2 ms·

The article you linked to does not say anything about broadcasters agreeing to invest in broadband. and I have no idea what TV broadcasters and fiberoptic broa

The article you linked to does not say anything about broadcasters agreeing to invest in broadband. and I have no idea what TV broadcasters and fiberoptic broadband have to do with eachother... they're entirely different industries. Comcast and Time Warner don't use TV airways--that's why they call it "cable".

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...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

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...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]