DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Patriot Media
 ·Cingular Wireless
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to DMS1
Re: Good for them
said by DMS1  :This can only be a good thing. Franchise agreements exist to line the government's pockets and keep the old-boy network happy. They have no place in the modern age of multiple providers competing for business. Level the playing field and providers will have to compete on quality of service alone which can only benefit the consumer. Are you out of your mind? Without agreements, we wouldnt have service in our entire towm, internet access, Channel 8, Answer the phone in 3 mins or less. Plus numerous service standards. It wasnt until we had these in our towns agreements did we get them. DSL IPTV just isnt going to cut it, and will have a hard times competing again regular cable.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday... |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| said by DaveNJ :Are you out of your mind? Without agreements, we wouldnt have service in our entire towm, internet access, Channel 8, Answer the phone in 3 mins or less. Plus numerous service standards. It wasnt until we had these in our towns agreements did we get them. DSL IPTV just isnt going to cut it, and will have a hard times competing again regular cable. Governments place isn't to regulate service if there is legitimate competition. Once competition is in place let the people vote with their wallets, not government mandate. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Once competition is established, there is no better way of forcing providers to continually improve service than customers leaving for competitors. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to rahvin112
First, I believe Public Access TV is critical.
There would be no PEG if there were no required franchise agreements.
If you (generic) do not believe the public should have access to the 'airwaves' (so to speak) then maybe you don't have a problem with it's impending death.
I, however, believe Public Access is one small way for the average American to at least have their voice heard. Such access should NOT be for-profit only.
Second, as other posters have stated, franchise fees bring in money to the local governments - no doubt. Is that bad?
Well, if you aren't going to complain about your local goverment either cutting services or increasing taxes if that franchise money is removed from the pot - cool.
But I bet most of all you 'free marketers' will.
KM |
|
Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
edit:
June 10th, @02:00PM
| So why Sat. TV providers don't need franchise agreement and pay local taxes? Last time I checked, I pay $7/month in my cable bill for local tax while my neighbor with DirectTV pay nothing. I'm all for paying tax to help improve local govt services. However I want every one to pay for it not just me. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Patriot Media
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Foxbat121 :So why Sat. TV providers don't need franchise agreement and pay local taxes? Last time I checked, I pay $7/month in my cable bill for local tax while my neighbor with DirectTV pay nothing. I'm all for paying tax to help improve local govt services. However I want every one to pay for it not just me. I think because they dont exist on a local level, they cant have those rules applied, plus they serve an entire community instantly. Most cable companies wont serve an entire town without one. If Verizon does this, they will be alot of chaos resulting.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday... |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Satellite companies do not need to place equipment in the public right-of-way, which is why they don't need a franchise agreement. Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe :First, I believe Public Access TV is critical. There would be no PEG if there were no required franchise agreements. "Public Access" is a joke. It solely benefits various community groups with various political agendas, groups which then use their grassroots power to preserve their gravy train and to support those politicians and cable companies who have "bought" their support with free airtime. It has become part of the "good ol' boy" network, where backs are scratched with votes, money, and airtime. It is worsened by the decisionmakers on who gets choice airtime--usually an unelected, appointed "board" or "commission" of 2nd level political hacks whose sole qualification is that they take direction well from the existing power base.
In a competitive environment, "public access" is no more justified than forcing a newspaper to publish political views.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :Satellite companies do not need to place equipment in the public right-of-way, which is why they don't need a franchise agreement. Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. First, last time my cable company laid cables in my neighborhood, it's the Virginia Dept. Of Transportation in charge of granting them the right to do so. Not local community. I don't about know other states.
Second, I can't understand why paying extra $7/month by me is a compensation to my community. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :... Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. Yes, God forbid that land and rights of way owned by the city and dedicated to public use be used to serve the public without the local hall of lazy bureaucrats getting a cut of the money flow.
(Oh yes--how would you like it if your next UPS delivery will have a $1 surcharge to fund a city "franchise fee" imposed on UPS? I mean, communities would be foolish to grant access to their streets without compensation, right?)
Check and see--what local fees do the electric, phone, water, and gas companies pay? Why should video be the only service to be taxed?
And lets be realistic--if the city collects $100,000 in "franchise fees", do you not think that this is directly passed on to the subscribers? It's a damn tax--call it that.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to calvoiper
Maybe in your area. Around here, it's fun.
There are some political shows, sure. There are also completely non-political shows too! I don't see how stations with such low viewership can seriously effect any political discussion.
One of my favorite "non-politicals" is two local guys with a cooking show. Most every recipe involves beer. They're the first ones I learned about deep-frying an entire turkey for Thanksgiving years ago. Haven't tried it yet, but it was a funny episode.
PEG is a great way for citizens to get some air time - for whatever reason. It doesn't hurt anything, IMO, and is a public benefit. Newspapers have Letters to the Editor and OpEd pages, cable has Public Access. I think it's an important part of any, or at least my, local cable service.
I also agree with JT - communities deserve compensation for access to fast-tracked Rights of Way issues. Not everyone can use them and they must be regulated - compensation is fair.
As it relates to 'taxes' - yeah, I'm sure if cable companies didn't have to pay it, we'd all see reductions in our bills. Cable companies will surely do that...uh-huh.
KM |
|
