Re: M$ Monitor: Why You Haven't Heard From Us

["Lewis A. Mettler" <lmettler@lamlaw.com>]

Rick,

Cable companies are most likely operating within the law.  And, I
believe the few communities that have required broadband services to be
open are as well.  Cable TV today as we know it is primarily a number of
local monopolies at the "choice" of those communities.  I do not believe
that any State or Federal law requires that local communities franchise
cable services to a single supplier creating the monopoly.

Neither cable TV nor any other broadband services should be run as
monopolies.

Clearly those who hold monopolies want to block competition.  That is a
given.  But, that effort is also contrary to the interests of consumers.

And, I would agree that independent ISVs could easily go the way of the
do-do bird.

If any monopoly power is held over the heads of consumers, it better be
justified.  We did need the railroads.  We did need a nationwide phone
system.  Maybe in those instances a monopoly was required.  My guess is
that with technology today, monopolies on cable are no more necessary
than monopolies on the phone wire.

What needs to be done is the separation of the physical facilities from
the services than can be technically provided by competitors.  Wires and
cables can easily be rented.  Wires and cables do not need to be bundled
with exclusive service contracts.  Clearly cable TV and broadband
services can be separated from the wires used to deliver the service.

I am not an expert on the technology to do this.  But, let me guess.  It
can be done.  And, most importantly if doing so permits competitive
services to be offered to all consumers it is essential that it be done
that way.

Clearly not all of the profit to be generated with Cable TV or broadband
services is related solely to the wire.

This is where I think the piece from Audrie went contrary to the
interests of consumers.

I do not want to be forced to buy cable TV from only one company.  I
clearly do not want to be forced to buy all broadband services from that
same company or forgo the benefits of all such technology?  Nor should I
have to buy a satellite dish to avoid that monopoly.  DSL does have
limits.  Satellites do as well (down only).  Clearly the AT&T think only
they have the right to offer additional services via cable.  But, the
need for yet more monopolies is just not there.

And, consumers better hope it does not occur.

Lewis




Rick Dahlgren wrote:
> 
> Louis:
> 
> All providers must rely on one of the wires attached to your residence.
> The ISP's fight every day to obtain timely competitive service from telco's
> for "resale" of the telcos' dsl services.  Further, DSL requires equipment
> in a central switch which cannot provide service outside a limited wire
> distance from the telco central switch.  With the right court ruling or a
> little enhancement of the Congress at the hands of lobbyists, independent
> ISP's could be wiped out.
> 
> Audrie is right on target, except to say that cable companies (including
> ATT, Time Warner and Cox), while operating completely within the law,
> should really develop a win/win model for opening up before congress does
> what we suggested 3 years ago and again this spring, which is to merge
> title VI and title II provisions of the act.
> 
> Rick Dahlgren
> Cottonwood Communications
> rd@cottonwood.com
> 
> >Audrie,
> >
> >Your stand on suggesting that broadband access should be sold only by
> >local monopolies is short sighted.
> >
> >Consumers simply do not want to be limited to only two choices for high
> >speed internet access (i.e. the local cable monopoly and DSL).  That is
> >a ridiculous suggestion.
> >
> >Right now consumers have a choice of 3 or 4 or more ISPs who can provide
> >comparable service.
> >
> >Your stand would cut that down to perhaps one or two based upon who owns
> >the wires.
> >
> >That solution will never serve consumers.
> >
> >
> >Audrie Krause wrote:
> >>
> >> The Micro$oft Monitor ... <clipped...see orgininal message>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
> >lmettler@LAMLaw.com
> >http://www.lamlaw.com/ ( detailed review of Microsoft antitrust trial
> >transcripts )
> >________________________________________________________
> >NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet.  Shouldn't you?
> >Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> >http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html

-- 
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
lmettler@LAMLaw.com
http://www.lamlaw.com/ ( detailed review of Microsoft antitrust trial
transcripts )
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet.  Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html