3 ms·

History> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 Regulatory capture at its fine

by 001sky 14y ago

History> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 Regulatory capture at its finest.

rayiner 14y ago
I'm not sure how it's an example of regulatory capture, and even so how it's relevant to a discussion about copyright law.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Many CLECs formed in the post-Telecom Act "bubble" operated using the unbundled Network Element Platform (UNE-P), in which they resold the ILECs' service by leasing the underlying [assets]. This greater dependency on the ILECs made these "UNE-P CLECs" extremely vulnerable to changes in the UNE-P rules. In the meantime, the largest facilities-based CLECs, MFS and TCG, had IPOs and then were acquired by Worldcom and AT&T, respectively, in 1996 and 1998 as those long distance companies prepared to defend their business customers from the Regional Bell Operating Companies' (RBOC) incipient entry into the long distance business. Important FCC Rulings With the Triennial Review in August 2003, the FCC began to rewrite a large portion of the rules implemented by the Telecommunications Act of 1996... And that was that. The cable and telco's own washington. The mechanisms and the game are the same. There will never be a viable business that leases another businesses core assets. Copyright and Fiber are interchangeble, one is just fact/history. These special interests are legalized, entrenched monoloply/cartels. The entire copyright industry is. (elsevier, edu publishers at all levels, et al).
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm not sure how this is an example of cable and telcos "owning Washington." The cable companies and the telcos built that infrastructure, and Congress forced them to lease it out to CLECs. It's even less applicable in this context. At least the telco infrastructure was publicly subsidized. Nobody subsidized Britney Spears, etc.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      The 1996 act was completely undermined by telco lobbying. Its public policy purpose --legislated disruption-- was never successfully implemented. They won the war you never knew was fought, the greatest type of victory. The subtlety of the argument is precisely the point. =] There is a reason the most $$$ paid man in washington is the head of RIAA, the hollywood/old media lobbying group. The Cable and the RLECs (now VZ, T, etc) are all-pro and in the same leaugue.

by 001sky 14y ago

History> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 Regulatory capture at its finest.

rayiner 14y ago

I'm not sure how it's an example of regulatory capture, and even so how it's relevant to a discussion about copyright law.

001sky 14y ago
Many CLECs formed in the post-Telecom Act "bubble" operated using the unbundled Network Element Platform (UNE-P), in which they resold the ILECs' service by leasing the underlying [assets]. This greater dependency on the ILECs made these "UNE-P CLECs" extremely vulnerable to changes in the UNE-P rules. In the meantime, the largest facilities-based CLECs, MFS and TCG, had IPOs and then were acquired by Worldcom and AT&T, respectively, in 1996 and 1998 as those long distance companies prepared to defend their business customers from the Regional Bell Operating Companies' (RBOC) incipient entry into the long distance business. Important FCC Rulings With the Triennial Review in August 2003, the FCC began to rewrite a large portion of the rules implemented by the Telecommunications Act of 1996... And that was that. The cable and telco's own washington. The mechanisms and the game are the same. There will never be a viable business that leases another businesses core assets. Copyright and Fiber are interchangeble, one is just fact/history. These special interests are legalized, entrenched monoloply/cartels. The entire copyright industry is. (elsevier, edu publishers at all levels, et al).
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm not sure how this is an example of cable and telcos "owning Washington." The cable companies and the telcos built that infrastructure, and Congress forced them to lease it out to CLECs. It's even less applicable in this context. At least the telco infrastructure was publicly subsidized. Nobody subsidized Britney Spears, etc.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    The 1996 act was completely undermined by telco lobbying. Its public policy purpose --legislated disruption-- was never successfully implemented. They won the war you never knew was fought, the greatest type of victory. The subtlety of the argument is precisely the point. =] There is a reason the most $$$ paid man in washington is the head of RIAA, the hollywood/old media lobbying group. The Cable and the RLECs (now VZ, T, etc) are all-pro and in the same leaugue.