Re: Upon further review ... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r12201538 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:41:06 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:41:06 EDT Re: Upon further review ...I agree http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12209613 flushls : If public money was used/or a monopoly granted for construction or deployment there should be sharing obligations.
However if it was constructed entirely with private capital there should be under no terms any sharing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12209613 Sat, 25 Dec 2004 02:40:24 EDT Re: Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12201884 imrf :
said by woody7 See Profile:

Does include under the table crap?
They should, everything must be disclosed in the franchise agreement since those documents are made public. If there are any "behind the doors" extras and they are found out the city could wind up in court. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12201884 Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:04:47 EDT Re: Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12201538 woody7 : Does include under the table crap?
--
BlooMe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12201538 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:08:11 EDT Re: Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12200714 imrf :
said by woody7 See Profile:

If I'm not mistaken.....most of the cable companies got special "deals" from the cities that they installed in,easements, no competition, etc.
No, exclusive franchise agreements between a single cable company and a city/township is illegal. The only exclusivity option is for condos and apartment complexes and the like. They are allowed to block any or all cable companies, but a city must allow a cable company must be allowed to build a network if the cable company agrees with the terms that the city wants(price per pole for right-of-way charges).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12200714 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:13:51 EDT Re: Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12196220 nasadude :
said by draven See Profile:

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that Michael Powell has no idea what the hell he is talking about. I bet someone gets paid good money to take him out of the closet, prop him up and pull the string on his back each morning.
I think you underestimate Mikey; I think he knows exactly what he is doing and he doesn't give a rat's @ss how it affects consumers. He is looking after his patrons: big media, cable and telecommunications.

After he resigns (please let it be soon), look for Mikey to get a sweet, really high paying job in one of the industries he was regulating.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12196220 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:47:04 EDT Re: Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195813 woody7 : If I'm not mistaken.....most of the cable companies got special "deals" from the cities that they installed in,easements, no competition, etc....to me that amounts to a handout.....to me VOIP constitutes being a "telecomuncation", don't you have to use a "phone" to talk...or is it considered a "voip" unit....don't get me wrong, I'm all for less control, for the right reasons....I believe the telcos are behind this,as they want to be even more unregulated...as a California resident I know first hand what un (de) regulation means....Higher un justified prices....(electricity) and no I'm not a "liberal" kind of a centrist...son no bashing...may be this will scare them into lower their prices....JMT
--
BlooMe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195813 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:52:54 EDT Re: Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195580 macaholic : actually lets add one caveat. If the company that put those lines in by applying for or using public moneys (ie. tax inititiatives, subsidies, government loans) then they should share those lines as the government see fit. If they used private funding then they should not be required to share there lines...

in this case it works in favor of the cable companies and against the telcos who used public funding to build there infrastructure and then proceeded to try to rape the public with it.

Ben]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195580 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:19:45 EDT Re: Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195238 Mizfit : Agreed upon completely on him having no idea. I believe lowering the hassles of receiving permissions to run new lines and making municipal and community contracts illegal is the key to a healthy competition. Not letting someone just come in and use the lines, while not having to spend to build it, but also not letting one cable company monopolize an area.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195238 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:31:17 EDT Upon further review ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195216 draven : I came to the conclusion a long time ago that Michael Powell has no idea what the hell he is talking about. I bet someone gets paid good money to take him out of the closet, prop him up and pull the string on his back each morning.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12195216 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:26:24 EDT