Just as the old Ma Bell POTS system crumbled to new and competing technologies, so too will the cable operators with their monopolistic and predatory practices. The day that the MSG channel and my beloved NY Rangers were yanked off of Comcast because of a feud between Comcast and the Dolan family (owners of the Rangers AND Cablevision), I have my own axe to grind with these Gnomes. No need to fret, fiber and wireless will do them in sooner or later.

Don't count the telecoms out. It is amazing what they can get away with. SBC has had their hand up the Bush puppet since his inauguration. SBC has been getting what they want out of him. Any signs of competition for their cash cow, the local loop, have been rubbed out from the regulatory side. (Thank you Michael Powell.)

On the other hand, I wouldn't put too much faith in the likes of Google or Yahoo. These kinds of organizations get petrified much faster than people realize. High tech management is susceptible to being parasitised by sociopaths.

The best I can hope for is Jimmy Carter coming back for a second term. Few people realize that deregulation got started under his administration.

Able Ape

Bill,

There's a common thread to what is happening with cable/teleco & internet and bankers & buy/sell (you nailed what is wrong with bankers in a recent blog & I thank you!). The cable problems you and your readers describe began when the cable and teleco's stopped being utilities and decided to become content providers. There is a lot of market manipulation involved in content delivery just as there is a lot of market manipulation when bankers get between the buyer and seller and work the relationship they have with one or the other ( or both ) to their advantage. Both systems are rigged to enrich the service provider at the great expense of those who are parties to a transaction. Eventually their customers ( the Little People ) look elsewhere to do the transaction and alternatives are now vigorously under development.

The chess pieces - both technical and worldwide legal steps - required to effect centralized control over the level communication field that we call the internet are quietly and consistently falling into place. It is important for the issues I have linked below to pass into the majority of systems and countries (via trade agreements) while the majority are mostly unaware of the larger consequences. Only once the technology and laws are ubiquitous enough do I believe that we shall really see the new system "turned on", and by then there should be no alternatives. Those that wish to control the communication field appears to be highly organised and know when and where to tread lightly enough to stay under the public-outrage rejection level that might block any one of the important steps required. Its even helped along with mis-information such as being sold your next computer hearing how it is more "trusted" and therefore better for you...

References:

"A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality: Take action now.
The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom..."
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://www.itsournet.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
"June 09, 2006 Unfortunately, the House voted today to protect the big phone and cable companies at the expense of preserving an open Internet."
http://www.itsournet.org/2006/06/its_our_net_house_vote_no_supr.php
"Tom Giovanetti, president of the Dallas, Texas based public policy think tank Institute for Policy Innovation envisions a chaotic world as a result of Net Neutrality."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14778336.htm

Your next computer, mobile device purchase and the quietly placed Trusted Platform Module (TPM) for "Trusted" computing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing_Group (also see External Links)

"Is DRM just a consumer rights issue effecting your record collection?"
"Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting..."
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/6/6/4149

The DCMA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56963,00.html

There is no way the telcos and cable companies will manage to control the internet, although they are certainly going to try many many times. There will always be a 16 year old hacker in some far off country that can do it better than anyone at the telcos. Unlike other media, the internet is primarily interactive. We don't just push the "on" button and sit like sloths in front of the television anymore. WE are creating the internet. WE are in control of it. There is no rocket science to the web. Take some computers, which any engineer can now build, and hook them together. That's it. If the companies that create the internet's structure want to stay in business, they will have to make it availble to the biggest market possible, which is everyone.

Hi CalexKitty, I used to believe the same as you, but no longer. Those 16 year old hacker's activities are illegal under the DMCA, marginalising them to the extreme fringe. Any crack or hacking software product they manage to produce to circumnavigate the TPM chip (see links above) are also illegal. The TPM chip prevents you from using "untrusted" software in your computer, mobile phones etc - i.e. software that is not approved and digitally signed by the operating system maker/manufacturer. Stiff penalties far greater than those for violent crimes if you are caught using methods to circumvent the restrictions of your TPM chip further marginalise the base of people with free systems. Of course you will still be able to publish things, I'm sure "WE are creating the internet". Only thanks to net neutrality (lack of), only the fringe who pay extra dollars will actually be able to see your content (or at least see it at workable download speeds). Your content will also carry an "unapproved" stigma, further reducing its reach. The majority who are on the normal payment plan's will be restricted either by speed or other methods to content that has paid to be delivered to their systems.

All these technological and legal steps are about restricting what the majority (everyone!) can do. They are not a future plan, they're already here, just not ubiquitous yet since it takes time both for people to upgrade their computers and handhelds, and time for countries other than the US to be coerced into DMCA type laws first http://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+countries+trade+agreements
You can be sure that a within a few years a law will be proposed to require all computer main board devices to have a TPM chip, once the majority already have them. So yes anyone can build computer devices from parts, but could they press motherboards without TPM chips? With stiff criminal penalties for doing so, would they? The Internet under these conditions approaches towards the more traditional media model's, with a small handful of gatekeepers and content providers and an internet that is no longer a level publishing playing field. Which is why we have the unusual situation like open letters from Google pleading people to take political action - too late it would appear.

I'm just trying to figure out why Rogers trades at 853 times earnings.

Am I missing something there?

Related Canadian article (see DMCA links above): "Michael Geist has an editorial published in the Hill Times, a Canadian political newsweekly, about a secret lobbying campaign by the Canadian Recording Industry Association. The report details how days after the last Canadian election CRIA lobbyists worked with officials to plan an event featuring speakers on the CRIA payroll who are promoting a DMCA for Canada, dozens of government officials from seven departments, an expensive lunch with senior government executives paid for by taxpayers, as well as a private meeting with the Canadian Heritage Minister who is responsible for copyright law."
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/june/12/geist/&c=1