MyDD :: The United States Telecom Association Is Being Oppressed

The United States Telecom Association Is Being Oppressed

by Matt Stoller, Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:54:51 PM EST

The United States Telecom Association is apparently oppressed by the man. Here's the text of an ad they are running on lots of blogs for a site called The Future Faster which argues we need to update our telecommunications laws (likely including net neurality).

We had no choice but to short-circuit the mainstream media and take our message directly to the blogs. See the ad that Capitol Hill won't.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the USTA spent more than $14M on lobbying activities in 2004. That's a lot of money to not be heard on Capitol Hill.

Tags: United States Telecom Association, net neutrality (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

They are being censored (none / 0)

I like their ads about the lack of cable competition and how in areas where cable competition comes in, cable companies drop their prices significantly.

Now that I have three TVs in my home, a cable modem, and 2 phone lines provided by Voice-over-IP, Comcast charges me a little bit over $200/month for all these services. Granted I pay half what Verizon was charging me for those same two phone lines, and Comcast Cable Internet is much much faster than Verizon DSL ever was, and way more reliable in my experience.

But $200????? I barely watch TV. It's not all that interesting.

So is their idea bad? I kinda like the fact that they are fighting the cable monopoly's power over us. I can't find any position USTA has on "Net Neutrality," but it would seem go be anti-thetical to their stance on cable choice....

by daninvirginia on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 03:45:32 PM EST

Re: They are being censored (none / 0)

hmmmm but with more surfing around their site, they seem to feel that the estate tax is an industry issue, (with no real good reason why - I don't think Comcast is a family-owned small business....)

But beyond that, I don't see them as foolish or bad.....

by daninvirginia on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 03:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They say 'not yet' (none / 0)

The closest we get to a collection of position papers comes in opening statements to a House Commerce Committee subcommittee hearing on March 30. (I've yet, as they say, to have a chance to read them!)

Speaking for the USTA was its president Walter McCormick.

On net neutrality, he said

our industry has stated that it will not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the internet, and the FCC has made clear that it has the authority to enforce its broadband principles. Therefore, we believe that legislation in this area is premature. Any grants of new regulatory authority or statutory ambiguities could chill innovation and investment.

With an incredibly complex area of law like this, with shedloads of moolah involved, and the lawyers and lobbyists that go with it spinning like tops, color me bewildered.

I'm not suggesting the USTA has Joe Public's best interests at heart. I'd just be a little happier if I had some handle on how, exactly, they're aiming to nail his head to the floor!

by skeptic06 on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 04:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Links to the Barton bill... (none / 0)

...I flagged here, BTW.

It's not on THOMAS yet.

by skeptic06 on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 04:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The USTA Is Being Oppressed (none / 0)

The point is not that telco efforts to offer competitive video services (and to lobby for the right to quickly get franchises for this purpose) are inherently bad. The real issue is that both telcos and cable operators want the "playing field" to be limited to their vertically-integrated "walled garden" duopoly market structure, where they throttle bandwidth for IP-based services that compete with their own services and limit competition to cable vs. telco, with all other service providers increasingly weakened by lack of access to affordable bandwidth (or for startups, totally shut out of the market).

They fight over "telco TV franchising" and, yes, it is an important piece of the intra-duopoly competitive dynamic. But they're united on wanting to kill or at least hobble (by legislative wording, etc.) network neutrality provisions (that insure they DON'T throttle bandwidth for competitors web-delivered services) and municipal broadband initiatives, which are popping up all around the country. In my view as an industry analyst, net neutrality provisions would pose a moderate threat to their business plans. But I'm starting to believe that muni-nets (which can be cost-justified by a wide range of social benefits and perhaps also from involvement by the likes of Google) could ultimately present a mortal threat to their financial health. Given this, I'd suggest the progressive political and tech communities both watch out for any lobbying or other maneuvers that try to restrict muni-nets, either at the national or state level (they already exist in more than dozen states).

The fight over telco TV franchising is really just a sideshow from the broader public policy perspective. Its only about which duopolist gets a bit of competitive advantage while they both work to choke off the free and open Internet (not too quickly, mind you, so as to not attract more regulatory scrutiny). They're not bad guys, they're just trying to make money on business models that are technically and economically becoming obsolete in the wake of the open Internet. The fact that they're not bad guys doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't fight (and unite) to stop them.

by mitchipd on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 04:50:52 PM EST

Re: The USTA Is Being Oppressed (none / 0)

Are they really against the muni-nets? We are talking Wi-Fi city-wide, right? That would be intuitively anti-thetical, again, as they can be the provider and offer upgrades packages for pay and other for-pay services like content-bundling for ease of surfing.

That doesn't threaten net neutrality. And the FCC will have to step in and prevent that.

by daninvirginia on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 07:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The USTA Is Being Oppressed (none / 0)

Yes, the telcos are against "real" municipal broadband... especially fiber optic networks-which could really kill their business--but also WiFi. For example, in PA, Verizon was able to get a state law passed that pretty much kills the chances for municipal WiFi networks by any municipality other than Phillie (which was grandfathered in a last minute compromise).

To some extent, telcos and cable operators have begun to respond to some muni-WiFi RFPs, but I don't believe their motives are to provide open-access wireless networks, but rather to avoid having a third competitive network enter the market. Their business model is NOT to create open-access networks, bridge the digital divide and insure low-cost high-capacity communications for public services which, among other things, are key to enabling the broadband Internet become a truly democratizing, citizen-empowering network. Instead, their focus is to compete with each other to sell us all their "triple (or quadruple) play" bundle of voice, Internet access and TV (and perhaps also mobile services) and make sure that not too much network capacity or revenue is diverted to the massively competitive and beneficial world of Internet services, where they have a hard time competing with the web's growing population of innovative companies large and small. Telcos and cable operators are not innovators. Their business models are based on market (and when necessary lobbying) power, market share and reliable high-margin subscription revenue streams. They can only really compete in the Internet service space by leveraging their power as the only pipe-owners in the local access market (i.e., which means making it tougher for you and me to do business efficiently with web-based service providers of all stripes).

They're only willing to get involved in citywide WiFi to preempt competition. Though they may win some competitive bids for muni WiFi projects, I doubt that too many cities will be willing to trust them to control these networks. One only has to look at cable's history with cable franchising to be skeptical about their motives and follow-through. Starting from cable's early years, the industry has overpromised and underdelivered on the "public" commitments that helped them gain their franchises (and in the early days they also resorted to "rent a politician" strategies to win a franchise).

by mitchipd on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 08:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The United States Telecom Association Is Being (none / 0)

I was gonna start throwing a slimilar link around when I saw that ad go up on so many blogs:

http://opensecrets.org/industries/contri b.asp?Ind=B08&cycle=2006

It's such a dead giveaway, man. "The Future... Faster!" Right. From the same people who promised you flying cars and robot housekeepers.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

by Josh Koenig on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:06:18 AM EST

Re: The United States Telecom Association (none / 0)

The great irony of these ads is that USTA, itself is made up of the local phone companies, big and small, that used to make up the old Bell monopoly. Now that that monopoly has eroded mainly due to wireless and IP telephony, they are going after the cable companies. Since there's very little money left in landline phone service, the old RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies)are trying to break into broadband, in spite of their inferior technology. This is the last gasp of a declining industry that is still propped by by taxpayer subsidies through all of those universal service fees on your phone bill.
I'm not defending the cable companies, which are just as detestable as the local phone companies, but it's good to be mindful where USTA's membership is coming from.

by ctd72 on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:40:20 AM EST

Re: The United States Telecom Association (none / 0)

Woah, woah, woah... DSL is far the superior system to Cable, cable is just a few generations ahead. It scales far much better in the long run, and can run symetrically.

by Alexander Drummond on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:45:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.