packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
3 edits | What?
I want to the the MPAA up there a#$ like they were the last pirate. This is Disgusting. This will be interesting to see if they actually get away with it.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
grapkoski
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Washington, DC
| I think your extreme bias towards Cablevision shines through here, but anyways I honestly don't see the problem of Verizon, SBC or any phone company who want to use their EXISTING franchise agreements for video, if cable companies use their for telephones. Competition is what this country was based on and I think the cable companies deserve a good land based competitor. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Additionally, this isn't an MPAA issue--SBC is refusing to sign FRANCHISE agreements with local bureaucracies.
This is quite different from the LICENSING agreements they will have separately signed with the content producers represented by MPAA
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
oneagreement
@verizon.n
| reply to packetscan
There should be ONE agreement per carrier who delivers last mile telecommunications services. As companies decide to get into each others market (ie telcos doing video, cablecos doing voip- Its the last mile "WIRE" that is at issue, not how many services are delivered over it.. If you want these two entities to compete: cablecos and telcos, then you'd better make it a streamlined process.. ONE (or none) franchise per provider. BUT, telcos must CHOOSE one pipeline, copper or fiber (TO THE HOME, not both), they can't be a permanent dual network, such as Verizon is now.. otherwise its like having it both ways, making dual revenue off of copper and fiber! I don't think telcos would like it if cablecos ran a separate and distinct network for just data and voice elements, which would trounce the current fiber rollout under the same terms (by reason of all that unleashed video spectrum) Albeit unnecessary as docsis 3.0 rolls out..
There needs to be an equitable balance between franchise fees and the amount of regulation on the services.. for example-- there are a load of crap taxes and fees on POTS service that need to be axed for telcos to compete..
Right now, I'd say that the taxes paid by telcos far outweighs the taxes paid by the cable companies (with last mile wires) Until this changes or becomes more equitable, video as currently delivered, is NOT profitable for telcos unless they just tell the franchise authorities to go to hell...
Personally, I think they get WAY too much from cell phone subscribers (greedy bastard$), last I heard that was 200+million of them!!!!!
Ultimately (if properly coerced, carrot and stick, like verizon's doing with fiber rollouts) when you precondition the costs saving being passed on to consumers (not a fleecing like in pennsylvania), its a win-win situation and competition can take place! |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to grapkoski
My Extreme Bios to Cablevision? Where did i write that?
graposki:
I don't want to see any company not pay their fare share.
This is the equivalent of Mobil deciding they no longer need there pump stations and will deliver to your home.
calvioper:
How is an mpaa issue? Why let someone get something for nothing, off your back? Eg SBC doesn't pay there fare share and in the long run Rolls the customer over. Since now the Town isn't getting the tax revenue therefore making your taxes higher. Where did you think the franchise fee's went?
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
