Cat Food
@cox.net
| Don't Need Franchise Agreements anymore
Franchise agreements were originally established because of physical limitiations. I.e., municipalities couldn't have 100 companies stringing lines through town because they didn't have enough space and/or right-of-way and cable co.s weren't going to invest to do it unless they had exclusivity via a franchise. With satellite, fiber, dsl and cable all capable of delivering TV, infrastructure constraints aren't an issue anymore and so franchise agreements are obsolete. I say let the market run. |
|
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| said by Cat Food:
Franchise agreements were originally established because of physical limitations. I.e., municipalities couldn't have 100 companies stringing lines through town because they didn't have enough space and/or right-of-way and cable co.s weren't going to invest to do it unless they had exclusivity via a franchise. With satellite, fiber, dsl and cable all capable of delivering TV, infrastructure constraints aren't an issue anymore and so franchise agreements are obsolete. I say let the market run.
Ditto.:D
--
Firefox forever!
»zoom314.blogspot.com/
»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ |
|
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| reply to Cat Food
said by Cat Food:
With satellite, fiber, dsl and cable all capable of delivering TV, infrastructure constraints aren't an issue anymore and so franchise agreements are obsolete. I say let the market run.
How do you figure that infrastructure isn't an issue anymore? The only technology in your list that doesn't require last-mile infrastructure is satellite. |
|
visguy
join:2005-04-28
Wichita Falls, TX | The infrastructure is already there (telephone lines). If cable can sell telephone services without the regs that telcos have to follow, why should telco have to follow cable regs? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by visguy  :The infrastructure is already there (telephone lines). If cable can sell telephone services without the regs that telcos have to follow, why should telco have to follow cable regs? Copper won't do it. Fiber will need to be run and that will entail digging everything back up and putting it back in the ground. |
|
Fatal Vector
@aol.com
|
Really? Why is that? It's not like fiber cant be strung from poles just like wires and I'll bet you'll find that the fiber backbone allready exists underground in mant metro areas, which is, of course, what carries signals, voice, etc from CO to CO, etc. The only copper is from the CO to the subscribers home in such a case.
The reason they are burying fiber in many places is because local regulations require utilities to be buried on new construction. They cant do this in metro areas and SBC allready has access to the same poles that the cable company uses. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :said by visguy :The infrastructure is already there (telephone lines). If cable can sell telephone services without the regs that telcos have to follow, why should telco have to follow cable regs? Copper won't do it. Fiber will need to be run and that will entail digging everything back up and putting it back in the ground. Not a 100% true.. in many places, there are conduits in the ground - a simple pull of a new wire through existing conduits would avoid tearing up the streets in many cases. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Understood, but this is not the case everywhere. There are still many places that will need to have fiber buried.
Conduits for wiring is a relatively new idea. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Hey.. I have been called to the carpet many times for making blanket statements... just keeping up with the spirit of the BBR way. |
|
