction from the pages of neo-classical economics. If the cap were 100 percent, as you would like, CBS, NBC, and ABC could literally own every channel or station in many communities across the U.S. Otherwise, how could they reach that level? Perhaps you want to drown out local voices, but it has been the regulatory tradition of our country to encourage diversity in broadcasting, rather than monopolistic ownership and control, much like there existed in the countries of the former Soviet Union. As Markey said in introducing his amendment on the floor of the House, this issue concerns "one of the most fundamental changes which has ever been comtomplated in the history of our country. "The bill, as it is presented..., repeals for all intents and purposes all the cross-ownership rules, all of the ownership limitation rules, which have existed since the 1970s, the 1960s, to protect against single companies being able to control all of the media in individual communites and across the country. "In this bill it is made permissible for one company in your hometown to own the only newspaper, to own the cable system, to own every AM station, to own every FM station, to own the biggest television station and to own the biggest independent station, all in one community. " The House bill, after Markey's successful amendment, increases the national ownership cap to 35 percent. This merely limits to 35 percent the percentage fo households nationwide that may be reached by TV stations owned by a single network. It is CPSR's view, evidently, that this is too high, and the cap should have been retained at 25 percent. One can make a reasonable argument for 35 percent, but your counter-argument seems to miss the point entirely. > > >Some of the advanced information services > > could well become available only to affluent people or to > > institutions in privileged areas. > > Um, so what? Is cable television really a basic human right? Is a > dedicated T-1 line? To the contrary, I claim that it would be > wasteful and stupid to tax everyone in an attempt to make "advanced" > services more heavily used. Let competition drive down prices for > all; attempts to micromanage pricing will only interfere with the > trends that are making these services better and cheaper for > everyone. If we were to think of networks as food providers, then > "advanced services" would be the caviar and lobster. This is simply untrue. I suggest you read the legislation before you go spouting off all this "free market" dogma . Your contention has absolutely nothing to do with the emerging realities of communications. FYI, even the more restrictive of the two bills, H.R. 1555 contains the following: "A plan adopted by the Commission and the States should ensure the continued viability of universal service maintaining quality services at just and reasonable rates. "Such plan should recommend a definition of the nature and extent of the services encompassed within carriers' universal services obliagations. Such plan should **seek to promote access to advanced telecommunications services and capabilities, and to promote reasonably comparable services for the general public in urban and rural areas, while maintaining just and reasonable rates."** Here's another little bit from the Senate bill: "The Commission and each State commission iwth regulatory juridiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of *advanced telecommunications cabability to all Americans* (inclduing, in particular, elementary and secondary shhools and classrooms) by untilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regualtion, regulatory forbearance, or other regulating methods that remove barrier to infrastructure investment." In short, Glen, the bill endorses planning, industrial policy, and price regulation. The bill, Glen, was written by Republican *deregulators.* Now, you and George Gilder and your ilk just will not find the kind of "free market" you so ardently desire in telecom in this country. What to do? Moan and wail about amputation of the "invisible hand" or try to understand the issues accurately, and say something which reflects the industrial and political reality. CPSR is arguing that the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey amendment in the Senate bill ought to be included in the final legislation. All it does is guarantee "reasonably comparable" rates for "health care providers for rural areas," and for "educational providers and libraries" rates that are "less than the amounts charged for similar services to other parties." The rate will be determined by the Commission and the States based on what they "determine is appropriate and necessary to ensure affordabel access to and use of such telecommunications by such entities." The thinking here is that our children are still the best resource we can invest in, and that the "advanced telecommunications services" that you pooh-pooh so loudly might just give kids an educational and learning tool which far exceeds the opportunity cost of providing it. Comprendez-vous? What this also means Glen, is that a cable operator, cannot waltz into a community, offer an off-the-shelf package with Net access, 500 channels, and interactive services bundled together at a rate that schools and libraries cannot afford. And, who knows, as you so clearly point out, some of those schools may not see the 500 channel universe as an educational necessity, so they may want the package unbundled. CPSR wants to ensure that can occur. I don't know where your "cable TV" analogy is coming from. No one suggested that cable programming ought to be regulated under Title II as a common carrier; certainly the CPSR telecom document did not. OTOH, if cable delivers basic telephone service, then that will be regulated by the Commission under the common carrier rules. "A dedicated T-1 line?" Well, I don't think anyone suggested that was "a basic human right." That is not the definition of "universal service" in any case. An assignment for you Glen. Check out the *definition* of universal service under either bill, H.R. 1555 or S. 652. Perhaps then there will be some common ground in which we can discuss these things. Trying to debate out of ignorance is rarely productive and does not promote understanding. When you figure out the way the U.S. defines universal service, then let's re-visit some of the issues. Craig @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: •••@••.••• (Allan Bradley) On Nov 8 1995 Glen Rapheal wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- >Some of the advanced information services > could well become available only to affluent people or to > institutions in privileged areas. >>Um, so what? Is cable television really a basic human right? Is a dedicated >>T-1 line? To the contrary, I claim that it would be wasteful and stupid to >>tax everyone in an attempt to make "advanced" services more heavily used. >>Let competition drive down prices for all; attempts to micromanage pricing >>will only interfere with the trends that are making these services better >>and cheaper for everyone. If we were to think of networks as food >>providers, then "advanced services" would be the caviar and lobster. We >>don't regulate food prices in order to ensure that no matter how >>ridiculously "advanced" a food product is that product is available to >>everyone; why regulate network prices with the same goal in mind? Note that >>this applies to cable as a whole and especially to "non-Basic" service >>levels. If Joe Smith can't afford HBO this month, I really don't care. >>Neither should you. The Box Matrix There is a lot of sincere and genuine issues expressed by this forum and other forums about the info-superhighway and the profound changes that affect our societal way of life. I personally feel somewhat gratified that at least a few people understand the importance of public ownership with communications infrastructures given the impact of current legislation in communications industry deregulation and what it may mean in the long view. Moreover, it shows the values of the masses still understand the value of the individual, and perhaps, that is the highest honor . Still, in my mind there is a haunting aspect. It is the notion that the battle of technology for the good may lose to the fervor of technology for monetary gain because we can't seem to articulate the true individualization of it all. It isn't really an issue of whether it is better for mankind to save a walk to the video store by plugging in the household account PIN or similarly to save a walk to the library. It goes exponentially deeper. These mediums are the seeds of how we communicate, not only as a society, but as individuals. And yet it seems almost too complex to understand on a personal level what it all will mean to our daily lives let alone to the public at large. Communications technologies today need a public face - not by the profiteers, but by people who understand the significance - the people that are involved in these forums. It's not an issue of how more is better as the American way, or how it couldn't hurt to define more entertainment fun and convenience options, or necessarily advanced communications as the foundation of an utopian philosopher king society. We need a practical technology face that goes to the core of who we all are both collectively and individually, and how it represents the power we may have in defining "who" that is. Because ultimately it is all about information - information about us and how it is defined, how it is used, and how it is controlled. It is a two way street. The information super-highway can be what is represents - a highway we all can travel to get to know each other better and possibly improve our worlds. It also can become the "Box Matrix" defining, through seemingly insignificant informational interactions our impersonal individual social character. It may not be today - it may not be tomorrow, but sometimes options can turn into walls, and walls can turn into a boxes - boxes we would all certainly lament tomorrow on the critical missed opportunity to define today. What does it matter if we want a tuna sandwhiches and a few dolphins are killed? If Joe Smith can't get HBO I don't care. If Joe Smith can't participate in the information age - I care. Allan Bradley ConsulMetrix, Inc. Setting the Standards in Technology Consulting ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages for non-commercial use, pursuant to any redistribution restrictions included in individual messages. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
