dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12031
share rss forum feed
« Forget cable
page: 1 · 2 · next

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

Sounds Good to Me

Sounds good to me. A commercial company shouldn't be forced to provide a luxury optional service to everyone, nor should they be required to fulfill such extortion tactics as building new community centers, planting trees, or any other non-pertinent local interest items. This is not a socialist state...yet. Allow the market to drive service deployments and costs.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

said by openbox9:

Sounds good to me. A commercial company shouldn't be forced to provide a luxury optional service to everyone, nor should they be required to fulfill such extortion tactics as building new community centers, planting trees, or any other non-pertinent local interest items. This is not a socialist state...yet. Allow the market to drive service deployments and costs.
But the majority of supporters claiming wired TV (controlled by local pols) is a utility, and that everyone MUST have, and that must be price controlled are also supporters of a socialist state. They are against a government that provides a national defense, but they are for a government that decides what we can smoke and what we can eat and how we must educate our children and how we must provide sex education, etc. Socialism, nanny government, fascism - all part of the liberals great design for gracious living.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

Companies wanting to compete SHOULD play on a level playing field. We have the Level Playing Field Statute in IL. I am all for competition, but not when one certain Telco wants preferential treatment to deploy - and only will serve the customers they deem worthy of their video service. Competition for some, but not all?

I also don't believe the munis need to be stripped of any local control. The system isn't broken here, and Verizon is deploying fiber and providing video after entering into local franchise agreements. Does anyone really want AT&T to have the power of eminent domain in their community? They can place a huge Lightspeed box in your yard if they deem it necessary, and there won't be a thing anyone can do about it at the local level if this horrendous legislation is passed in IL.



jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
reply to FFH

No, some of us believe in long-time conservative ideas like federalism - leaving national defense to the national government and leaving local right-of-way decisions to the local government.

"...Government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable."

-George W. Bush


Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
reply to openbox9

I have issue with your use of the word "forced".

These companies aren't being forced to do anything. They're being offered the chance to provide service and build highly profitable assets on public ROW's in exchange for building out their network to communities that may not have a desirable adoption rate.

Much like if you want to build a house in said community you must abide by the permitting structure, electrical, waste disposal, and fire codes.

Frankly they'd still be better off if they built their own networks and allowed the private entities to compete to provide service on it, instead of inviting a previously abusive monopoly into their back yards.

Get some nice MBIA wrapped revenue bonds, and sell them into the hugely liquid Muni market with a 3.00% yield.



marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

Extortion tactics as building new community centers, planting trees, or any other non-pertinent local interest items.
Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements.

The state level franchises are about more than "optional services". Basic cable is one of the two primary routes for the emergency alert services. Both the Iowa and Missouri bills expressly forbid requirements to carry emergency alerts. Why? Because phone companies do not have emergency alert interconnects in place already and they are expensive to build.

Besides that, basic cable and institutional cable is used for distance education by many colleges and community colleges. The state level bills are scrapping institutional cable completely and severely restricting educational basic cable (especially facilities support, which is completely eliminated in almost every case).

The last factor of basic cable beyond a "luxury" is remote viewing of government meetings. Try telling the senior and disabled community that they should just show up to meetings if they are that interested. These state franchises are also restriction funding and channel access for government channels. The Missouri bill authorizes cable companies to remove these channels from basic cable completely.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to jslik

I won't dispute the need for local government to take care of the people,but I will argue the ability of local government to extort corporate entities beyond standard corporate taxation. Why aren't McDonalds' franchisees required to pay local governments in a fashion similar to CATV and phone providers?



marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2

said by openbox9:

Why aren't McDonalds' franchisees required to pay local governments in a fashion similar to CATV and phone providers?
Because the McDonald's franchises are built on private property, unlike the CATV and phone providers.
That would also be why satellite television is not required to pay local governments.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Octopussy2

I agree, there should be no preferential treatment in any direction. Government should allow (not mandate) commercial entities to serve customers and the commercial entities should not expect special treatment or protection from government. I don't necessarily have issue with franchise agreements in general, however I do see a problem when the franchise agreement goes above and beyond allowing a commercial businesses the ability to operate and provide service. I do not believe businesses should be required to fund local interest items. I do not believe businesses should be mandated to provide service to every citizen for luxury items. As for placing equipment in the ROW, that's progress. How should businesses provide services to citizens if they aren't allowed to place equipment?



jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

I won't dispute the need for local government to take care of the people,but I will argue the ability of local government to extort corporate entities beyond standard corporate taxation. Why aren't McDonalds' franchisees required to pay local governments in a fashion similar to CATV and phone providers?
Requiring build-out, access channels, or I-Nets isn't extortion. All those requirements are specifically allowed under federal law, which the telcos/cable folks have signed off on several times in the past. The telcos lack of foresight regarding the marketplace shouldn't be blamed on local government.

McDonald's isn't locating their facilities on public land, so they don't have to pay rent to the city, which the franchise fee truly is.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Ahrenl

I'll grant you that 'forced' might not have been the best word choice. I'm all for following local codes and requirements. Every person and business should do so. I don't think that businesses should be required to serve every residence just for the opportunity to "open up shop" in a community. Should a cellular phone company be required to stand up a new transceiver closer to my house if my half of the city isn't covered just so the cellular provider has the opportunity to maintain their other transceivers?

I like the concept of a neutral infrastructure with a reselling capability. I don't think it will ever happen on a large scale though



karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

Socialism? Um, no, federalism. The point is, you aren't a real conservative, you are a capitalist pig. To you, the only good law, is a law that benefits the corporation. To the rest of us, we prefer the government to act in the best interest of the people. You know, living, breathing things that make us human.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.



karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL
reply to openbox9

Forced is exactly the word you should use. Remember, the cable/telco's are using PUBLIC LAND, to run their wires. It's in the publics BEST INTEREST to force them to provide universal service.

Look at it this way. If we left it to the megacorps, most farms and rural houses wouldn't even have electricity. The cost to run poles and wires to a farmhouse FAR outweigh any return they provide, but without electricity, we wouldn't have many farmers now, would we. It's the same with telephones, cable tv, and cell phone service. If they want the RIGHT (notice, it's a RIGHT, and a PRIVILEGE) to provide service, then we, the people, set the conditions they must meet before we allow them to do so. It's called democracy, where the greater public good out weights the rights of the megacorps.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to jslik

I guess I've miscommunicated my point. I don't have a problem with businesses franchising (leasing) the ability to provide service to a community. My intention was not to argue paying for ROW use. My point is that is where the business' obligation to the community should end. Businesses lease access to the ROW and then provide services as they deem appropriate.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to karlmarx

Not that it's relative, but you're right, I'm not a hardcore conservative...I never claimed to be And no, there are plenty of good laws that benefit more than just the "megacorps". I do believe government should act in the best interest of all of its citizens...both corporate and otherwise. There is a comfortable middle ground, it just needs to be found.



GetItRightDude

@bellsouth.net
reply to FFH

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to marigolds

said by marigolds:

Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research right now. I've sadly based my comments on what I've read on this forum...I know that's dangerous.
said by marigolds:

The state level franchises are about more than "optional services". Basic cable is one of the two primary routes for the emergency alert services.
Ok, then my community should pay for me to have CATV? I'm not sure I'm following your logic of "optional services". To me, optional is that I choose to pay for CATV and it's not "necessity" like water, electrical, PSTN service, etc. (some of which I disagree with btw).

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to karlmarx

How is it in the public's best interest to force universal service? How is in your best interest, or mine for that matter, to pay higher fees because a provider is mandated to serve everyone?

said by karlmarx:

If they want the RIGHT (notice, it's a RIGHT, and a PRIVILEGE) to provide service, then we, the people, set the conditions they must meet before we allow them to do so.
I'll tag along with this comment. If consumers want the RIGHT (it is most definitely a privilege) to purchase my service, then businesses set the conditions to be met before providing service. Mainly, pay them what it costs to enable a sufficient ROI for all customers.


DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·ViaTalk

1 recommendation

reply to GetItRightDude

said by GetItRightDude :

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.
Then why do some many liberals do it ? ie
Speech codes at colleges, Political correctness ? loss of private property laws ? Sorry wrong Facism is a liberal socialist ideology.


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

Ok, then my community should pay for me to have CATV?
I am not certain for Florida, but for Oregon and Iowa, the city does pay indirectly for limited basic cable service for those who cannot afford it. Limited basic is just emergency alerts plus access channels (and sometimes broadcast affiliates, it varies by city). Low income residents get limited basic for free, seniors get it for a reduced cost. The city makes this up to the cable company through reduced franchise fees (the cable company gets to deducted the discounted or free service from their gross revenue used to calculate the franchise fee).

This actually brings up another component to this. All new building construction in a franchised city is required to give access to dwellings for cable television service. A homeowner cannot say "sorry, I'm not going to subscribe to cable, so I don't want you to run wires to my residence". They must give every television franchiser access to building to run service even if they are not subscribing.
The reasoning behind this is to ensure that every new resident (especially renters) of the city can have access to the essential community components of basic cable, the emergency alerts and the access channels. In many cities, rental permits carry a condition of access to cable television or reasonable substitute (like an aerial capable of picking up a minimum number of emergency alert carrying stations) for this reason (even if the rental unit is not in a mandatory buildout area).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
reply to DaveDude

said by DaveDude:

said by GetItRightDude :

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.
Then why do some many liberals do it ? ie
Speech codes at colleges, Political correctness ? loss of private property laws ? Sorry wrong Facism is a liberal socialist ideology.
Laugh, actually Fascism and Socialism are Antonym's.. WTG,F. I bet you feel real smart..

»thesaurus.reference.com/search?r···=Fascism

Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

I'll grant you that 'forced' might not have been the best word choice. I'm all for following local codes and requirements. Every person and business should do so. I don't think that businesses should be required to serve every residence just for the opportunity to "open up shop" in a community. Should a cellular phone company be required to stand up a new transceiver closer to my house if my half of the city isn't covered just so the cellular provider has the opportunity to maintain their other transceivers?

I like the concept of a neutral infrastructure with a reselling capability. I don't think it will ever happen on a large scale though
If they want to build the towers on Public property, they should have the expectation that one of their covenants for use of the space is to serve the entire community that owns said space. If you're not providing service to me, then you're misappropriating my share of the public space granted to me as a residence of the township.

Another reason for the need of public access is the physical impracticality of every citizen attending ANY local government function. There are 30,000 people in my town, should we drive down to Gilette stadium for every selectman's meeting/town meeting/school committee meeting/finance board meeting/zoning board meeting/conservation board meeting/DPW meeting etc.?


jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

My point is that is where the business' obligation to the community should end. Businesses lease access to the ROW and then provide services as they deem appropriate.
I understand, and that's certainly a point worth arguing. My position is that providing those community communication enhancements above ROW lease/fees benefits everybody, including the provider.


DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·ViaTalk
reply to Ahrenl

said by Ahrenl:

said by DaveDude:

said by GetItRightDude :

Fascism isn't a liberal idea... Its a convervative, right wing ideology. Nice try though.
Then why do some many liberals do it ? ie
Speech codes at colleges, Political correctness ? loss of private property laws ? Sorry wrong Facism is a liberal socialist ideology.
Laugh, actually Fascism and Socialism are Antonym's.. WTG,F. I bet you feel real smart..

»thesaurus.reference.com/search?r···=Fascism
Because you are incapable of reading 3 or 4 sentences, if you re-read what i wrote. Why do liberals do it so much, if its not in there ideology ? Liberals today seem to be using it over and over. So without a academic answer. Why are liberals being facist ? Its supposed to not be liberal ?
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to Ahrenl

said by Ahrenl:

Laugh, actually Fascism and Socialism are Antonym's.. WTG,F. I bet you feel real smart..

»thesaurus.reference.com/search?r···=Fascism
Actually they are not. The most well known fascist society was NAZI Germany.

National Socialist German Workers' Party
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

More:
»www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4950532.html
»rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html
»ask.yahoo.com/20050920.html
fascism contains elements of both "left and right ideology"
»www.promethea.org/Misc_Compositi···ism.html
The difference between fascism and socialism is a fine point in practice. In intent they may differ, but in practice both tend toward consolidation of political power. Socialism typically favors central ownership to a greater degree (in the extreme of communism, all appreciable property is centralized) while fascism emphasizes state control over exchanges more than state control over property itself. With different emphasis, both are based on forced intervention with the individual human acts of creation and voluntary exchange, making creation and exchange involuntary.

--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page

ross7

join:2000-08-16
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

Not that it's relative, but you're right, I'm not a hardcore conservative...I never claimed to be And no, there are plenty of good laws that benefit more than just the "megacorps". I do believe government should act in the best interest of all of its citizens...both corporate and otherwise. There is a comfortable middle ground, it just needs to be found.
There is no middle ground with the corporate state.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

It's not a corporate state. Where did you pull that from?


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to Ahrenl

said by Ahrenl:

There are 30,000 people in my town, should we drive down to Gilette stadium for every selectman's meeting/town meeting/school committee meeting/finance board meeting/zoning board meeting/conservation board meeting/DPW meeting etc.?
Until you show me that all 30K people are actually interested in attending such meetings, your point is null, IMO.


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
reply to openbox9

In this case (IL) no one is preventing AT&T from deploying any services. They simply do not want to play on a level playing field with competitors. They want preferential treatment and the ability to redline customers they don't deem worthy of their "competitive" service.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to marigolds

said by marigolds:

the city does pay indirectly for limited basic cable service for those who cannot afford it.
Do they buy the TV that goes along with it? If someone is really that poor, I would think that CATV access is the least of their worries. Where does the socialistic mindset end?
said by marigolds:

All new building construction in a franchised city is required to give access to dwellings for cable television service.
I assume your talking about apartment/office complexes and not necessarily private residences?