and I have no idea what TV broadcasters and fiberoptic broadband have to do with eachother... they're entirely different industries. Comcast and Time Warner don't use TV airways--that's why they call it "cable".
The spectrum giveaway to broadcasters was predicated on 'Universal Service' being supplied by telecom companies.[1] That digital TV spectrum would be immensely valuable for wireless communication today, so it should absolutely be considered a subsidy as a result of the Telecom Act.
The more direct subsidies come from many other places. A good place to start is the Universal Service Fund[2]. Every landline bill, every cable bill, every mobile phone bill has a line item for "Universal Service" on it. These funds are collected from consumers then 'disbursed' to companies for them to provide service extensions. This has been happening since 1997. They've disbursed over $80B back to telecom companies as part of the telecom act, the GAO isn't too impressed with how it was being spent.[3] Besides the direct subsidies, they got favorable depreciation schedules, and tax relief.
The oddly interesting Robert Cringely did a special for PBS on the mess, which is probably the origin of the $200B number[4]:
Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited
from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation
on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per
subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms
of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it.
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
[3] - http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ere...
[4] - http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...
edit: read the article he linked before you downvote me... I'm right, he posted somethign that had nothing to do with the discussion...
The spectrum giveaway to broadcasters was predicated on 'Universal Service' being supplied by telecom companies.[1] That digital TV spectrum would be immensely valuable for wireless communication today, so it should absolutely be considered a subsidy as a result of the Telecom Act.
The more direct subsidies come from many other places. A good place to start is the Universal Service Fund[2]. Every landline bill, every cable bill, every mobile phone bill has a line item for "Universal Service" on it. These funds are collected from consumers then 'disbursed' to companies for them to provide service extensions. This has been happening since 1997. They've disbursed over $80B back to telecom companies as part of the telecom act, the GAO isn't too impressed with how it was being spent.[3] Besides the direct subsidies, they got favorable depreciation schedules, and tax relief.
The oddly interesting Robert Cringely did a special for PBS on the mess, which is probably the origin of the $200B number[4]:
Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited
from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation
on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per
subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms
of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it.
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
[3] - http://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ere...
[4] - http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...
In 2008, as part of the digital transition, 52 MHz in the 700-band were auctioned off for $19B. The telcos were gifted 295mhz of spectrum for the digital expansion when they agreed to invest in broadband. Even if it's only half as valuable as that 52 MHz allotment, simple math indicates a value of over $400B.
LA Times article from the era making the same point (valuing the spectrum at $70B at the time) -- http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/07/local/me-51464