lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Let'em have their cake... I live in Florida and I'd like to see this reform pass. For the past several months I've seen too many anti reform commercials by some cable shill group saying how bad it will be for us. When you remove the hyperbole and innuendo it becomes an empty message. I am curious if this shill group is even paying for the ads since there have been so many. I believe the cable companies are playing a shell game with funding to make it look like the group is paying for the ad time. I'm serious when I say its worse than the last two political seasons.
I would rather see the reform pass and in two or three years after they become invested revise the law so they have to serve poor/rural areas. |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by lesopp: When you remove the hyperbole and innuendo it becomes an empty message. ...and the pro-reform message isn't the same, or more so?
I would rather see the reform pass and in two or three years after they become invested revise the law so they have to serve poor/rural areas.
There is no way that would ever happen. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to lesopp
said by lesopp:I would rather see the reform pass and in two or three years after they become invested revise the law so they have to serve poor/rural areas. Well, that will get messy, because the bill (I think this was not changed) grants the franchises in a manner that they cannot be revised when they are renewed. So anyone who gets a franchise now might not have to meet the conditions of new laws later unless the federal government stepped in. (I am not absolutely certain on this, but it certainly appears as if the franchises are automatically renewable under initial conditions in perpetuity.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
| reply to lesopp
From what I can surmise in working within this environment, the primary issue is that in muni's where the CATV operator is paying specific 'franchise fees' for each home passed [to the local muni], the telco most likely will not do so due to the nature of this product. Hence the feet-dragging by these muni's to approve permits to build-out this product within their city, regardless of neighborhood value. Yes, it IS a money issue, but not totally where you'd think. So as far as the anti-AT&T build-out funding, much of it must come from muni's that are heavily entrenched with their local CATV operator and receive a hefty sum each month, or other perks, and would loose this funding channel as users migrate off cable tv.
One example is the city of Chula Vista, CA. They wanted AT&T to provide a separate studio facility, and a separate channel for their use, similar to what they are already receiving from the local COX provider.
Anyone else see this as a possible hinderance to AT&T's plans? Each state and local government can set permitting process regulations that could result in a slowing of deployment, resulting in higher costs to market.
Comments welcome... |
|
