Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Asava who wrote (14557)	8/15/1999 3:59:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

This is the first time the FCC has openly admitted the ulterior motive of busting RBOC monopoly through cable. "A formal proceeding would chill investment in cable-modem service, which, in turn, would reduce the competitive pressure on local phone companies and others that are currently investing in alternative means of providing consumers with access to broadband," Kennard said. Congress is beginning to respond to the community and that is effective power, so Kennard felt he had to show his hand. I wouldn't have done that. The FCC is not justified in their current attitude based on the "chilled investment" expedient. The valid argument is separate and distinct markets. It was Armstrong who gave Kennard the chilling idea and Att is wrong about their legal argument: Experts immediately noticed that the voluminous 70-page appeal spent less time challenging Portland and Multnomah counties' authority and more time accusing the local franchising authorities of statutory violations of communications law, which, it said, was meant to "minimize" unnecessary regulations on cable operators. This portion of Att's argument is valid within the venue of business vs business, but won't hold when it is business vs community. Corporations are individuals. Statutory law is binding on individuals but not to the same degree on groups of individuals acting as a group rather than as an individual, because there exists a group which is outside the boundary of statutes. If Seattle agrees with Portland, what will Oregon statutes avail Att? If Leipzig agrees with Portland, what will US law avail Att if Att was Leipzig's cable operator? Freedom implies that there exists somewhere where the law doesn't hold. Somewhere may be so small it can't include one individual. Nonetheless, no law is absolute because groups of individuals can be abstract and therefore infinitely small. As such, it said, Panner was "patently wrong" in ruling that "Congress intended to interfere as little as possible" with LFAs' authority. Instead, it claimed that the cities were violating the act by passing ordinances that would force the cable operator "to act like a telephone company." Equal access,the AT&T brief said, is "the very definition of common-carrier regulation." Att is building an argument that is based on compulsion. Att/TCI is not under compulsory requirements such that if they don't operate in a community, the company will be in violation of law and the CEO will be arrested. Att is free not to provide service where the community has decided that to be served by business a business must serve their particular needs however unattractive the deal. Since it was the community which granted TCI the authority to operate, TCI operates under the community's sufferance. TCI operates under privilege, not under compulsion. If the FCC claims this is a non-uniformity in the application of national law, then that interpretation is inconsistent with what has been occurring for decades in cable tv. Att/TCI/FCC can't have it both ways. The appeal said that although federal cable law allows local governments to manage municipal rights-of-way and to review new operators' qualifications, it does not permit cities to require specific services as conditions for granting or renewing franchises. It doesn't? How about local content requirements and PBS carriage, etc. How long would the TCI franchise last if they didn't carry Big Bird? It also challenged open access on constitutional grounds, alleging that it violates the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Att is fearful that if they don't wish to comply and pull out of that particular community, a precedent will be established which can be seized by other communities and cause a mass exodus of uniformly complying communities to a crazy quilt configuration of local requirements. The crazy quilt in fact is a stage in the evolution of the open market. It provides an opportunity for others to enter and compete in distribution. Is this fear realistic? If Att doesn't want the socialism, why would any other operator want to pick up the franchise? These communities may find that though they have the power to choose, they don't have the power to enact what they think they want. The power needed exceeds current technological limits. Let Portland flounder. They will change their operator requirements when they find it is neither profitable nor easy to distribute cable of any form. Att will win without firing a shot simply by not contending where it isn't necessary to do so. Att has the winning hand, but they're throwing away their winners.