insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Re: Summary of interview; as I see it 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 | Re: Summary of interview; as I see it Cable companies already do. It's called franchise agreements  | |
|
 | dadarkside
Premium
join:2006-05-20
The Moon
| Re: Summary of interview; as I see it 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. | |
|
| | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| 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. | |
|
|
|
|
·