Re: Get the *F* out of the way.

pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to krayzie bone *Re: Get the F* out of the way.** said by krayzie bone : Why? because maybe the local government is actually representing its local citizens and their wishes first over the greedy telco? What kind of local government thinks that not having more than one broadband/TV provider is a good thing? What is wrong with a telco being greedy? It is a private business. Its job is to make money. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-25 20:44:27 ·
krayzie bone join:2006-09-03 Marietta, GA	reply to pnh102 Why? because maybe the local government is actually representing its local citizens and their wishes first over the greedy telco? What you are saying is such a blanket/generalizing statement it's ridiculous that anyone would think that. Let's give the telcos carte blanche wherever they want to deploy service because they have all of our best interests in mind...
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-25 19:23:43 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO	reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 : said by marigolds : And you have yet to demonstrate at all how requiring a franchise for IPTV has any affect whatsoever on advanced information services. The residents in these towns have been denied access to these services because the local government is standing in the way of them being deployed. I would call that a pretty significant effect. No, they have been denied access because the company is refusing to provide broadband service unless they are also granted the kickback of free reign to provide video service without a franchise. At no point has the city said that the deploying company cannot deploy broadband services. The block has been against unrelated video services. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-20 10:22:44 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to marigolds said by marigolds : So you think the roadblock of a franchise is a more significant roadblock than zoning laws? Again, the comparison of local governments impeding information service deployment to local governments regulating zoning is irrelevant. said by marigolds : And you have yet to demonstrate at all how requiring a franchise for IPTV has any affect whatsoever on advanced information services. The residents in these towns have been denied access to these services because the local government is standing in the way of them being deployed. I would call that a pretty significant effect. I know that if my town's government was wasting even one minute of the peoples' time or once cent of the peoples' money on these sorts of shenanigans, while at the same time standing in the way of the people being able to get these services, I would be pretty angry. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-20 06:51:12 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO	reply to pnh102 So you think the roadblock of a franchise is a more significant roadblock than zoning laws? Have you ever been through a rezoning process? Takes a lot longer than a franchise negotiation. And you have yet to demonstrate at all how requiring a franchise for IPTV has any affect whatsoever on advanced information services.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 23:01:40 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to marigolds Please. You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a huge difference between the government dealing with zoning changes and the government putting up inane roadblocks to advanced information services development. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 22:31:13 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO	reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 : Any local government which impedes the delivery of any advanced information service, be it cable, broadband or phone, should be stripped of its authority to regulate said service, as they are standing between their citizens and access to these services. That's nonsense. So you are saying if Comcast comes in and say, "We need to construct a 40 story office building on an environmentally sensitive area in order to provide advanced information services and we need budgetary authority over 10% of city revenues" and the city says, "No, that violates multiple zoning laws and we decide the budget for our citizens" then the city should be stripped of their power to zone and levy taxes just because it Comcast says it impedes the deployment of advanced information services? Completely ridiculous. AT&T does not need IPTV in order to deploy advanced information services. They just want IPTV to make money and it is irrelevant to AT&T's technical ability to deploy advanced information services beyond its relevance to the profit AT&T makes from building out. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 22:00:53 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to marigolds said by marigolds : Local regulation of broadband services is already a resolved issue. Any local government which impedes the delivery of any advanced information service, be it cable, broadband or phone, should be stripped of its authority to regulate said service, as they are standing between their citizens and access to these services. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 20:03:29 ·
bigjimc join:2003-04-21 Middleboro, MA	reply to VegasMan You are right. And Verizon should do the same. Equal ground. They are going to charge the same rates over time so they should kick back to the community as Comcast does.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 19:14:07 ·
VegasMan Are We There Yet? join:2002-11-17 Schaumburg, IL ·AT&T Midwest 1 edit	reply to bigjimc I am not bashing Verizon. I welcome them to the town. I just want them to pay their fair share. Put up what Comcast does. Nothing more and nothing less. Comcast doesn't put up anything. The customer does. All the fees that are imposed by the franchise fees are passed along in your bill. If there is even a slim possibility of my rates being lower because my provider doesn't have to pay a franchise fee then I'm all for it. -- In need of a Vegas vacation.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 18:45:59 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO	reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 : said by marigolds : There are zero roadblocks to providing broadband service. The roadblocks are to providing television service. Who is to say that the same governments making a hissy-fit about television service wouldn't be making the same hissy-fits about broadband, if they could get away with it? They cannot get away with it though. Local regulation of broadband services is already a resolved issue. So that argument is purely hypothetical about a situation that cannot happen unless the law swings back the other way. The current legal situation does give local governments the authority to require a franchise to offer video service, but not broadband service. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 16:05:10 ·
bigjimc join:2003-04-21 Middleboro, MA	reply to batterup I am not bashing Verizon. I welcome them to the town. I just want them to pay their fair share. Put up what Comcast does. Nothing more and nothing less. I am not touching the copper lines for phone either. So I am not "disconnecting" anyone.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 15:24:22 ·
bigjimc join:2003-04-21 Middleboro, MA	reply to pnh102 I'm not complaining. I am just saying. We own the land. There are a few state owned roads but not the last measured mile. I live in a rural part of a rural town and Verizon wired us for FIOS already. I want their TV service and all, I just want to make sure they pay the same as Comcast to do business in our town. As far as their $39+ phone service...Pulease. This should be a $20 service no more plus its not always on...as their new commercials say. When the power goes out, so does your phone (after 4 or 5 hours). I got into a beef with Verizon about my POTs line. I was loosing 48 volts across my line. They had to find me a new line all the way back to the switch (23,000 feet). It took three techs four days. No wonder they have been begging me to take fios on.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 15:21:14 ·
annnonyg	reply to Skippy25 Don't forget about the Company that brings you FiOS TV While all of you praise FiOS, don't forget who is bringing it to you. The same company that has: •Short ringtones at $1.99 / year when the full song is .99 on iTunes •2 Year contract lock up on cell phone renewals •Cell phone usage reporting that is impossible to decipher •Locked phones that will not allow 3rd party services or customer downloadable apps Allowing them to take TV franchises without any checks and balances will bring the same business practices. Forget the schools, rural areas, municipal channels, etc.
	to forum · permalink · 2007-03-19 15:26:40 ·
batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs: ·Verizon Online DSL	reply to bigjimc *Re: Get the F* out of the way.** said by bigjimc : No they don't. Unless the owners are residents of the community, they have absolutely no say. If they don't like it, leave. Do you think so? Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it. quote: Utility lawyers began the battle yesterday over the $2.7 billion Verizon sale with a laundry list of questions about whether the small North Carolina company vying to buy Verizon's telephone service in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont can handle running it. »www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs···02280317
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 14:18:15 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to bigjimc said by bigjimc : No they don't. Unless the owners are residents of the community, they have absolutely no say. If they don't like it, leave. I will rephrase and say I am a voting, residential taxpayer in my town. And you go right ahead and tell these companies that when you don't get the latest and greatest broadband/video/phone offerings. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 14:09:15 ·
bigjimc join:2003-04-21 Middleboro, MA	reply to pnh102 No they don't. Unless the owners are residents of the community, they have absolutely no say. If they don't like it, leave. I will rephrase and say I am a voting, residential taxpayer in my town.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 14:01:45 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to marigolds said by marigolds : There are zero roadblocks to providing broadband service. The roadblocks are to providing television service. Who is to say that the same governments making a hissy-fit about television service wouldn't be making the same hissy-fits about broadband, if they could get away with it? -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 13:56:22 ·
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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 13:54:50 ·
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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-03-19 13:54:28 ·


Thursday, 03-Dec 16:28:27	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. page compression OFF