said by klobb :

It's a bad move to share the networks.

said by woody7 :

If I'm not mistaken.....most of the cable companies got special "deals" from the cities that they installed in,easements, no competition, etc.

said by woody7 :

Does include under the table crap?

said by draven :

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that Michael Powell has no idea what the hell he is talking about. I bet someone gets paid good money to take him out of the closet, prop him up and pull the string on his back each morning.

said by fgoldstein :

... among the differences is that cable companies pay a 5% (typical) franchise fee "off the top" to the municipality.

said by fgoldstein :

Stringing your own wire (fiber) is rarely a viable option. BrandX itself actually has strung fiber around its own neighborhood. But in most cities, the poles are crowded, making it extremely costly to add additional lines.

said by pnh102 :

Again, this is simply an issue of private property. Brand X wants to force other companies to grant Brand X access to their private property. The government has no place doing this.

said by VirtualLarry :

which means that the owner has the right to demand concessions,

said by pnh102 :

Well, I have not said that I favored Brand X's position, personally, in their case. I am very much on record as opposing the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' petitions to be treated like cable companies, rather than as common carriers. Brand X argues that cable companies do what common carriers do and should be treated the same way. The ILECs agree, but in the opposite sense -- they want both to be NOT common carriers.

The public interest demands common carriage. It is highly unrealistic to grant "propertarian" rights to common carriers to control what they do with their property. If the ILECs were not regulated, there would be no Internet: It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "foreign attachments", like modems. (Or would you rather be renting a Model 103 300-bps modem for $25/month?) It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "sharing and resale" of its leased lines: Before that rule, they flat-out refused to run leased data circuits between two different corporations, because "private lines" could only be for the exclusive use of one company. Anything else had to go dial-up, paying toll.

Cable companies do pay a franchise fee -- yes, they're allowed to pass it along, which is rational since it's a cost of doing business -- which I suppose ostensibly covers the value of their rights of way. Telcos don't pay that, but do have an obligation of common carriage. Cable companies were not created to carry the Internet -- it's possible that if they were regulated as common carriers, they'd be much less interested in doing it. That's the legal situation in the USA. The Bells claim they need that incentive too, but that's absurd; they're the sole provider of wholesale access to ISPs, and have incredibly valuable plant. Canada, I will note, has different laws, and does impose something like common carriage (wholesale access at regulated rates for any ISP who wants in) on cable modems. If there were no common carriers, even this message board couldn't exist -- who would allow it on *their* wires?

said by fgoldstein :

Why would sharing bandwidth cause the property to deteriorate? "Foreign" bits on the wire would wear out the splices? Gimme a break!

said by CPM :

Powell also repeats his opinion that media indecency complaints have "skyrocketed". Well, if those people want a clean TV show. They should only be watching PBS. Wait, PBS even shows boobies. Well, I guess they should just turn off the (LOL boob tube and read a book.)

said by electric_dsl :

Yet it is okay for Cable and Telcos to have a monopoly and deny access?

said by electric_dsl :

Let me get this straight, it is bad for Microsoft to bundle IE into THEIR OS that THEY PAYED for.

Yet it is okay for Cable and Telcos to have a monopoly and deny access?

So far the cable and telcos in the US have shown that they can get broadband to users on their own.... Oh wait from what I call the US has one of the worst coverages of all first rate nations...

Its okay though because they are look at bringing everyone fibre!!!! Riiiight because they were so succesful running DSL and cable to everyone..

Of course you can play they "we are bigger" card but here in Canada, the SECOND largest country land mass wise in the world, has far better coverage, higher speeds at lower prices, then the states not to mention europe and japan are so far ahead technology wise its scary....

Whats the new execuse?

said by RogerDucky :

Of course, the best compromise between free markets and monopolies would be for a neutral, independent entity to maintain the infrastructure, and allow numerous competitors to lease the exact same infrastructure to service different customers -- not unlike how the electricity "deregulation" happened in Texas.