nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to batterup
Re: Get the *F* out of the way.
don't blame local municipalities for the U.S. broadband market sucking so much - blame the telcos that sat on their @sses for so long with regard to rolling out advanced services.
they wasted their time with forcing the CLECs out of business and lobbying congress and the FCC for looser regulation. These franchises that the telcos want don't include any buildout requirements and even if they do, don't have time frames. Would you be happy if the area up the road had telco video, but you didn't because they didn't think your area was worth it? |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by nasadude  :don't blame local municipalities for the U.S. broadband market sucking so much - blame the telcos that sat on their @sses for so long with regard to rolling out advanced services. This is not Ma Bell, this is the new at&t. The new at&t has to make money, as much money as possible. If that means sitting on their ass until they get what makes good business sense that is what they will do. 1st to 16th is the price, Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :don't blame local municipalities for the U.S. broadband market sucking so much - blame the telcos that sat on their @sses for so long with regard to rolling out advanced services. When any broadband provider wants to offer service but some municipal government puts up unneeded roadblocks to said deployment, then how is it wrong to blame the government? The telcos are hardly sitting on their butts here as they want to deploy this service.
said by nasadude :Would you be happy if the area up the road had telco video, but you didn't because they didn't think your area was worth it? Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
dg2
Premium
join:2004-01-22
Lowell, AR
·Cox HSI
| said by pnh102 :Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market? Isn't that what the USF is for? UNIVERSAL service fund means we all pay extra (and we've certainly been doing that) so the telco can afford to serve "unprofitable" markets.
Here, we got the double-whammy - paying into USF for 17 years, no DSL available (2000 feet too far from CO - no explanation as to why the Stinger box at the end of the street can't be turned on.) |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude : Would you be happy if the area up the road had telco video, but you didn't because they didn't think your area was worth it? That is the law of the land, universal service at an affordable price, FOR POTS, Ma Bell is dead an yet the people bitch. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dg2
said by dg2 :said by pnh102 :Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market? Isn't that what the USF is for? UNIVERSAL service fund means we all pay extra (and we've certainly been doing that) so the telco can afford to serve "unprofitable" markets. From the looks of this map
»www.universalservice.org/hc/tool···ell.html
most people in Arkansas are served by independent phone companies. In all Verizon areas of NJ we get ZERO USF and pay into it big time. My county pays more then your whole state and you want more? |
|
dg2
Premium
join:2004-01-22
Lowell, AR
·Cox HSI
| What's the USF for?
No. I'd like to see the USF disbanded entirely. That way no one would have to pay for someone else's phone service. Pnh102's question was "Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market?" My response would be "Because Congress created the USF whereby all telephone subscribers pay the ILECs to serve the unprofitable markets." I was trying to be polite.
For the record, there are large areas of Arkansas served by SBC (ATT now). While it may be true that most of the state's land area is served by independent phone companies, most of the people live in a handful of cities which are inside the green and yellow areas on your map.
I live in one of the green boxes. And there's still been a Stinger box operating at the end of the street for 2 years now. No investment would appear to be required - simply a willingness to offer service. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to batterup
Re: Get the *F* out of the way.
Come out from under that rock and get reintroduced to the world. It appears to be evolving without you. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dg2
Re: What's the USF for?
said by dg2 :I live in one of the green boxes. And there's still been a Stinger box operating at the end of the street for 2 years now. No investment would appear to be required - simply a willingness to offer service. What is the franchise law for CATV? NJ just passed a state wide law and FIOS deploment is improving. |
|
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL | reply to batterup
Re: Get the *F* out of the way.
I kind of wish they would "sit on their ass" but they seem too busy taking their ass to the courts to sue communities that want to impose any type of regulation on a roll out. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to batterup
said by batterup :This is not Ma Bell, this is the new at&t...Ma Bell is dead Huh? Ma Bell is very much alive. This video will help explain it (presuming Google doesn't take it down quickly).
--
Go Colts |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dg2
Re: What's the USF for?
said by dg2 :No. I'd like to see the USF disbanded entirely. I can see why, you get ZERO from the fund.
»www.universalservice.org/hc/tool···lts.aspx |
|
dg2
Premium
join:2004-01-22
Lowell, AR
·Cox HSI
| reply to batterup
According to our municipal folks, CATV is regulated by the Feds only. They already charge a franchise fee for utilities operating within the city limits (CATV and telco both).
I really don't know what the state's franchise laws for CATV are. I probably should, but the laws don't really seem to matter in this discussion - all the companies are pretty much doing whatever they want, and no one seems inclined to regulate them to any great extent.
And, to answer your next post, I oppose the USF on principal. I'd like to think I'd feel the same if I got some benefit from it. Smells like communism at first whiff - then when you find out it's largely unregulated (there do not seem to be any real expectations for the telcos to actually spend this money on services), it sounds like Congress handed the telcos a windfall from the consumers' pockets. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by dg2 :According to our municipal folks, CATV is regulated by the Feds only. They already charge a franchise fee for utilities operating within the city limits (CATV and telco both). Whoever you talked to gave you incorrect information. CATV is controlled no higher then State level at this time and mostly at the municipal level. Telephone is not subject to franchise fees.
Telephone is over 100 years old and they were the only show in town so a franchise was not necessary. They are covered by a tariff and it is at the state and federal level. TPC is the provider of last resort mandated by federal law. They have to bring POTS to anybody anywhere in there tariff area.
quote:
The Arkansas Public Service Commission regulates telecommunications service providers that include incumbent local telephone carriers, competitive local telephone carriers, long distance companies, and private pay telephone companies. The Commission has authority to regulate the quality of service of all telecommunications providers but has limited authority to regulate rates, terms, and conditions of services. The limitations are in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated Section 23-17-400 et seq. that recognizes the desire to have competitive forces control rates, terms, and conditions of services.
»www.arkansas.gov/psc/telecom.htm |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| reply to pnh102
Re: Get the *F* out of the way.
Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market?
Well I will say it. It is my town. It is my roads. I pay taxes and if you want to put anything in my right of way then you have to live by my rules. If you don't like. Leave.
If any company would like a statewide franchise, go for it. But you have to provide service to 95% of the residents in every city/town in the state within three years. Don't like those rules. Leave. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :service. Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market? so in your view, there should only be competition for a few? The telcos loudly tout they need these franchises (or relief from franchises) for "competition" and to "have a level playing field". However, the cablecos are required to serve the whole franchise area, not just those areas they consider most profitable; the telcos shouldn't be held to the same requirement?
or are you saying there should be no requirements on anyone, that anyone can use public rights of way without any bounds or regulation?
sounds like you believe if we completely unfetter the telcos, the U.S. will rocket right back up to #1 status in the world for broadband. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc :It is my town. It is my roads. I pay taxes and if you want to put anything in my right of way then you have to live by my rules. If you don't like. Leave. And if a business sets up shop in your town they pay taxes and such as well. They have just as much a say in how the town is run as you do.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc :Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market? Well I will say it. It is my town. It is my roads. I pay taxes and if you want to put anything in my right of way then you have to live by my rules. If you don't like. Leave. Leave; Like Verizon did in Hawaii and will do in Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire? Do you think the right of way is free? They are not, tax is paid on every pole and attachment. I would check with your neighbors before you disconnect their telephone. You have been reading TeleTruth again haven't you?
Did you see my pictures of the fiber cable Verizon is placing in Netcong? It is sweet. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by nasadude :don't blame local municipalities for the U.S. broadband market sucking so much - blame the telcos that sat on their @sses for so long with regard to rolling out advanced services. When any broadband provider wants to offer service but some municipal government puts up unneeded roadblocks to said deployment, then how is it wrong to blame the government? The telcos are hardly sitting on their butts here as they want to deploy this service. There are zero roadblocks to providing broadband service.
The roadblocks are to providing television service.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by pnh102 :service. Why is it OK to compel any business to serve an unprofitable market? so in your view, there should only be competition for a few? What does that have to do with my question?
said by nasadude : The telcos loudly tout they need these franchises (or relief from franchises) for "competition" and to "have a level playing field". However, the cablecos are required to serve the whole franchise area, not just those areas they consider most profitable; the telcos shouldn't be held to the same requirement? No. Just because the cable companies (which, by the way, do not serve many rural areas at all) bent over towards the government doesn't mean the phone companies should be compelled to do the same. But as it stands now, the residents of areas whose local governments putting up these silly obstacles now have zero access to any of these advanced services. If anything, these governments should do everything feasible to encourage these companies to deploy so that there is even more of an incentive to move into or do business in the town.
said by nasadude :or are you saying there should be no requirements on anyone, that anyone can use public rights of way without any bounds or regulation? sounds like you believe if we completely unfetter the telcos, the U.S. will rocket right back up to #1 status in the world for broadband. I only say what I have said.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
