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

Brad Stillman (stillman@Essential.ORG)
Fri, 26 May 1995 17:36:23 -0400 (EDT) 

Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 17:36:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brad Stillman <stillman@Essential.ORG>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555
In-Reply-To: <9505261329.AA10966@a.cni.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950526171839.6316C-100000@essential.essential.org>


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]