ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to dadarkside
Re: Summary of interview; as I see it
Au contraire, cable companies LOVE franchise agreements. Those agreements were/are their butress against competition. While they haven't liked providing local access channels and public programing, they have made a killing by having exclusive agreements territorializing the market.
They really don't like the Telcos having unfettered access to what was formally their exclusive domain. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to dadarkside
Don't split hairs. Read what I wrote in context with what insomniac84  wrote.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
dadarkside
Premium
join:2006-05-20
The Moon
| reply to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D :Cable companies already do. It's called franchise agreements  Cable companies don't set these, these are negotiated with the municipality in which the cable company seeks to do business.
In fact, Cable companies dn't LIKE franchise agreements, they are often used as a tool to extract EXTRA services from the cable company. |
|
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL | reply to nekote
There are no deep pockets in the State of Illinois. |
|
nekote
join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA
| reply to DaSneaky1D
Shouldn't the State of Illinois be enforcing state law?
Shouldn't the statue be written (or amended?) in such a way to make that possible?
Why are the cities being sued and spending money for legal defenses, rather than the state?
The state's legal pockets are much deeper and much more comparable to corporate giants.
Do the city governments have to consider deliberately taking some provocative action - say, explicitly granting an un-Level franchise - that would violate the Level Playing Field statute, so as to get their city butts sued by the state for violating the state law?
A round about way to back into getting a Court ruling to enforce the Level Playing Field in a way they actually want?
Just trying to figure another way to skin the cat, so to speak.
--
Government is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | reply to insomniac84
Cable companies already do. It's called franchise agreements |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :I don't think a city government should have the power to force rules on a provider as to who they serve. Why? A city should set whatever rules they want. If they mandate that any company that wants to roll out a new service needs to offer it to everyone, that is there right. The town will either win with companies offering products to everyone, or lose with no companies offering anything because they don't want to offer the product everywhere. In the end, as long as any money can be made if a product is rolled out to every house, the companies will still do it. It's just angers them when a small rural fraction will cost as much to setup as everyone else combined.
Personally I think more towns need to start requiring full deployment by telephone and cable companies. Otherwise the sparse areas will never get service. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | reply to TKJunkMail
Do you feel a city government should enforce Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)]?
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D :Do you believe that AT&T's product is an IP service that happens to serve video? Or, do you believe that AT&T is offering video services that simply uses IP as part of their transport means (in conjunction with their fiber, xDSL, and copper transport)? A rose is a rose... What AT&T is offering is a video service and under current rules should be subject to a franchise agreement with the city. So I don't agree with AT&T's position.
BUT,
and you knew a but was coming right?,
I don't think a city government should have the power to force rules on a provider as to who they serve. So, if and when HR 5252 is passed(it includes national franchise rules), AT&T would owe money to the city, but the city could NOT deny a franchise based on which neighborhoods AT&T chooses to serve.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
