Mizfit
join:2002-06-05
Whitehall, PA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·ProLog
1 edit | Re: Upon further review ... 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. | |
|
 macaholic
Premium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
| Re: Upon further review ... 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 | |
|
 | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Upon further review ... 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 | |
|
| | 
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Upon further review ... said by 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. 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). | |
|
| | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: Upon further review ... Does include under the table crap?
--
BlooMe | |
|
| | | |
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Upon further review ... said by woody7 :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. | |
|
| flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA | Re: Upon further review ...I agree 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. | |
|
|
|
|
