dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
27
share rss forum feed
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

Re: FCC Sanity?

How would you feel if there was no franchising agreement needed and both the telco and cable company decided not to service your area. Add to that, they would prevent anyone else from servicing your area under the "promise" to service you one day.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by moonpuppy:

How would you feel if there was no franchising agreement needed and both the telco and cable company decided not to service your area.
Well, I feel bad that there won't be any In-N-Out Burgers won't be opening near me anytime soon, but given that I've gone without them for as long as I have, I suppose I will live. I've said it before, I will say it again, if having broadband is that important, then move to where they have it. This whole debate reminds of people who move to small towns "for that small town charm" and then whine and complain about how there are no stores or services near them.
said by moonpuppy:

Add to that, they would prevent anyone else from servicing your area under the "promise" to service you one day.
If my franchise authority is complicit in ensuring that none of our citizens have any service by mandating coverage to "unprofitable" areas, then they are in no way shape or form capable of running an ISP. I am all for any law that bans government from providing Internet service. Of course, nothing stops private citizens from investing their own money in running their own broadband.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by pnh102:

said by moonpuppy:

How would you feel if there was no franchising agreement needed and both the telco and cable company decided not to service your area.
Well, I feel bad that there won't be any In-N-Out Burgers won't be opening near me anytime soon, but given that I've gone without them for as long as I have, I suppose I will live. I've said it before, I will say it again, if having broadband is that important, then move to where they have it. This whole debate reminds of people who move to small towns "for that small town charm" and then whine and complain about how there are no stores or services near them.
said by moonpuppy:

Add to that, they would prevent anyone else from servicing your area under the "promise" to service you one day.
If my franchise authority is complicit in ensuring that none of our citizens have any service by mandating coverage to "unprofitable" areas, then they are in no way shape or form capable of running an ISP. I am all for any law that bans government from providing Internet service. Of course, nothing stops private citizens from investing their own money in running their own broadband.
You miss the point completely.

In-n-Out Burger can build where they want (provided they have a commercially zoned piece of property) and McDonald's nor Burger King can stop them.

As for your second analogy, if Comcast said your area was unprofitable and refused to wire it up, I would have no problem with that (and neither would you.)However, what I do have a problem with is a company not servicing an area and then saying no one else can because they MIGHT want to provide service at a later time.

If they don't want to service an area, then let someone else do it.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by moonpuppy:

However, what I do have a problem with is a company not servicing an area and then saying no one else can because they MIGHT want to provide service at a later time.
They aren't doing this though. They are simply lobbying against the government providing such services. If cable and telephone companies were really stopping other companies from providing services, then how does one explain FIOS or Project Lightspeed? Surely the cable companies would want to stop these deployments. The same goes with Comcast or other cable companies expanding their service areas. Surely the phone companies would want to put a stop to that as well.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by pnh102:

They aren't doing this though. They are simply lobbying against the government providing such services. If cable and telephone companies were really stopping other companies from providing services, then how does one explain FIOS or Project Lightspeed? Surely the cable companies would want to stop these deployments. The same goes with Comcast or other cable companies expanding their service areas. Surely the phone companies would want to put a stop to that as well.
The phone companies already have part of the infrastructure in place so they can upgrade it. However, VERY few places have more than one cable company.

Also, you might want to read this old article here about Verizon wanting to stop a muni WiFi project:

»Verizon Ban Could Cripple Philly Wi-Fi

And cable has tried to stop these deployments. They cry about franchise agreements they have to follow that the telcos don't want to follow.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by moonpuppy:

Also, you might want to read this old article here about Verizon wanting to stop a muni WiFi project:
It's too bad Verizon did not succeed. The City of Philadelphia has a record high murder rate this year. The money the city is wasting on building this wireless network could have been used to hire more cops.
said by moonpuppy:

And cable has tried to stop these deployments. They cry about franchise agreements they have to follow that the telcos don't want to follow.
It's not the telcos' fault that cable wasn't smart enough to initially get a state-wide franchise from the git-go. However, any potential future competitor will benefit from a streamlining of this process from now on.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by pnh102:

It's too bad Verizon did not succeed. The City of Philadelphia has a record high murder rate this year. The money the city is wasting on building this wireless network could have been used to hire more cops.
While I agree Philadelphia has bigger issues than WiFI what gives Verizon the right to stop it?

said by pnh102:


It's not the telcos' fault that cable wasn't smart enough to initially get a state-wide franchise from the git-go. However, any potential future competitor will benefit from a streamlining of this process from now on.
Cable got the local franchises because, at the time, they were NOT big enough to wire up an entire state and many of the first deployments were very small. Only recently have we seen the huge cable conglomerates that now service entire sections of the country and not one county at a time.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by moonpuppy:

While I agree Philadelphia has bigger issues than WiFI what gives Verizon the right to stop it?
I know! Comcast, along with everyone else who pays taxes to the city should have been able to stop this.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: FCC Sanity?

said by pnh102:

said by moonpuppy:

While I agree Philadelphia has bigger issues than WiFI what gives Verizon the right to stop it?
I know! Comcast, along with everyone else who pays taxes to the city should have been able to stop this.
Comcast should have no right to stop it. If that were the case then Verizon should have the right to stop Comcast and any other cable company from offering voice services since taxes help pay for phone services and POTS is still regulated.

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
said by pnh102:

said by moonpuppy:

Also, you might want to read this old article here about Verizon wanting to stop a muni WiFi project:
It's too bad Verizon did not succeed. The City of Philadelphia has a record high murder rate this year. The money the city is wasting on building this wireless network could have been used to hire more cops.
said by moonpuppy:

And cable has tried to stop these deployments. They cry about franchise agreements they have to follow that the telcos don't want to follow.
It's not the telcos' fault that cable wasn't smart enough to initially get a state-wide franchise from the git-go. However, any potential future competitor will benefit from a streamlining of this process from now on.
How is this benefit created?
Does someone lose as the result of the creation of this benefit, or is the benefit pareto efficient? If so, how are the losers being compensated? If there are no losers, then why is there opposition?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher