Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Interview: Fighting AT&T » Summary of interview; as I see it
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Why is ATT even bothering? »
« who cares?  
AuthorAll Replies


insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

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
Cable companies already do. It's called franchise agreements

dadarkside
Premium
join:2006-05-20
The Moon

said by DaSneaky1D See Profile :

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.


DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline

Don't split hairs. Read what I wrote in context with what insomniac84 See Profile wrote.
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::

ross

join:2000-08-16
·Digizip

reply to dadarkside
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.
Forums » Interview: Fighting AT&TWhy is ATT even bothering? »
« who cares?  


Monday, 09-Nov 07:03:24 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [156] Cable Uncapper Faces Criminal Charges
· [140] AT&T Sues Verizon Over 3G Ads
· [112] Why Run Fiber When You Can Run Ads That Pretend You Do?
· [109] Comcast Is Simply Getting Huge
· [93] Apple Cooking Up New $30 A Month TV Service?
· [83] Bits Of ACTA Agreement Leaking Out
· [80] Will 'Three Strikes' Come To The United States?
· [78] Verizon To Double Smartphone ETFs?
· [77] Verizon: Droid Tethering Will Cost $30 Extra
· [73] Comcast, NBC Deal Almost Complete
Most people now reading
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Framed for child porn 151; by a PC virus [Security]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· [WIN7] Which Services in Win 7 Have You Turned Off? [Microsoft Help]
· Divorce advice... [General Questions]
· Connecting to Google Voice Via SIP [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Security Software Updates - 09 Nov 2009 [Security]
· [Rant] Brand New 'Jasper' Xbox360 - RRoD Hardware Failure [Rants, Raves, and Praise]
· Linux iso download appreciation day [TekSavvy]
· Anti Virus Program? Tried Avast-Looking For Better Program [Security]