| Oh My What was that old saying? Be careful what you wish for?
People need to remember this is big business, they are not your buddy. The local franchises benefit consumers. Now VZ can pick and choose which areas to install.
This just goes with the way Americans are today, they want what they want NOW. Instead of waiting a little longer for better benefits, they sacrifice them just for the chance THEY might get it faster. Screw the people who can't, at least I got it-attitude.
One word comes to mind - SHEEPLE! |
|
|
|
donkc1
join:2000-06-17
Haskell, NJ | How long do you want people to wait. They have been screwed by the local cable companies for years with ever increasing rates, and all the other BS they fed out when there wasn't anyone else to compete with. |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity:The local franchises benefit consumers. Now VZ can pick and choose which areas to install. And what benefits might those be? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that franchise agreements provided were virtual monopolies. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity:The local franchises benefit consumers. I get no benefits from Cablevision. Unless you count ever-increasing rates as a benefit. And a whopping 70 channels for $48 per month.
--
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
» George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 |
|
| reply to LeftOfSanity
Re: Oh My Apparently you've never heard of the power of choice/competition. Let me guess...you were one of the sheep who fell for those "Verizon Cable Tax" ads put out by Comcast? |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua:And what benefits might those be? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that franchise agreements provided were virtual monopolies. - Local (your) control of right of ways
- Some measure and enforcement of service standards (no state has the manpower to do this)
- Revenue that now has to be taken from somewhere else (you'll see)
- Local cable access that provided channels to the public, government, and schools
- Company-provided networks for cities and schools that are used for things like public safety and lowered telecom/data costs
These are just a few of the items. Also, under current federal law cities can't grant cable monopolies, and in many cities, there is a clear process for competitors to come in and offer service. The reason why more haven't? Cost, plain and simple. It's very expensive to roll out these networks, and having a local or state franchise is not going to significantly change that. All NJ has done is speed up deployment maybe a few months at best. What about in 5-10 years when consumers and cities are being screwed and nothing can be done? Where is the long-term thinking here? |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to tqhoang
said by tqhoang:Apparently you've never heard of the power of choice/competition. Let me guess...you were one of the sheep who fell for those "Verizon Cable Tax" ads put out by Comcast? So you think it's right to give away millions to the telcos just because they don't like the rules? They had the ability to come in and offer services before; they just didn't want the hassle. Several cities around the country have competing cable outfits right now under the 'old' rules...consumers are paying less there AND they have some measure of protection/control. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to jslik
Revenue and local cable access/networks are still provided for in the state franchise. Control of right of ways SHOULD be a state matter, like state highways. Service standards are less important because there will now be two competitors to switch between, so you can let your wallet speak about standards.
What does it do:
- Reduce lawyer fees and thus costs that, of course, are passed on to customers.
- Create a standard for other competitors to enter the market.
Personally I think each community should build their own fiber network, like Utopia, and allow 3rd parties to bid to provide service on it. I know of a few which are doing just that. I've already warned some of them not to publicize it, so as not to be targeted by cable/bell lawyers. |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by Ahrenl:Revenue and local cable access/networks are still provided for in the state franchise. Control of right of ways SHOULD be a state matter, like state highways. All right of ways? So what role should cities have? Do you support statewide zoning too? Why can't local folks have some say over THEIR right of ways? Do you really want somebody on the other side of the state telling you what you can do?
Service standards are less important because there will now be two competitors to switch between, so you can let your wallet speak about standards. You're assuming that there will always be two competitors. I can easily foresee Verizon having half-built systems out there and then their stockholders pulling the plug, so you're stuck with no real alternatives.
What does it do:
- Reduce lawyer fees and thus costs that, of course, are passed on to customers.
- Create a standard for other competitors to enter the market. If you think there's going to be less litigation with statewide franchises, well, that's your opinion. The only relief anyone will have in a state franchise is the courts. As far as standards, cities had a standard with their existing cable franchise as a starting point for any new provider.
Personally I think each community should build their own fiber network, like Utopia, and allow 3rd parties to bid to provide service on it. I know of a few which are doing just that. Yes, but I would argue that company-provided networks are cheaper (as it happens concurrently with upgrade/deployment that the company is already doing) to build, so the cost to the taxpayers is less, and they get nearly the same thing. |
|
| reply to tqhoang
said by tqhoang:Apparently you've never heard of the power of choice/competition. Let me guess...you were one of the sheep who fell for those "Verizon Cable Tax" ads put out by Comcast? Actually, i never heard/saw the ad your referring to. And no, I wouldn't sacrifice others broadband availability just so I could have it sooner.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to jslik
said by jslik:said by Ahrenl:Revenue and local cable access/networks are still provided for in the state franchise. Control of right of ways SHOULD be a state matter, like state highways. All right of ways? So what role should cities have? Do you support statewide zoning too? Why can't local folks have some say over THEIR right of ways? Do you really want somebody on the other side of the state telling you what you can do? Any "right of ways" that extend beyond their jurisdiction. (ie. Information, electrical, energy systems. Possibly sewer and water if on a shared network with other cities/towns)
said by jslik:Service standards are less important because there will now be two competitors to switch between, so you can let your wallet speak about standards. You're assuming that there will always be two competitors. I can easily foresee Verizon having half-built systems out there and then their stockholders pulling the plug, so you're stuck with no real alternatives. Ahh, but with less barriers to entry, other competitors can join the fray. With the current system, even a multi-global-bigillion dollar monopoly has difficultly entered the market. You wonder why there are no competitors?
said by jslik:What does it do:
- Reduce lawyer fees and thus costs that, of course, are passed on to customers.
- Create a standard for other competitors to enter the market. If you think there's going to be less litigation with statewide franchises, well, that's your opinion. The only relief anyone will have in a state franchise is the courts. As far as standards, cities had a standard with their existing cable franchise as a starting point for any new provider. The lawyer fee's I meant were those that deal with each municipality during local franchise agreement. 
said by jslik:Personally I think each community should build their own fiber network, like Utopia, and allow 3rd parties to bid to provide service on it. I know of a few which are doing just that. Yes, but I would argue that company-provided networks are cheaper (as it happens concurrently with upgrade/deployment that the company is already doing) to build, so the cost to the taxpayers is less, and they get nearly the same thing. Well, you get what you pay for. If you want networks that are built by others, you have to be willing to accept some caveats. Like they're not going to build them to lose money, and they're going to charge you as much as they can to just before the point that you'll switch to their competition. If those aren't the rules, then no private investment would take place. The rich would just sit on their money, the poor would pay for everything. (through taxes, unless you're proposing a "wealth tax" ie. income redistribution. Which by the way, would lead to the breakdown of western civilization) |
|
jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to jslik
said by jslik:These are just a few of the items. And these don't add up to a heck of a lot...
Right of way? This is well established.
Service standards? If the service isn't good, I'll get it from some other vendor.
Revenue? Cable TV should never have been a revenue source to begin with.
Public channels? Does anyone actually care about them?
Lower cost for the town? They'll see the same benefits as the rest of us. |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl:Ahh, but with less barriers to entry, other competitors can join the fray. With the current system, even a multi-global-bigillion dollar monopoly has difficultly entered the market. You wonder why there are no competitors? Difficulty entering the market? How so? The telcos are complaining about these 'barriers to entry' but when pressed to show real and specific examples, then they're strangely quiet. Again, they could have done it before, but they want a leg up on cable. The 1996 Telecom Act was specifically written, in part, to let the telcos get into the cable business and what have they done in those 10 years? Nothing, and in fact, have gotten out of their limited forays into the business. How many competing systems could be up and running right now if they had gotten off their rears? |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | said by jslik:said by Ahrenl:Ahh, but with less barriers to entry, other competitors can join the fray. With the current system, even a multi-global-bigillion dollar monopoly has difficultly entered the market. You wonder why there are no competitors? Difficulty entering the market? How so? The telcos are complaining about these 'barriers to entry' but when pressed to show real and specific examples, then they're strangely quiet. Again, they could have done it before, but they want a leg up on cable. The 1996 Telecom Act was specifically written, in part, to let the telcos get into the cable business and what have they done in those 10 years? Nothing, and in fact, have gotten out of their limited forays into the business. How many competing systems could be up and running right now if they had gotten off their rears? The 1996 telecom act was one of the biggest disasters ever. So full of loopholes, it wholesale forced 1,000's of small business's out of the market. It did nothing but reduce competition, and it did nothing to fix the fact that there is a tremendous lead-time for each community before you can compete within it. This lead-time allows encumbent providers to aggresively (and temporarily) cut their prices to below value creating levels in order to prevent competition from entering the market. Ask RCN all about it, now that they've come out of bankruptcy, from just this practice. (although many will say it was because of over building. It's only over-building when your compeitior is GIVING away the service whenever you've finally gotten your franchise agreement in place, and installed your network rights. Hmmm.) |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua:And these don't add up to a heck of a lot... Right of way? This is well established. The only thing well established is local control of the right of way. Preemption is the newer idea.
Service standards? If the service isn't good, I'll get it from some other vendor. Yes, assuming there is another vendor serving your neighborhood, and you don't mind the hassle of switching, and resolving any billing/money dispute with your old vendor.
Revenue? Cable TV should never have been a revenue source to begin with. Cable TV is not the revenue source; it's the property that constitutes the ROW, or do you think it's ok for government to charge no rent for your (public) property?
Public channels? Does anyone actually care about them? Yes, the millions of folks that participate/watch public, government, and educational channels do care. Look at practically any survey done to see what type of programming people want to see and local TV is always near the top, and where else are you going to get local events/news/programming than from these access channels?
Lower cost for the town? They'll see the same benefits as the rest of us.
What benefits? If cities are forced to build out their own networks, you'll pay for it. |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl:This lead-time allows encumbent providers to aggresively (and temporarily) cut their prices to below value creating levels in order to prevent competition from entering the market. And how is a statewide franchise going to prevent this from happening?
We're only talking about a difference of a few months; so whether the incumbent is offering lower prices now or six months from now when the new guy is there with a local franchise makes no difference, the prices are lower. Also, these major deployments wouldn't be one city at a time; even with local franchising, you would have several cities coming 'on-line' at nearly the same time.
It seems like you're making the argument against competition. |
|
1 edit | reply to jslik
Well my friend, unless you've lived in NJ, then you just don't understand the tax situation/problem here.
I will gladly support a "Verizon Cable Tax" because most of us realize that in the end, the competition will hopefully cripple the cable monopoly and it's unregulated price increases. Ever hear of price gouging?
To put things in perspective, I have no other alternative for cable television...and satellite television is not an option. |
|
| reply to LeftOfSanity
Ok, guess you don't live in NJ or the tri-state area either.
Please tell me how "others broadband availability" is being sacrificed? If it's not available in your area, then go with one of the big cable companies for broadband internet. I'm just happy that there's even a chance for competition. |
|
jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to jslik
I have no problem switching to the best vendor as it suits me.
Perhaps any vendor that's capable of providing service should be allowed to hang their wires from the town poles free of charge. What are we worried about... too many vendors? The last mile and ROW access has always been the problem. Let's just eliminate it once and for all.
Millions of peope watching the local access channel? Really? |
|
