roundtable: Re: Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555

roundtable: Re: Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555

Re: Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555

James Love (love@Essential.ORG)
Sat, 27 May 1995 14:17:49 -0400 (EDT) 

Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 14:17:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <love@Essential.ORG>
To: Brad Stillman <stillman@tap.org>
Subject: Re: Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950526171839.6316C-100000@essential.essential.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950527141329.25078G@essential.essential.org>


CFA has done more lobbying than anyone I know of in terms of public
interest provisions for the telecommunications bills.  I have worked with
Brad on issues as diverse as common carriage in video dialtone platforms,
interroperability and open set top, federal pre-emption of state rate
regulation, redlinning, and other things, but Brad and CFA do quite a bit
more also.  Brad doesn't post too many things to the Internet, but he's 
very active on the hill, meeting with those staffers who hardly know how 
to spell Internet.  jamie

----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Love, Taxpayer Assets Project; internet:  love@tap.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
TAP's web page is www.essential.org/tap/tap.html


On Fri, 26 May 1995, Brad Stillman wrote:
> 
> Curt:
> I take issue with your characterization of CFA's lobbying on this bill.  
> If you had read any of the letters sent to the hill, read my testimony 
> or heard CFA and other ratepayers representatives speak on the bill, 
> we spoke on a wide variety of issues.  CFA has spent a tremendous 
> amount of time speaking out against cable/telco cross-ownership, 
> including offering amendments to the subcommittee, state pre-emption, 
> absence of a role for the DOJ, lack of adequate competitive safeguards, 
> PUHCA and others.
> 
> As for our attempt to prevent premature de-regulation, we continue to 
> do so for telephone and cable services because our membership tells us 
> that they are concerned about prices.
> 
> Your characterization of the state of competition to cable is inaccurate.  
> We would be happy to de-regulated cable once effective competition 
> arrives.  Under the 1992 Act, rate regulation disappears automatically 
> when an alternative service is available to 50% of a community (which 
> DBS is) and 15% subscribe.  Those who subscribe DO NOT have to be 
> current cable subscribers.  Therefore, since cable has a 60% penetration 
> on average, they could be de-regulated without losing a single customer.  
> As for competition, the penetration of DBS is less than one percent as 
> compared to cable.  In fact, less than a million dishes have even been 
> manufactured as compared to 62 million cable households.  At a minimum 
> of $700, it is not a competitive alternative for most consumers and 
> cable's market power persists.  As to your point that you are not 
> concerned about rate regulation, at least with respect to broadcasted 
> material, I would point out that DBS DOES NOT receive local broadcast 
> signals.  
> 
> The info superhypeway is not going to amount to much for many American's 
> if they can't afford the toll.
> 
> Brad.
> 
> Brad Stillman
> <stillman@Essential.ORG>
> 
> 
> On Fri, 26 May 1995, W. Curtiss Priest wrote:
> > 
> > OVERHAUL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW OK'D
> > 
> > 
> > May 26, 1995
> > CITS Observations on attached article:
> > W. Curtiss Priest
> > 
> > The Consumer Federation of America chose to make this a futile
> > fight about rate regulation.  We believe this lobbying misled
> > Rep. Markey from areas that were more fundamentally important to
> > the public interest, including reshaping the Joint Federal-State
> > Board, providing specific language to fund education and community
> > uses of new telecommunications, and strengthening the bill's
> > stand regarding cross-ownership.  With the availability of Direct
> > Satellite Broadcasting (DSB) that has appeared since the cable
> > regulation bill of 1992, we do not share the concerns about
> > rate regulation, at least from the standpoint of broadcasted material.

[CNI Home Page]