| Expect this to be overturned Come jan, the dems will most definitely overturn this godawful ruling. The local communities have every right to demand the telco's play by the same rules the cableco's do.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
2 edits | said by karlmarx:Come jan, the dems will most definitely overturn this godawful ruling. Even if the Dems can pass new laws on the subject, there is little likelihood they can override a Bush veto. And even if so inclined, this would not be a Dem priority in a new Congress and it would be many months at a minimum before new laws would be crafted. They will be busier addressing a larger military and Iraq issues. TV will be far down the list.
Much more likely that it would go to the courts where it could take years to resolve.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Come jan, the dems will most definitely overturn this godawful ruling. The local communities have every right to demand the telco's play by the same rules the cableco's do. The current franchise agreement only insure that cable stays a monopoly. Build requirements keep small investors completely out of play and greatly slow the big boys. This is good news for consumers. |
|
| reply to karlmarx
"Come jan, the dems will most definitely overturn this godawful ruling. The local communities have every right to demand the telco's play by the same rules the cableco's do."
If memory serves (and it usually does) The cable franchise thing was the result of an FCC order creating it many moons ago. Which means that the FCC has the authority to modify the terms and abilities of local governments in implementing franchises. |
|
|
|
| reply to cwh
How do the current ones keep cable a monopoly. So making them have a certain amount of the town wired by a certain date, or have public access channels helps keep cable a monopoly? wow |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | said by majortom1029:How do the current ones keep cable a monopoly. So making them have a certain amount of the town wired by a certain date, or have public access channels helps keep cable a monopoly? wow Build out requirement rules both time and area will greatly discourage investors against competing with a incumbent cable company. This is what protects the cable company from competition. Is is one thing to have a build out rules when there is no competition but it is quite a different rule when an incumbent exists. |
|
| Still , how does that protect the monopoly. Those rules protect the people in the not as rich areas so that the whole town will get wired. ! village out of a whole town is not competition. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
1 edit | said by majortom1029:Still , how does that protect the monopoly. Those rules protect the people in the not as rich areas so that the whole town will get wired. ! village out of a whole town is not competition. How does it protect them? It discourages investors from creating competition. It makes the build out risk too high for investors.
In simple terms, how much money are investors willing to spend to possibly take 15-20% market share away from the incumbent. The franchise agreement keeps the bar high and investors away. It is that simple.
But answer this, how well are the poor(if you call poor being able to afford cable tv poor)served by living under monopoly conditions? |
|
| said by cwh:[ In simple terms, how much money are investors willing to spend to possibly take 15-20% market share away from the incumbent. The franchise agreement keeps the bar high and investors away. It is that simple. And demands that new franchisees do a full build-out in 3 to 5 yrs when the incumbent cable company took a couple decades to do so is ludicrous and the reason for the FCC rules.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
| said by fAcEtIOUs:And demands that new franchisees do a full build-out in 3 to 5 yrs when the incumbent cable company took a couple decades to do so is ludicrous and the reason for the FCC rules. Wrong. It has been done before.
Baltimore City signed a franchise agreement in 1984 with United Cable and was required to have 100% build-out in 4 years. They came close save for a few pockets here and there.
Now, if you think this will spur innovation, again I bring out Baltimore City. They just recently got cable modem service 3 years ago (16 years after they first started.)
So the 3 to 5 year build out rules are not ludicrous but very obtainable.  |
|
 CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF.Premium
join:2004-11-12 | reply to cwh
said by cwh:But answer this, how well are the poor(if you call poor being able to afford cable tv poor)served by living under monopoly conditions? Extremely well, because the incumbant cable provider was held to build out contracts and provided them with cable as they did the rest of the town.
Now, statewide franchise..whole different ball game. No one is running fiber past Cabrini Green. But there is cable there.
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged
|
|
