how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | reply to ross
Re: Still trying to figure out... I understand what you're saying and agree somewhat, but the realities "on the ground" have changed enough in the past several years to make some of those arguments a little obsolete.
I know of no one who watches public access. Yes, I'm sure someone will pop up here who says they watch it 15 hours a day, but they're very much in the minority. And a statewide franchise could account for this; the two things aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive.
At the same time, news and media are increasingly going national and international. Local news viewership is decreasing, but will never go away. I'd be willing to bet that vastly more people get their community news from their local nightly newscast or the Internet rather than public access channels. With all of this, I find the community access argument pretty much irrelevant.
The so-called "red-lining" is a more valid issue, even if the term is misused around here almost as much as "net neutrality." A basic tenet of business is that you bring your product to the customers most likely to buy it. That's the primary goal of advertising and marketing people. You don't advertise for Viagra on Nickelodeon (though that's obviously an exaggeration.) Similarly, you wouldn't spend millions to install fiber in neighborhoods that just won't sustain it. These companies aren't charities here. They aren't the federal government. They should be allowed to market their services where they want.
Same as above, just because a franchise agreement doesn't require 100% distribution, it doesn't mean that the telcos won't eventually provide it. It'll get there at some point, but it's going to be faster for everyone if they're allowed to turn a profit and expand. Putting up artificial barriers to deployment (while at the same time yelling "we need more competition!") and forcing them to deploy to areas at a loss only hurts deployement for everyone.
I understand the frustration if some people don't have the services they want, but this ain't the way to go about trying to get them.
Adam | |
| said by Alpine:I understand what you're saying and agree somewhat, but the realities "on the ground" have changed enough in the past several years to make some of those arguments a little obsolete. I know of no one who watches public access. Yes, I'm sure someone will pop up here who says they watch it 15 hours a day, but they're very much in the minority. And a statewide franchise could account for this; the two things aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive. At the same time, news and media are increasingly going national and international. Local news viewership is decreasing, but will never go away. I'd be willing to bet that vastly more people get their community news from their local nightly newscast or the Internet rather than public access channels. With all of this, I find the community access argument pretty much irrelevant. The so-called "red-lining" is a more valid issue, even if the term is misused around here almost as much as "net neutrality." A basic tenet of business is that you bring your product to the customers most likely to buy it. That's the primary goal of advertising and marketing people. You don't advertise for Viagra on Nickelodeon (though that's obviously an exaggeration.) Similarly, you wouldn't spend millions to install fiber in neighborhoods that just won't sustain it. These companies aren't charities here. They aren't the federal government. They should be allowed to market their services where they want. Same as above, just because a franchise agreement doesn't require 100% distribution, it doesn't mean that the telcos won't eventually provide it. It'll get there at some point, but it's going to be faster for everyone if they're allowed to turn a profit and expand. Putting up artificial barriers to deployment (while at the same time yelling "we need more competition!") and forcing them to deploy to areas at a loss only hurts deployement for everyone. I understand the frustration if some people don't have the services they want, but this ain't the way to go about trying to get them. Adam Shortsightedness and naivete are in adundant supply around here, as usual. While a statewide franchise bill might address public access, and mandate deployment while outlawing red-lining, along with replacing lost revenue to local government entities, this bill does not. Nor will any bill authored by the Telco or Cable industries. Clearly, neither industry is favorably disposed to provide anything they are not bound by law to provide. Hell, they don't even provide all they are legally obligated to under existing laws. Are we to believe they will metamorphose into entirely different creatures by the removing the few constraints that pay deferrence to the public weal? I think not!
Loss of public access channels is not a trivial concern, nor is it irrelevant to either the Cablecos or the people who utilize public access for community programming.
And, if you are going to wait for Telco or Cableco to service you with next-gen product if they don't have to...well, don't hold your breath! There are huge areas of the country, not all rural, that aren't served by either duopoly, and larger areas underserved by both. Ask anyone here who has been waiting for five plus years for ADSL/SDSL/Cable/Wireless and can't get any, even though their relatively close neighbors may. Ask them when they expect fiber to show up...bwahahahahaha! | |
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to Alpine
said by Alpine: I'd be willing to bet that vastly more people get their community news from their local nightly newscast or the Internet rather than public access channels. With all of this, I find the community access argument pretty much irrelevant. Is that because of choice or consolidation? I bet if you looked at viewer surveys for many communities, local news/information would rate very highly. People very much like seeing local events, sports, and governmental information
Also "public access" can mean many things, but don't lump the educational and government channels in with the purely 'public' channels in your "I know of no one who watches them'. They all have value.
Finally, I don't see the issue with asking some channel space/bandwidth devoted to public/government/educational access, considering these companies are using public land to make money.
No one would give free rent for land for little or no return, especially when the tenant is making millions from that use. Why should government be any different? | | |
|
SSLSTL
join:2004-12-09
Saint Louis, MO | Cable franchises in metro St. Louis area -
the Higher Education Channel (HEC) provides 50,000 college credit hours over television each year. 26,000 high school students are taking language courses via this channel. That creates community development, workforce training, and educational efficiency benefits. Furthermore, because (as another writer pointed out) public access offers training, St. Louis happens to have a rather thriving video industry here... many, if not most, of the card carrying union members got their start at a govt, educational or public access channel. So those channels have contributed to the local economy.
How would you like to be the citizen who does not get choice? These telcos have received (and still get) huge subsidies for POTS "universal service". I for one am not thrilled about large and rich corporations demanding the use of public property in order to serve
90% of "high value" subs (who spend over $160 month)
35% of "medium value" subs ($110 - $160 month)
5% (yes five) of "low value" subs (who spend less than $110 a month)
See the SBC Investor Report of November 2004 regarding Project Lightspeed for more details.
If you want to be classified with the special privileges of a public utility, and receive seriously large subsidies paid by consumers, and use public property because it is faster and easier than getting permission from each parcel owner, then serve everyone in your footprint, and meet some community media needs. | |
|
