5 ms·

I'm going to ask for a source again. The article you link to is about television broadcast spectrum, not telcos and broadband. edit: read the article he linked

by NoPiece 12y ago

I'm going to ask for a source again. The article you link to is about television broadcast spectrum, not telcos and broadband. edit: read the article he linked before you downvote me... I'm right, he posted somethign that had nothing to do with the discussion...

mikeyouse 12y ago
Apologies if my earlier post was unclear, I deleted a few sections in favor of brevity but it was left confusing. The spectrum giveaway to broadcasters was predicated on 'Universal Service' being supplied by telecom companies.[1] That digital TV spectrum would be immensely valuable for wireless communication today, so it should absolutely be considered a subsidy as a result of the Telecom Act. The more direct subsidies come from many other places. A good place to start is the Universal Service Fund[2]. Every landline bill, every cable bill, every mobile phone bill has a line item for "Universal Service" on it. These funds are collected from consumers then 'disbursed' to companies for them to provide service extensions. This has been happening since 1997. They've disbursed over $80B back to telecom companies as part of the telecom act, the GAO isn't too impressed with how it was being spent.[3] Besides the direct subsidies, they got favorable depreciation schedules, and tax relief. The oddly interesting Robert Cringely did a special for PBS on the mess, which is probably the origin of the $200B number[4]: Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it. [1] - http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2003/9/hb108-41.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/ca... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund [3] - http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ereport/GAO-11-318SP/data_center_savings/Economic_development/Improved_design_and_management_of_the_universal_service_fund_as_it_expands_to_support_broadband_could_help_avoid_cost_increases_for_consumers http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ere... [4] - http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...

by NoPiece 12y ago

mikeyouse 12y ago

Apologies if my earlier post was unclear, I deleted a few sections in favor of brevity but it was left confusing. The spectrum giveaway to broadcasters was predicated on 'Universal Service' being supplied by telecom companies.[1] That digital TV spectrum would be immensely valuable for wireless communication today, so it should absolutely be considered a subsidy as a result of the Telecom Act. The more direct subsidies come from many other places. A good place to start is the Universal Service Fund[2]. Every landline bill, every cable bill, every mobile phone bill has a line item for "Universal Service" on it. These funds are collected from consumers then 'disbursed' to companies for them to provide service extensions. This has been happening since 1997. They've disbursed over $80B back to telecom companies as part of the telecom act, the GAO isn't too impressed with how it was being spent.[3] Besides the direct subsidies, they got favorable depreciation schedules, and tax relief. The oddly interesting Robert Cringely did a special for PBS on the mess, which is probably the origin of the $200B number[4]: Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it. [1] - http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2003/9/hb108-41.pdf http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/ca... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund [3] - http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ereport/GAO-11-318SP/data_center_savings/Economic_development/Improved_design_and_management_of_the_universal_service_fund_as_it_expands_to_support_broadband_could_help_avoid_cost_increases_for_consumers http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ere... [4] - http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...