how-to block ads
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to jslik
Re: Hello and Welcome to 2001
said by jslik  :...and where is the PROOF of this 'legalize extortion'? Every time the telcos have to provide actual, real life examples, they can't do so. If the process is so bad, why did Verizon's president say "local franchising wasn't holding them back"? I thought that the proof was evident in the article, along with the many other examples of municipalities demanding large sums of money, equipment and free programming.
Being the free market type I'd largely disagree, but I can at least respect the argument that the city has an interest in demanding service guarantees, universal deployment and reimbursement for use of right of way.
However, they go far beyond that- they're demanding percentages of revenue and money for everything from trucks to video cameras to free public access channels before they'll allow a provider to offer service in their town.
I see no difference there than the hypothetical example of a hardware store being told that before they can open for business, they have to give the city free tools, yard supplies and a truck to haul them in for the city maintance department on top of the property taxes and license fees that other businesses have to pay.
Those costs have to be passed on to customers (businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them from their customers), and the added expense discourages competition since it's that much more expensive to provide service in a new area. | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
1 edit | said by dynodb : I thought that the proof was evident in the article, along with the many other examples of municipalities demanding large sums of money, equipment and free programming. ...other examples that either weren't true, or in Tampa's case, Verizon retracted. Repeating it doesn't make it true.
said by dynodb : However, they go far beyond that- they're demanding percentages of revenue and money for everything from trucks to video cameras to free public access channels before they'll allow a provider to offer service in their town. I see no difference there than the hypothetical example of a hardware store being told that before they can open for business, they have to give the city free tools, yard supplies and a truck to haul them in for the city maintance department on top of the property taxes and license fees that other businesses have to pay. Those costs have to be passed on to customers (businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them from their customers), and the added expense discourages competition since it's that much more expensive to provide service in a new area. Your example leaves out one very important fact: Your hardware store is built on public land.
As a renter, you should expect to pay rent, should you not? You don't expect the landlord to give you your space rent free, even though your rent will be passed on to your customers? Why should any government be any different with land owned by the taxpayers?
Futhermore, all those so-called 'extras' are specifically allowed under federal law.
Also, if you weren't paying franchise fees, you still would be paying them in higher rates. All the providers factor in fees in their pricing, so you'll pay them to your city or to the company, take your pick. Just look at cable modem franchise fees if you don't believe me. | |
|
