russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Franchise = graft
Franchise agreements aren't agreements that often benefit the community that signs them. Rather, they're a perfect example of legal graft. The politicians benefit, the cable company benefits (through the usually-exclusive franchise), and the customers lose through lack of competition. What's the "community" get? A few community channels on the cable system. Or, in Philadelphia, an agreement for a few community channels which the cable company doesn't bother fulfilling. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | That's the fault of lazy and greedy politicians who lack integrity, not the fault of the franchise agreement. Often those agreements are the only leverage communities have when debating deployment issues..... |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| An agreement is always blameless - it's words on a peace of paper. But an agreement is only as good as the people that enter it, and if it happens to be politicians and cable companies it ends up like above. So to me it doesn't seem like more franchise agreements among some dishonest hacks is the answer... |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | If the bridge sucks, I blame the engineers....not the bridge. If that's what you're saying, I agree.
That doesn't mean bridges don't have a function, which seems to be your next jump.... |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to russotto
said by russotto  :The politicians benefit, the cable company benefits (through the usually-exclusive franchise), and the customers lose through lack of competition. Cable franchise agreements by law cannot be exclusive.
The only way franchise agreements discourage competition is by requiring the same requirements of all providers (thus creating an extra cost barrier that is actually passed through to the consumer anyway).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | reply to Karl Bode
If politicians were the only ones that could build bridges me thinks we'd all be taking ferries. |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| reply to marigolds
Correct - the problem for Verizon is that they want to wriggle out of the clauses that mean they have to provide universal. coverage. At present they haven't figured out how to service multi unit dwellings, or at the very least the technology is still being tested. So in almost all the towns they are deployed in, deployment of IPTV is prevented by their lack of universal coverage.
noz |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | reply to marigolds
Massachusetts has plenty of exclusive franchise agreements. In fact, only one Massachusetts town (Wakefield) has more than one cable company operating. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Federal law prohibits exclusive cable franchises.
Just because there is only one cable company in a town does not mean the company has an exclusive franchise. It just means that no other company thinks it would be profitable to create an overbuild in that city.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | You're right, I should have done more research on the subject before posting. I've found the relevant info on the mass.gov website. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to russotto
The agreements may not be exclusive de jure, but they are typically exclusive de facto; any competing provider trying to get a franchise gets a cold shoulder from the local politicians, in most cases. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to russotto
That is not true at all in my experience as a cable regulator. There is no reason for local politicians to give potential competition the cold shoulder. Instead, the people responsible for franchise oversight are often actively recruiting competing companies. And it's worse than pulling teeth. You can end up spending all of that money to negotiate a franchise and have a vote on it, even put up the money for the vote, and then have the company not sign the agreement.
We already had that happen twice around here. Everything was all set on our end and the company backed out at the last minute and would not sign the deal.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to russotto
Around here, in Comcast territory, RCN (before it went under) was actively attempting to obtain franchises. At the active urging of Comcast (based in Philadelphia), they were denied everywhere they went. |
|
