News Archive
McCain: More Competition for Cable & Subject of The Week & Editorial: Our note on Net Neutrality -- Posted by soullezz
on Monday, June 26 2006
McCain: More Competition for Cable
At last week's hearings on Telecom reform, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made the same push he has made in the past … and that's encouraging more competition for cable.
McCain said lawmakers should be looking for ways to "spur new entrants into providing consumers with, among other things, more options in cable television service. I hope industry responds and deploys new technologies and services as quickly as possible to all consumers," he said.
"I have spoken out about escalating cable rates for almost 10 years now, and I am not alone in believing that the best way to decrease sky-high cable rates is to provide real competition," the senator said.
McCain also praised provisions on municipal broadband systems and language promoting universal broadband deployment within the telecom reform legislation. He said the deployment of broadband service "by as many providers as possible our number one legislative goal."
Subject of The Week
Gee ... what could that be? This, of course, is the week that the Senate will be discussing the issue of net neutrality ... That is, should there be laws prohibiting folks like the cable and telco guys from charging high bandwidth users, such as Google, Vonage, et al, for the portion of the net that they use for their businesses. In short, should big (and small) web content providers pay part of the cost of the networks?
For virtually, all our friends in the cable and telco businesses, the answer is a resounding "yes." In fact, at dinner the other night a cable guy whom we greatly respect regaled us on the costs of building a high-speed broadband network and the knotty questions of who should pay. With laws mandating net neutrality, he maintains, consumers will end up paying for everything, even those consumers who don't use everything. For example: Suppose you and I live next door. I have a passion for streaming video whereas you barely look at your email. To serve me, the network operator must use the same pipe that serves you. The pipe is enormously expensive to build and maintain. So we both get stuck will the bill while the folks supplying the streaming video to me get a free ride.
Make sense? Yeah ... but we still have reservations. For one thing, the owner of the pipe can, and should, charge me more for receiving that streaming video. In addition, the fact is that, without net neutrality, the network operators become gatekeepers for who can do what, how fast on the web. The idea of allowing such gatekeepers on a communications service that has become vital to all parts of the nation, and the world, just gives us the shakes. For one thing, the potential for abuse is enormous. (Just think of cable giant Comcast and its insistence on a we-get-to-buy-you-if-it-works clause for small vendors with hot new ideas.) For another, the pay-to-get-on-the-highway approach seems very likely to leave small entrepreneurs, no matter how good their ideas, stuck in the dust.
In the words of WWW inventor Tim Berners-Lee the issue boils down to: "What the opponents of net neutrality are pouring millions into lobbying for is a world where, when someone offers a new high-bandwidth service over the Internet, they have to go around to each of the last-mile providers and ask, 'may I have permission to compete on a level playing field with the other services that go over your pipes?' And if entrepreneurs can't come up with enough funding to appease the troll that guards that particular bridge, then they could effectively lose access to the customers at the other end."
That's something we worry about, which is why we're inclined to support net neutrality.
For Berners-Lee's full post on the subject, go to: arstechnica.com. In addition, you'll find plenty of stats, facts and figures on net neutrality in the Under the BRIDGE section of this week's BRIDGE. It will be available on Tuesday at: http://mbc-thebridge.com.
as seen on skyreport
Editorial: Our note on Net Neutrality
The article posted above would have it appear that consumers are being stuck with the bill for all website operations and that cable companies want to change that, when in fact that is very far from the truth. Every website has an operational cost already, they must pay for the bandwidth their own server uses on the internet from the service provider to which their server is connected. Cable and DSL companies would have you believe that website operators are getting a free ride when in fact they are already paying much more to stay online than any end user, in cases like google and vonage which were sited above, those costs are much more than the end user would likely imagine. The streaming video provider is not getting a "free ride" they are already paying for the bandwidth from their end and now the broadband internet providers want to charge them for the bandwidth the consumer uses on their end also or they will make that site unavailable to the end users. That is collecting the bill twice if you ask me. Consumers already pay for the service and the website owners also pay for service, to block sites that won't pay a usage toll for end users will shut the freedom you have online down. That is what this article is really about, only large and well funded corporations would be able to operate online anymore. You could forget about all those little home page sites you visit that have funny clips or jokes, or even the medium size sites, the only things left online would be Comcast owned (or owned by your own service provider). What kind of internet is that? It's not an internet at all if you ask me. Tell your broadband providers and legislators that Net Neutrality is right and good for everyone.
Sides React to FCC's Multicast Move & Loophole Provision Out of Senate Bill & FCC Reports on ORBIT Companies -- Posted by soullezz
on Monday, June 19 2006
Sides React to FCC's Multicast Move
Multicast must-carry for cable is off the agenda for Wednesday's open meeting at the Federal Communications Commission. And the wired video incumbent couldn't be happier with the development.
In a statement released Monday, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said it was pleased the agency reconsidered its intention to impose multicast must-carry rules on the industry. "The FCC correctly decided this matter on the two previous instances in which it determined that multicasting mandates would be unwise," the association said.
NCTA added, "We believe multicasting mandates are harmful to consumers. And we believe that marketplace and consumer demand - not the government - should determine what programming services are carried."
As expected, broadcasters were disappointed with the decision. "A multicasting rule would provide an explosion of free local program choices for consumers, including public interest programming," said Dennis Wharton of the National Association of Broadcasters.
"If consumers are to enjoy the full benefits of digital television, cable operators must not be permitted to strip out the full DTV signal for anti-competitive purposes," Wharton added. "We appreciate FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's steadfast support for more program choice, and we will continue to educate policymakers on the pro-consumer benefits of multicasting."
The FCC said it dropped the multicast must-carry issue from the meeting agenda after it appeared there would be no consensus on the issue among the agency's five commissioners. The commission recently added Robert McDowell as its fifth commissioner, who also is the panel's third Republican. But that move apparently didn't give Martin the support he needed to carry the issue.
Loophole Provision Out of Senate Bill
In a blow to cable's competitors such as satellite TV, the latest draft of telecom reform legislation from the Senate Commerce Committee doesn't address cable's use of the terrestrial loophole to keep programming away from other pay-TV platforms, stated news reports.
The previous draft of legislation had attempted to close the terrestrial loophole, which allows a cable operator to keep away programming that's not satellite-delivered and instead sent to a cable headend via terrestrial means. Cable interests, including Kyle McSlarrow of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, lobbied against the provision.
Satellite TV has sought to eliminate the terrestrial loophole for years. It's used by Comcast to keep its terrestrially-delivered regional sports network in Philadelphia away from the competition, thus making the channel a cable exclusive.
FCC Reports on ORBIT Companies
The Federal Communications Commission released a report Friday outlining issues pertaining to Intelsat and Inmarsat, companies that under Congressional order went private at the start of the decade.
Congress' late 1990s push to take Intelsat and Inmarsat into private ownership - and dilute the interest international signatories had in the entities - was aimed at making the commercial satellite business more competitive. The effort was undertaken in the ORBIT (the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications) Act.
The FCC said in a report to Congress it believes "U.S. policy goals regarding the promotion of a fully competitive global market for satellite communications services are being met in accordance with the ORBIT Act." The commission said privatization of the companies appears to have had a positive impact on the global communications marketplace by ensuring increased competition and increased access.
There were some concerns outlined in the commission report.
Mobile Satellite Ventures told the FCC that Inmarsat "continues to undercut the goals of the ORBIT Act" by using shared L-Band spectrum in an anti-competitive fashion. Specifically, the company said Inmarsat has refused to return spectrum it was loaned on a temporary basis and has refused to help with re-banding L-Band so that other users - including MSV - can gain access to adequate spectrum.
As for Intelsat, the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization said the satellite operator should be contractually bound to ensure continued global connectivity for users, particularly to countries dependent on Intelsat's services.
as seen on skyreport
Broadcasters Defend Multicast & ViaSat - The Next Satellite Darling on the Street? -- Posted by soullezz
on Monday, June 12 2006
Broadcasters Defend Multicast
Broadcasters are coming to the defense of a multicast must-carry regime, writing the top lawmaker on the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the proposed TV station-friendly mandate.
David Rehr of the National Association of Broadcasters sent a letter to the committee's chairman, Joe Barton (R-Texas), saying "frequently-repeated misinformation" supplied by the cable business has misconstrued the record on a number of issues surrounding multicast must-carry.
"In the digital world, cable systems can easily carry additional local programming from broadcasters without impinging on non-broadcast programming. This would be consistent with the intent of Congress for more localism and greater diversity in programming," said Rehr in the letter.
Rehr also complained that cable operators "regularly operate as gatekeepers, stripping out commercial broadcasters' multicast channels that carry unique local programming - clearly programming that the public wants."
Barton recently wrote the Federal Communications Commission listing his objections to any agency mandate that would prevent cable operators from stripping out multiple program streams contained in digital over-the-air broadcast signals. There was talk the commission could take up the multicast issue at its next open meeting, which has been pushed back to June 21.
ViaSat - The Next Satellite Darling on the Street?
What company may be the new satellite industry darling of Wall Street?
ViaSat, which supplies WildBlue with its customer premise equipment, was upgraded Monday by Morgan Joseph from "hold" to "buy." The firm set a target price of $30 for VSAT shares.
ViaSat stock climbed more than 5 percent to $25.51 during trading Monday. That was good news for the company, given the market's downward turn in recent days.
The financial community quickly turned its attention to ViaSat after WildBlue announced exclusive deals last week with EchoStar and DirecTV to sell its satellite-based broadband service. WildBlue also sells service via AT&T and through members of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative.
In addition to supporting WildBlue with its broadband modem products, ViaSat supplies broadband modems to Telesat Canada, Intelsat and SES Americom.
as seen on skyreport
|