winky
Turn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Similar to Business as Usual
Indeed. This is one instance where SBC and I agree. What reason is there for a franchise, except to allow the parties involved, a method by which to protect their investment. Allowing a cable company a reasonable expectation to recoup their investment in an area and a governing body to make commercial services available to their constituents in such a manner as to protect the consumer. This begs the question: What will SBC receive from the franchising body? The answer of course is, nothing. No access rights, easements, or tax incentives that aren't already in place. Consequently if SBC receives nothing, where is the leverage to force it into a franchise agreement? How does adding a "feature" to an existing service make you a completely different enterprise? It doesn't of course unless you view the situation from the cable industry's perspective. The cable companies have a point of course. Being under their respective franchise agreements, they may face restrictions that SBC would avoid, but that's not SBC's problem because they're not receiving the consequent benefits the cable companies are. SBC may seem like the good guy in all of this, and in this case I feel that they are. Unfortunately SBC has used the same apples to oranges comparisons to battle the cable companies in their quest to offer data and voice services. Both industries would like you to think that their focus is you, the consumer, and that bringing better and more varied services is their goal, which it is, as long as you fall on the plus side of their bottom lines. Suffice to say, neither industry is looking out for the individual consumer, or the advancement of entertainment/communications in the country, and will not hesitate to malign each other at the first opportunity over injustices; be they real, perceived, or fabricated. We can only hope that eventually, in the end, it's the consumer that receives the benefit of better services at a fair price, When?, you may ask, will this happen? Perhaps it will only be after the FTC steps in and clarifies a few things, which is oh so long overdue. For now though, a good start would be for someone to step in and put these fussy toddlers down for a nap or an extended "time out" while mommy and daddy discuss a few parenting guidelines, until then it's pandemonium at the entertainment/communication household.
--
If you can break it,I can fix it.Of course, It'll cost ya' |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Franchise authorities should go the way side the same way out door antennas are.
The FCC should once and for all classify any provider that delivers void, video, an/or data as "broadband" providers and level the playing field. Eventually they will all use similar technogies like IPTV and VOIP to deliver services anyway.. the only thing that will divide these providers is the cable strung to deliver the services.
Maybe ALL companies should negotiate with an LFA, or they don't do it at all and they do in fact deal at the state level.
However, our law makers are not that bright in the first place and will continue to confuse the situation which will further delay advancements in technology - then claim they need to run muni systems because they can do it better. |
