|
Sunday, 28 February 2010 17:16 |
I asked the chairman for any data that refutes:
- 100 squared is no more than we'd get without the plan (Cable's building anyway)
- The incremental wired homes passed should be 2% +- 2%
- There may or may not be 1-3% more homes reached with new cell towers, etc. but no specifics so far
- Affordability: no reason to believe the plan will significantly bring down prices.
- Affordability for the poor: Except for a small fraction reached by "lifeline" and computer subsidies, I see little real improvement. Lifeline is probably back of the bus slow, although I have no firm information. With connections - as well as ongoing company price increases - the average price to the poorest third of families may well go up, even net of lifeline. I certainly don't see a large fall.
- Take rate, wireline. If affordability is not improved, I see nothing else in sight with solid evidence it significantly increases take rate. (All the "demand side" analysis is interesting, but nothing is shown to do anything about it.)
- Take rate, wireless, 90% is less than I would guess from ordinary cellphone usage and the likelihood that nearly all cellphones by 2020 will have IP built in.
From which I would draw the conclusion that the plan does so little to increase broadband that the promised benefits will not be realized because of the plan
---------
To which I want to add, based on my analysis over the weekend, that the plan apparently continues to subsidize many carriers beyond the 11% rate of return that Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein could have achieved in 2008. I recognize some of that is undecided, which to me is even more reason to bring the possible high rates of return to the table. |
