Topic 'Re: FCC Sanity?' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479804 en Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:19:02 EDT Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:19:02 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17500141
Wireless is not the future, unless your future is one of continuously degrading service quality and laughably inept spectrum management. But as long as the marks keep shoveling their money into the cellular coffers you won't see any improvement in price, service or availability.

We have "wireless" video. It's called OTA television and satellite TV. Considering the number of digital signals one ATSC transmission can carry, and the number of ATSC channels which may be available in any given market, broadcast TV is the way to go for the ad-supported content and satellite is the way to go for paid content. The current wet dream of video on demand via the Internet is not viable unless significant changes are made in the way it works. It is insanity to think a separate bandwidth-consuming connection for each viewer is sustainable when the broadcast model is so much more efficient and has zero marginal distribution cost for each additional viewer.

Cable will never be able to go "wireless". Their entire business model is built on total control of the path. Once their 'last mile' hits the air it's effectively free.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17500141 Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:14:52 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17499179 said by RadioDoc:

That was the premise behind granting monopolies with regulated but guaranteed rates of return. In exchange, the utility (electric, telco, whatever) was required to serve 100% of the customers in the franchise area who wanted service, regardless of the cost to the company.If that's really true, how did the telcos manage to get USF? Is that a result of the deregulation?

I also agree that we cannot have 10 electricity providers stringing poles in neighborhoods. The same holds true for other service utilities including cable and telephone -- unless the latter two can go wireless.

Incidentally, that's where my hope is. If wireless can continue to improve for the last mile, most consumers may be able to live the Holy Grail of true competition. There will always be rural challenges but a majority of rural customers don't enjoy public water and sewer. At their expense, they drill wells and install septic systems. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17499179 Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:44:59 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17493282
Not where I live they say ok sorry good luck,bye-bye.
Bruce]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17493282 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:04:02 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17487258 said by rradina:

My bottom line belief: If some level of government is to provide an advantage to a particular company, then I believe that government has an obligation to ensure the advantage eventually provides the product or service to a majority of its constituents. And....eventually should be reasonable and not 10+ years. That was the premise behind granting monopolies with regulated but guaranteed rates of return. In exchange, the utility (electric, telco, whatever) was required to serve 100% of the customers in the franchise area who wanted service, regardless of the cost to the company.

What you believe, and what most of the so-called regulators forgot in the 1980s is that despite all the rhetoric there are natural monopolies which do not lend themselves to facilities-based competitive markets. But besides the economic disincentive to overbuilding there are public interest considerations as well. You generally would not want to have, say, 10 electric companies all setting poles and stringing their own wires. Cities would be strangled in power lines.

The Reaganomics era threw that out the window and championed "the market" as the regulator of choice for just about anything. While the regulatory landscape in the early 80's was anything but desirable it had elements of sanity which are missing from today's scenarios. This is one of them. At some point the local regulatory agencies (usually some franchise authority of some sort) got stupid and demanded the sky from the huge cash cow which cable TV grew into. Service became unimportant as long as the local alderman had his access channel to use as a campaign tool.

National franchising is another knee-jerk reaction to bad regulation, but there is no real comparative benefit to the current situation, either. If there were, 100% of all cable TV customers would have state of the art HSI because the local regulators would have mandated it. They are mostly impotent and Comcast, et. al. know it. Despite their whining to the contrary, they'd love to be out from under these local contracts.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17487258 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:43:17 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17487065
I believe every business should have the privilege to pick its customers and provide whatever service it can based on profits. In my opinion, this is congruent with basic capitalism. However, whenever utilities are involved, both companies and the government are predisposed to involve legislative action to define, assist and govern fees. Generally this is caused by lack of true competition (oligopoly).

My bottom line belief: If some level of government is to provide an advantage to a particular company, then I believe that government has an obligation to ensure the advantage eventually provides the product or service to a majority of its constituents. And....eventually should be reasonable and not 10+ years.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17487065 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:08:54 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17487025 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. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17487025 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:01:54 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486912 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486912 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:36:21 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486781 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486781 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:14:40 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486766 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486766 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:12:26 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486375 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17486375 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:49:03 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17484019 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17484019 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:06:59 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17483123 --
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17483123 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:38:56 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17482396 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17482396 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:58:01 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17482309 said by en102:

Comcast was _much_ more expensive to start than DirecTv

1 tuner Directv = $39.99

Analog service on Comcast was $50.40 (no standard basic available in my zip :mad: )

Digital was $60.10 for 1 tuner.

I have 3 tuners on DirecTv with the 'plus' package and pay $57/month after all taxes and fees.
Of course, you realize that if you had no standard basic then you were not protected by a municipal franchise agreement. That is another drawback of dropping franchise agreements... the telcos will not have to carry a basic package (which means to rate regulation).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17482309 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:44:40 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481702
1 tuner Directv = $39.99

Analog service on Comcast was $50.40 (no standard basic available in my zip :mad: )

Digital was $60.10 for 1 tuner.

I have 3 tuners on DirecTv with the 'plus' package and pay $57/month after all taxes and fees.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481702 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:04:38 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481624 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481624 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:52:54 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481222
Fact is, rates NEVER go down for regular service for ANY reason other than a limited promo, or, gov/court order.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481222 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:53:43 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481207
Which is the current marketing technique. This will also happen with fiber in a few years. They will just set the prices so close to each other that it will not matter who you get service from. Standard price fixing collusion.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481207 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:51:14 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481205 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481205 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:51:07 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481151 said by Linklist:

I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel.
Few cities have more than 1 public access channel anyway.
If you are including government and educational channels, they have way high viewership than public access (nothing that would support a broadcast network, but still easily enough to justify their existence).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481151 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:44:06 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481107 said by pnh102:

inane build-out requirements for providers. I think they would consider it doing what they were elected to do: look out for the welfare of their citizens. They represent all their citizens, not just those considered "desirable" by the telcos. Federal laws have largely removed the rights of munis to say anything about cable rates; just about the only thing left that they have a say in is build-out.

What Martin, et al, is saying is that it is better that only a few have service available to them, with a bit lower prices due to competition, than to have the service available to everyone, albeit at a bit higher price. In other words, there will be winners and losers, and those on the losing end will just have to deal with it. I think the closer you get to the local level, the tougher it is for that to seem like a good idea.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17481107 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:37:27 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480979 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480979 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:11:34 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480953 --
Ubuntu Tips »www.ubuntutips.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480953 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:07:28 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480747 --
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480747 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:36:24 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480624 said by pnh102:

Internet service is a for-profit industry. It should not be compelled to provide service to areas it does not deem profitable. And for that reason, America will always lag behind other nations technologically... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480624 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:23:32 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480667 said by Skippy25:

Im not sure where you live, but if I had chose cable instead of Dishnetwork and received the same programing I would be paying about $21 a month more with cable. You are getting the shaft from your cableco. Here Comcast is about $5-10 more than Dish/Directv.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480667 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:21:08 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480658 quote:
Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like.


I highly doubt that. HD programming followed the trend in big screen HD sets. I'd say that one was driven more by consumers and CE companies vs competition.

The rest is nice, but more like a natural evolution. DVR's were the result of Tivo coming on the scene and the CableCo's realizing that they could make $9.99 off Tivo-like functionality.

quote:
Competition does allows you to play the providers against one another to get a better deal for yourself. Quite a few people have used with success the threat of moving from one provider to another as a means to get their current provider to continue a promotional rate where it would have otherwise expired.


And many more are told "see you". And if you do switch, it's often for a short time before your rates go up. I have been with both sat providers and now comcast. After all the rate increases on sat, Comcast is roughly (within $5-10) what I was paying DirecTV.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480658 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:19:24 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480623 quote:
Umm, a panacea is a cure-all.


Yes. Everyone thinks competition is the cure all for high prices and innovation. What they fail to realize is that it is rarely the cure all. It's basically "who do you want to pay you $xxx to?"

They always think competition will result in massively lower rates. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480623 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:13:36 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480425 said by RickNY:

Are you sure thats what you meant?
Yes. There was a brief period a few years back when satellite TV was killing cable. I remember when Comcast was offering satellite TV subscribers $400 in discounts to become cable subscribers.

However, cable now offers more of the types of services that satellite TV offers. If cable had not made these improvements, those providers would have continued to lose customers to satellite.

Of course, if there were no satellite TV providers, cable would still be making money hand over fist but their product offerings would be worse than what they currently offer.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480425 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:36:26 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480393 said by pnh102:

Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like.
Are you sure thats what you meant? If a company exists without any competition, they have a better chance of prospering, not the other way around. If there was no competition, there would have been no reason for them to expand their service offerings, they would just have to keep raising the prices of their existing products.
--
" Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480393 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:29:26 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480355 said by Ahrenl:

Property taxes have also been pushed to their limit.Heh... keep dreaming :)

Government will always find ways to raise "high" property taxes. In MD they just raise it at the state level. In Philadelphia they simply re-assess your house at a ridiculously high price so that you pay more at the existing rate. One way or another, they will keep raising it.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480355 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:22:27 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480338 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480338 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:18:25 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480326 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480326 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:14:30 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480193 said by itguy05:


Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will.
Umm, a panacea is a cure-all. That is, a solution to all problems, cure for all diseases. I don't think that's what you meant, was it?

»dictionary.reference.com/browse/panacea]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480193 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:49:08 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480185 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480185 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:48:17 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480175
In nearly every jurisdiction that has tried to mandate universal service, the end result was a success of sorts in that everyone got no service whatsoever.

Internet service is a for-profit industry. It should not be compelled to provide service to areas it does not deem profitable.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480175 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:45:41 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480064
Cable competition claims that local governments are impeding progress. But I naturally question that claim since there are always two sides to an argument. Principally, I believe competition only works when it's offered to all residents of a local community.

In 1998 SBC (now ATT) offered DSL to select residents of my area who were within a 3 mile radius of their central offices. Year after year they have promised those too far would be offered DSL "real soon now". It's nearly 2007 and they have NOT delivered on that promise. Should I believe that their television service deployment will be different?

What the government (not just the FCC) should do is ban utility taxes that are not directly tied to regulatory cost recovery. Given this, I seriously doubt local municipalities would be able to justify their current utility-based income schemes. Don't you agree that it's silly to pay a tax to your local municipality based on your electricity, gas or cable bill? I think it's insane.

I understand that local cities without significant retail development cannot operate on retail taxes. However, why not add an assessment to real estate taxes? This has to be more just than a utility consumption tax or do we believe that your ability to pay correlates with utility usage? While still not 100%, I think it's far more likely that someone owning more valuable property is able to pay more taxes.

In exchange for a national franchise the FCC should mandate reasonable deployment timelines to prevent the same thing that happened with DSL in my area.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480064 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:18:21 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480005 said by itguy05:

Which is why FIOS, DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast are roughly (within $5/mo) the same price for each other... Also the reason FIOS also raised rates this year.Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like.
said by itguy05:

Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will.
Competition does allows you to play the providers against one another to get a better deal for yourself. Quite a few people have used with success the threat of moving from one provider to another as a means to get their current provider to continue a promotional rate where it would have otherwise expired.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17480005 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:01:56 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479943 said by Linklist:

I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel.
Very true, I was just being generous for a very large city, say over 5 million.
--
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479943 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:51:37 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479919 quote:
Like any commodity, a lack of competition leads directly to high prices.


Which is why FIOS, DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast are roughly (within $5/mo) the same price for each other... Also the reason FIOS also raised rates this year.

Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479919 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:47:25 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479879 said by qdemn7:

I hope they put a stop to Munis asking for anything NOT having to do with BB/TV service. No Community Centers, no swimming pools, no more of the local politicians buying votes by saying "look what I got for you." And you shouldn't need more than about 10 Public access Channels either.
I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479879 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:37:07 EDT Re: FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479841 --
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-FCC-Sanity-17479841 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:27:32 EDT FCC Sanity? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/FCC-Sanity-17479804
It is indisputably, irrefutably true that the biggest obstacle to next-generation broadband/TV service deployments are pesky local governments which put up inane build-out requirements for providers. Like any commodity, a lack of competition leads directly to high prices.

The only real solution here is for voters to get on the ball and vote out local government officials which continue to stand in way of progress. The last thing we need is more Federal bureaucracy in what really should remain a state/local issue.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/FCC-Sanity-17479804 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:18:35 EDT