[opendtv] Re: FCC flowery rhetoric being taken at face value
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:06:22 -0500
On Jan 8, 2018, at 4:33 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It's downright cynical, the way he keeps doing this.
No. It is downright cynical that you keep doing this.
You STILL do not understand that the FCC was designed to, and has faithfully
protected, the special interests of the monopolies it regulates for nearly a
century.
You STILL do not understand how costly this has been to Americans, who have
paid monopoly prices for utilities, both electric and communications, and the
legions of lawyers, lobbyists, and regulators that feed off of this largess.
You STILL do not understand how costly this has been with respect to innovation
in communications technologies , or how much more efficient and competitive
communications have become when they are deregulated.
And you clearly are clueless about the misuse of the Universal Service Fund
over the years, especially during the Obama administration, when it became a
slush fund for the special interests regulated by the FCC.
Rural electric coops are a fascinating solution to the problem of delivering
utility services to areas that are not filled with low hanging fruit. They are
not driven by the profit motive, as the people who are served own the coop. And
they are not beholden to local governments who tax and regulate them to death.
We recently discussed an article about a home in rural (I think) Wisconsin
where a major broadband provider wanted in excess of $10,000 to connect a home
to its network. The customer is now getting wireless broadband from a municipal
service. Rural electric coops do not behave this way...
I am currently a customer of Clay Electric Coop, which provides power to our
property in “rural” Alachua County, about 5 miles from where we live in the
urban Gainesville fringe. Clay sold its infrastructure where we live to
Gainesville Regional Utilities several decades ago - the difference could not
be more dramatic.
Back in 1980 we had sixteen acres north of Gainesville that was served by Clay.
I received dividend checks from Clay for several decades, based on returning
profits to the members. And when we needed power on our current rural property
for a well and lights, Clay was more than happy to connect us. They installed
two poles, about 1000 feet of wire, and a transformer, to reach our property.
They did this knowing that we would only be using a limited amount of power.
How much did we have to pay to bring power to the property?
$0.00
Instead of a regulated “Natural Monopoly,” we are partners with Clay Electric.
Unlike our service from GRU, we are not forced to subsidize the City of
Gainesville, which transfers about $35 million from GRU, to keep city taxes
lower.
The only reason this is allowed to happen is that providing rural electric
service is not profitable enough for the regulated special interests. Dittos
for rural broadband.
But Bert is concerned about the “flowery rhetoric” of an FCC that is reaching
out to rural coops, over which they have no regulatory authority. What audacity
to suggest that these coops participate in an auction for USF funding to help
them bring broadband to their customers. Doesn’t Chairman Pai, and his wireline
advisor understand that the USF slush fund is for companies regulated by the
FCC?
And yet, here's a case where some are taking the flowery rhetoric at face
value, and ignoring the realities under it all. Even while buttering up the
Chairman in the process. This is a case of rural electric coops taking on the
task of deploying broadband service too, leveraging off the infrastructure
they already have in place for the electricity distribution job. Including
not just the poles, but in some cases, also the fiber optics already in
place, to control their electric power distribution.
Exactly! Why is this flowery rhetoric?
Why is it inappropriate for the FCC to encourage an industry it DOES NOT
regulate to participate in an auction that may help these coops deploy rural
broadband?
Indeed, and parenthetically, *neutrality of the service* is one fundamental
concept that must apply, to both electrification and Internet broadband, and
telephone service, to reap any real benefits.
Why?
We do not have neutrality with electric power today for the vast majority of
consumers?
I cannot buy my power from the lowest cost provider. I pay through the nose for
electricity at my home; significantly less for the power I buy from Clay
Electric Coop. Just as the Internet provides access to any Edge Provider, the
U.S. electric grid provides access to every power generation company - but I am
blocked from buying from competitors.
Likewise, the telephone network is now neutral with respect to connections -
yet legacy services are heavily regulated and taxed, while some VOIP services
get a free ride. And the massive cost of long distance connections under heavy
handed regulation is now history.
Deregulation and competition are the best safeguards of neutrality...
The two key aspects of what Schwartz is presenting are:
1. Use of the Connect America Fun (CAF). Push comes to shove, for rural
service, some kind of government assistance program becomes essential. And
then the second ingredient,
2. The services are provided by coops. A pure profit motive is *not* assumed
to be sufficient. Here's the definition of coop:
The FCC is not proposing to give CAF funds to rural electric coops Bert. They
are ALLOWING these coops to compete in an auction for access to this fund,
rather than having a bureaucratic regulator decide which regulated special
interest gets the money; in many cases these funds never achieve the intended
goal. Sadly, this is often what happens with government slush funds controlled
by regulators.
So the bottom line is, in some cases, the profit motive does not provide the
service needed.
Some cases?
The reality is in most cases the regulated utilities, and now public utilities
go after the low hanging fruit, and the less profitable areas are underserved.
The Chairman's reckless lunge to reward pure greed, at the expense of
everything else, is not what finally solves problems like service to rural
communities.
???????
You have this exactly backwards Bert. He has not acted to reward pure greed.
That’s what the last bunch at the FCC did, when they put shackles on the ISPs
and rewarded their buddies in the tech industry.
Neutrality means creating a level playing filed, not rewarding one special
interest group and penalizing another.
(Or for that matter, like ample competition even in suburban and urban
communities.)
What do you expect when the entire focus of utility regulation for the past
century has been to create and protect monopolies?
Fortunately we do have competition for broadband today in more than a third of
U.S. markets, and four wireless data competitors almost everywhere. With
emerging technologies about to make fixed wireless broadband very competitive
with wired services the only thing we need to do is to get the damn regulators,
and greedy local governments out of the way.
The rural electric coops may not even need to deploy much fiber - the power
lines can be the backbone, with a simple device attached to the poles near each
home or business that needs service.
Ain't that a kick in the pants? People are taking the Chairman's politically
correct rhetoric at face value, and dismissing the cynical rest of it. No one
here is praising the wisdom of the Chairman's repeal of net neutrality. No
one is pretending they need this provision to make things work. Conversely, I
wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were net neutrality provisions right in
the coop rules.
No one here is going off the rails like you Bert. I certainly have embraced the
efforts of the Chairman.
But I’m just a nobody that operates a “neutral” forum where anyone is free to
express their opinions.
Keep up the good work Bert!
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: