[opendtv] Re: FCC is one of the recipients of the 2018 Franz Edelman Awards, for use of Ops Research
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 07:26:28 -0500
On Jan 4, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Congrats to the FCC. Although, IMO, the main benefit shown so far has to do
with getting money back into government coffers, which will be paid one way
or another by the CONSUMER.
While this is true, it is still a far better deal for taxpayers than the
previous use.
Broadcasters do not send money to the treasury - the fees they pay do not even
cover the operating expenses of the FCC.
The fact that the public is willing to pay current rates for cellular phone and
data says volumes - just compare the cost for telephony during the decades of
heavy handed FCC regulation of the telecoms.
This is an excellent example of GOOD STEWARDSHIP of our natural resources. It
is no different that the revenues generated by harvesting other natural
resources via leases - e.g.forrests, energy leases on federal lands, etc.
The reality is that consumers pay for everything.
Broadcast TV is not free - the cost of all of those ads is embedded in the
products we buy.
Corporations do not pay taxes - taxes, fees, and the costs of regulation are
all expenses that increase the cost of everything we buy.
The sad reality is that even after paying for the spectrum, we still pay major
taxes on telecommunications services at the federal, state and local levels.
This article does a good job of analyzing what we pay:
http://time.com/money/4362527/fees-taxes-charges-cell-phone-bill/
What is far more important to consider is how auctioning spectrum to the
telcos, and allowing them to determine how to use and share it has
revolutionized an industry, promoted competition and innovation, and REDUCED
costs to consumers.
The technical benefit, to wireless broadband, is yet to be demonstrated.
What?
We have had wireless broadband in many areas for years. Remember that article
about the home that is getting wireless municipal broadband, after they learned
it would cost thousand of dollars to connect to the closest wired network?
Did you see the article yesterday about AT&Ts deployment plans for both fixed
and wireless broadband? The only issues remaining with respect to deploying
wireless broadband are related to finishing the standards.
My take is, for expansion of fixed wireless in rural areas, the same
technical result can be achieved with use of white spaces. That could have
happened WITHOUT having companies pay billions of dollars for spectrum, which
they will now have to recoup.
Just as they have recouped the cost of the other spectrum they have bought at
auction. Exploiting the white spaces will not be free - if there is a cost
advantage to using the white spaces, then it will promote competition and
innovation.
But I do agree that there is a major role to play with unlicensed spectrum.
This ay be the last major decision that the FCC could make before we sunset the
agency.
OR is the applied math that deals with defining objective functions, taking
into account a set of constraint equations, to come up with optimal
solutions. If the objective is to move money around to provide an overall
reduction in government deficit, $7B is nothing to sneeze at. Just keep in
mind where it's coming from.
I’m more concerned about what these revenues are being used for. It is easy to
claim they are being used for deficit reduction, and technically this may well
be true. But the reality is that deficits (or spending) are still increasing;
you cannot blame the industries that are paying for spectrum for this reality.
It is the major reason why the politicians keep raising taxes on anything they
can to pay for increased spending, which is the real problem.
However, let's not pretend that this has diddly to do with *this* FCC, and
its frantic and reckless warpath to deregulate everything, to favor a small
number of special interests.
Give it up Bert. The FCC was ordered to do this by Congress. Yes it is part of
the overall effort to deregulate telecommunications in the U.S., but this has
been going on now for three decades, under 6 administrations.
The incentive auction legislation was passed in 2012, and the plan was
developed largely under the Wheeler FCC. Give credit where it is due!
But keep in mind the unreality of the entire concept - the fact that we PAID
broadcasters to vacate spectrum from the auction proceeds. What a deal!
Use the spectrum virtually for free for decades, then get a big payday to
vacate...
And most specifically, its reckless attempt to abolish our century-old net
neutrality guarantees. Industry self-regulation ONLY works in the presence of
ample competition. Failing that, and sometimes ample competition is simply
not possible, external knobs are required. This FCC is using religious
fervor, hardly facts, to make its decisions.
So how has deregulation worked for the cellular business Bert?
Clearly there was not ample competition in wireless telephony in the ‘80s, when
deregulation of the telcos began.
Perhaps you might want to think a little about what you write; the history of
“neutrality” during the many decades of heavy handed regulation of the telcos
came at tremendous cost to consumers, who paid monopoly prices for telephone
service. And the history of broadcast regulation may be far worse, as it
rewarded three huge special interests that still dominate the media landscape
today...
What a legacy!
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: