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!
