dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed
PeterCollins

join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL

1 edit

Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?

said by dynodb:

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.
So a franchise making sure that all parts of Minneapolis are covered with cable services somehow hurts you?

Limits competition? It forces all to play on the same field. From a city's point of view, they should be looking to having all of their citizens treated equally.

And it's certainly not a city imposed "monopoly" either as any number of entrants could enter the arena...they just choose not to do so...much in the same way you don't see Verizon or Qwest doing serious overbuilds in AT&T territories and vice versa.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?

said by PeterCollins:

said by dynodb:

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.
So a franchise making sure that all parts of Minneapolis are covered with cable services somehow hurts you?
When it comes at the price of having a city enforced cable monopoly, yes, quite obviously. Franchise agreements aren't driven by a desire to see everyone get service; they're about money. Requiring vast sums of money just to offer service has nothing to do with what areas are offered service.

Limits competition? It forces all to play on the same field. From a city's point of view, they should be looking to having all of their citizens treated equally.
Historically, yes, they've only allowed one cable provider to operate in the city as a condition of the contract they had with Time Warner. Sure, everyone's equal- equally screwed of choices.
And it's certainly not a city imposed "monopoly" either as any number of entrants could enter the arena...they just choose not to do so...much in the same way you don't see Verizon or Qwest doing serious overbuilds in AT&T territories and vice versa.
Again, that's simply not the case. The city has enforced a monopoly by contract with Time Warner.
PeterCollins

join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL

1 recommendation

Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?

Exclusive cable franchises are illegal under Federal laws.

See »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod···00-.html

"A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."

Even Minneapolis' website can provide insight as to their franchise regulations:

»www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cable/h···-faq.asp

"Why has Comcast been granted a cable franchise in Minneapolis and can other cable providers also operate in the City of Minneapolis?

Comcast now holds a non-exclusive franchise which covers the entire area of Minneapolis. Should other cable television providers wish to offer services in Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis is open and willing to negotiate franchise agreements with these providers."
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?

LOL, yeah; on paper it's a non-exclusive contract, yet in practice the city only grants franchise rights to one provider. It's not exactly a secret around here.
PeterCollins

join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL

Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?

Let me guess...

Vast numbers of cable providers have wanted to overbuild but have been turned away?

I doubt it very highly, and if they have, you (or Qwest) should sue to make sure the law is upheld.
(topic locked)