Re: Statewide Franchises in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r13539377 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:14:15 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:14:15 EDT Re: Statewide Franchises http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13540053 imrf :
said by GhostDoggy See Profile:

I agree, its is all about paperwork. But that is only the initial process. What happens when those small townships start asking for unconventional conditions--which has been illustrated before on DSLR before as example is extreme requests.
That's part of the game in getting cable tv franchises. If Verizon and SBC can't play the game properly, then don't play at all.

A simplification of the process would benefit everyone, not just phone companies diversifying.
Sure, but then the state would also have to give the cable companies the same opportunity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13540053 Tue, 31 May 2005 12:47:42 EDT Re: Statewide Franchises http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13539903 GhostDoggy : I agree, its is all about paperwork. But that is only the initial process. What happens when those small townships start asking for unconventional conditions--which has been illustrated before on DSLR before as example is extreme requests.

A simplification of the process would benefit everyone, not just phone companies diversifying.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13539903 Tue, 31 May 2005 12:28:41 EDT Re: Statewide Franchises http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13539377 SRFireside : Regulations that the Bells have to adhere to are the ones they AGREED to have. Not only agreed, but even pushed for it (albeit for ulterior motives). At least the ones they complain so much about. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13539377 Tue, 31 May 2005 11:16:23 EDT Re: Statewide Franchises http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13539202 imrf : That's the governments fault, they labeled cable as an information service, not a telecommunications service.

I am glad that they so far haven't been give state-wide franchise agreement. It won't be any slower getting local agreements vs. a state-wide one, since they only has service active in a handful of cities. They just need to get off their butts and send out their proposals.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13539202 Tue, 31 May 2005 10:39:42 EDT Re: Statewide Franchises http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13538931 GhostDoggy : Yeah, and when cable entered the telephony market without restraints that were placed on the phone companies you had no problems with that unfair advantage.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13538931 Tue, 31 May 2005 09:44:58 EDT Re: Statewide Franchises http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13538882 DaveNJ : We waited this long, why rush in and loose a something as benefical as franchise agreements. I would rather a service agreement, then not. Plus i dont want them cherrypicking areas, if they cant compete with cable, maybe they should just admit it.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13538882 Tue, 31 May 2005 09:36:04 EDT Statewide Franchises http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13538858 PeterCollins : I guess one of the biggest problems I see with this type of push would be the ability of the Cities to actually get the franchise fees from the State.

I can just see a Governor deciding to seize franchise fees to help balance a state budget or something similar.

I also think that having to deal with each city may keep them (cable & phone cos) a little more honest. They can't just buy off the state house and senate, as they've tried to do with the anti-muni and dereg bills.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13538858 Tue, 31 May 2005 09:32:28 EDT