SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Franchise reform good...
...but the FCC talking about a cozy duopoly is sheer hypocrisy. The FCC were the ones that created the environment in the first place. Allowing exclusive franchises in the cable industry pretty much killed competition in that market. I still say there should be a neutral infrastructure that providers can lease to. This would eliminate the need for any of this.
I still say local franchises are good, and adding some regulation to make sure the municipalities don't abuse that is even better. We'll have to wait and see if this reform ends up being good for the customer, or just good for the telcos. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| But...
isn't it nice? I mean, AT&T and Verizon use the costs as writeoffs (to take from the slush fund of all those useless surcharges and regulatory fees we pay).
I wonder if they put a big logo in the bottom of the pool. "Can you hear me drown?"  |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to SRFireside
Re: Franchise reform good...
I think this is good that the FCC is giving some love to Teleco TV, but now I'm waiting for more deployment to see how the prices will compare to what I'm paying.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Eliminating local franchises eliminates local pol graft
Getting rid of local franchise agreements eliminates 1 more source of graft - the local politicians. And if we can get rid of state franchises and substitute national franchises( a bill is still waiting in Congress), we can get rid of state graft too. Paying off a lot less pols(only national ones then) should result in a faster rollout and lower costs due to less graft and payoffs.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| You make a valid point, when it comes to greedy local politicians and franchise agreements, but...
I would sure as hell rather see my franchise tax go to my local municipality, where I can show up to the township meetings (and I do) and gripe about how the people who are spending the money (the township supervisors) are spending it.
With a national franchise, all that money goes to DC. It's just another drop in the bucket for them. More cash to study the mating habits of the duck billed cockroach, or to build a bridge to nowhere....
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| Local Franchise = Mob
The local franchising scheme is one of the most openly conducted government shakedown schemes ever conceived. In places like Pittsburgh PA the local Democrat political machine has been able to block Verizon from deploying any of their fiber service, a newly constructed facility sits empty as the city proper is being ringed with these services... City politicians are so utterly beholden to Comcast that left to them there will NEVER be competition in their region. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to N3OGH
Re: Eliminating local franchises eliminates local pol graft
said by N3OGH  :You make a valid point, when it comes to greedy local politicians and franchise agreements, but... I would sure as hell rather see my franchise tax go to my local municipality, where I can show up to the township meetings (and I do) and gripe about how the people who are spending the money (the township supervisors) are spending it. With a national franchise, all that money goes to DC. It's just another drop in the bucket for them. More cash to study the mating habits of the duck billed cockroach, or to build a bridge to nowhere.... They're gonna do that shit anyway. Woulnd't you rather see the possibility of competition?
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
"Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic." -- Bruce Schneier |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :You make a valid point, when it comes to greedy local politicians and franchise agreements, but... I would sure as hell rather see my franchise tax go to my local municipality, where I can show up to the township meetings (and I do) and gripe about how the people who are spending the money (the township supervisors) are spending it. With a national franchise, all that money goes to DC. It's just another drop in the bucket for them. More cash to study the mating habits of the duck billed cockroach, or to build a bridge to nowhere.... Actually the national law in Congress sets aside 5% of franchise tax to go to the local community. The money doesn't go back to Washington,DC. Then the local community can do with it as they see fit.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | reply to yock
said by yock They're gonna do that shit anyway. Woulnd't you rather see the possibility of competition? That's essentially my take on this. I really don't care where the money goes, since it's going to go "somewhere," as long as deployment can be accelerated.
Adam |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Getting rid of local franchise agreements eliminates 1 more source of graft - the local politicians. And if we can get rid of state franchises and substitute national franchises( a bill is still waiting in Congress), we can get rid of state graft too. Paying off a lot less pols(only national ones then) should result in a faster rollout and lower costs due to less graft and payoffs. Riiiiiiiight. This will directly lead to more deployment. (rolls eyes)
Maybe the local muni's in NJ are how you describe them, but I take great umbrage to others deciding, through legislation, that all muni's are greedy and corrupt. Like broadband penetration, everyone assumes since they have it bad, well everyone must have it bad. (or vice versa) This is not the case here, so why should I go along with this assumption?
I'm certain if you polled the entire nation about their local governments, you may be surpised to find most are satisfied with the services they receive from them. And franchise fees help make that happen-without raising taxes. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | Franchising fees do help subsidize local government, but it is at the cost of competition. Tell me how it's in your best interest as a consumer that the government is essentially profiting off of your lack of choice in providers. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Getting rid of local franchise agreements eliminates 1 more source of graft - the local politicians. And if we can get rid of state franchises and substitute national franchises( a bill is still waiting in Congress), we can get rid of state graft too. Paying off a lot less pols(only national ones then) should result in a faster rollout and lower costs due to less graft and payoffs. Yeah, and then all the consumer protections offered by franchise agreements will be lost, there will be NO local access content (school channels, government announcement channels, EOC channels, etc.) and there is no way you can complain when the provider fails to hold up their end of the franchise agreement. The creation of national franchise agreements clearly puts all of the power into the hands of the provider and leaves the consumer with nothing.
As for your assertion that the providers will spend less time greasing palms... You clearly need to get a dose of reality. The politicians in DC are the neediest bunch of beggars in the political pipeline.
--
Prove it... |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to yock
said by yock :Franchising fees do help subsidize local government, but it is at the cost of competition. Tell me how it's in your best interest as a consumer that the government is essentially profiting off of your lack of choice in providers. How is this at the cost of competition? We're just talking about fees. This has little to do with actual deployment. The problem is abuse of the local franchises. If you fix that there is no need for state and federal franchising. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to TKJunkMail
If that's the case, then I support it.... |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : Actually the national law in Congress sets aside 5% of franchise tax to go to the local community. The money doesn't go back to Washington,DC. Then the local community can do with it as they see fit. 5% seems like a paltry sum, especially if a local community takes in much more from the local franchise fees. Plus what happens to local programming? State and federal franchises give little incentive for providers to cater to the actual local community. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to yock
Yeah, the competition is to see who can pay the biggest bribe to lock everyone else out. What is the difference between that and some of the local franchises? I would rather have the local franchise to keep the money local to be wasted locally, not for some fat cat in DC to waste it on something I will never see like a study on how steak and lobster in the private politicians club in DC for a below cost price at taxpayer's expense is good for America. (Wait, they do not do a study, they just take the money and go eat)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to UncleDirtNap
Re: Local Franchise = Mob
said by UncleDirtNap : City politicians are so utterly beholden to Comcast that left to them there will NEVER be competition in their region. If that is true, why do you not vote them out? That happened in a city here, the mayor was a rubber stamp for the builders, so they elected a new mayor (a non-politician even, one of my co-workers).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| ???
Do you want to pay:
Satellite co: $49.99
Cable co: $50.00
Bell: $49.98
for your TV? In the end the prices are roughly the same, as FiOS TV people are learning with the first rate hike.
Blame the channel owners - they are the ones responsible for most of your TV bill. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to yock
Re: Eliminating local franchises eliminates local pol graft
said by yock :Franchising fees do help subsidize local government, but it is at the cost of competition. Tell me how it's in your best interest as a consumer that the government is essentially profiting off of your lack of choice in providers. Franchise agreements can no longer be exclusive... Therefore, franchise agreements can not longer prevent competition.
--
Prove it... |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| said by bmn :said by yock :Franchising fees do help subsidize local government, but it is at the cost of competition. Tell me how it's in your best interest as a consumer that the government is essentially profiting off of your lack of choice in providers. Franchise agreements can no longer be exclusive... Therefore, franchise agreements can not longer prevent competition. Were the existing excludive agreements nullified by this?
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
"Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic." -- Bruce Schneier |
|
