 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to dynodb
Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl? said by dynodb:I'm on my own side; video isn't a major part of Qwest's business and the franchising issue has little or no affect on my employer at all. You see I have cable at home, and am paying rather high rates due to the Minneapolis city-imposed cable franchise monopoly in my town. Franching limits competition, and thus hurts the consumer- me. You do realize that you implicitly rebutted your own argument in the same paragraph?
"video isn't a major part of Qwest's business and the franchising issue has little or no affect on my employer at all. You see I have cable at home, and am paying rather high rates due to the Minneapolis city-imposed cable franchise monopoly in my town."
...and why is Qwest not offering video in a major way? Is it local franchising, or the fact that a major rollout would be billions, which Qwest doesn't have? It's economics, not local franchising, that is preventing real competition. The telcos were specifically given 4 ways of entering the video market in the 1996 Telecom Act, and they told Congress that with the passage, they'd get into video. They've done squat. That's local government's fault now?
said by dynodb:As far as the city of Tampa suggesting it's merely a "dream list". Yeah, right; how naive would a person have to be to buy that story? Obviously, you don't know how these negotiations take place. Go do some research between what cities asked for initially and what they actually got. |
|
| All good points -- as an aside Qwest has an RFP out considering video delivery and I believe they've pushed for a statewide franchise in Colorado which impacts them video or no -- so yeah, Qwest is very much interested in how this plays out. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | I'm sure Qwest is quite interested, but for right now it's not having a big impact on their business, and certainly isn't affecting my employement- that was the only point I was trying to make since you implied that my opinion was perhaps colored by my employer whom I do not represent in any way- my opinions are my own. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to jslik
said by jslik:Obviously, you don't know how these negotiations take place. Go do some research between what cities asked for initially and what they actually got. Maybe, maybe not- I'm not a negotiator.
However, you didn't find this a bit... questionable?
Smith said Tampa gave Verizon a $13 million "needs assessment" that he says was required by law in order to obtain contributions for equipment for public access and government channels. The city's existing cable franchise, Bright House Networks, had paid $5.5 million and pledged $1 million more, he said.
Smith also said under Florida law, a competitor would be required to match that amount to obtain a franchise. If incumbent Bright House paid and pledged $6.5 million and law requires Verizon merely match that, why would they now "need" $13 million for Verizon to enter the market? This strikes me as either protection of the incumbent monopoly or simple greed barely distinguishable from legalized extortion, hence my skepticism concerning Tampa's side of the story. |
|
|
|
