[2137] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Regulation versus competition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sean mclinden)
Tue Jan 28 07:45:59 1992
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 07:30:35 -0500
From: sean@dsl.pitt.edu (sean mclinden)
To: com-priv@psi.com
An interesting article appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal which
discussed the hardball tactics of TCI, Inc., and their grip on the cable
TV market.
The implications for regulation and competition are complex (since, in many
cases, cable was assured a monopoly by local municipalities who believed that
the system would, otherwise, not be built). But more important is the role
that TCI has taken in trying to influence local politics and elections.
Of course, I don't expect the Wall Street Journal to be unbiased. But I
find it interesting that the print media has apparently joined forces with
the cable industry in order to fight the entrance of the Baby Bells into
information services given that cable, rather than the RBOCs, are the most
likely source of competition.
The article cited a disturbing scenario. It appears that the mayor and city
council of Morgantown, N.C. (pop 28,000) decided that they had had enough of
TCI were considering a city-owned cable franchise. TCI responded by suing
the city, starting a "citizen's" group, and campaigning against the mayor
and councilman contributing a total of $144,000 to the anti-encumbent
campaign (the Journal states that the candidates, themselves, spent $400 and
$600 dollars). They were re-elected. But one wonders if the same would
have happened in a larger city where the election issue was less personal.
I point this out only because an interesting situation is created when the
person who owns the wire also gets to say what goes out over it, and what
doesn't. And when they make such a service profitable, and are allowed to
invest their profits in the political process...
Sean McLinden
