matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT
| reply to Neyland
Re: No Wonder We're Not Tops
I think even lines that companies like Comcast put down more than 20 years ago should be opened up to competition. After all, such cable companies have OBVIOUSLY made back their cost to build out the lines by now anyway. So, if we're finally going to do away with our antiquated, state-granted cable monopolies, then I say all the cable lines in the country should be opened up to every single cable provider. Right now, Comcast is my only choice where I live. You want some real competition? Let's see Comcast continously raise their rates when I have a choice of Time Warner, Optimum Online or anybody else. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| said by matrix3D  :I think even lines that companies like Comcast put down more than 20 years ago should be opened up to competition. After all, such cable companies have OBVIOUSLY made back their cost to build out the lines by now anyway. So, if we're finally going to do away with our antiquated, state-granted cable monopolies, then I say all the cable lines in the country should be opened up to every single cable provider. Right now, Comcast is my only choice where I live. You want some real competition? Let's see Comcast continously raise their rates when I have a choice of Time Warner, Optimum Online or anybody else. And again, I have no problem with that as long as those lines were funded in some way by the local/state/or federal governement. If they weren't then they shouldn't be required to open them up. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to S_engineer
'Cable companies pay local municipal franchise taxes'
And AT&T pays federal taxes. The gov't has decided to let cable not be a "telephone service" while claiming that U-Verse is a cable service.
'ATT moves forward not through technological advancements, but through legislative briberys.'
So how many legislators did they bribe to create wireless ethernet, radio astronomy, transistors, and Unix? |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| reply to pnh102
you should trying reading before you post. there's really something wrong with you.
"However, the primary goal of the laws is to eliminate build-out requirements so the companies can selectively deploy next-generation technology to only the most profitable (read: not rural) areas. Unfortunately for consumers, a number of the laws are little more than legislative gift baskets that strip away consumer protections, kill off public access TV funding and in some cases, erode local eminent domain rights" |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Why should AT&T be forced to service areas which are not profitable?
Sounds like your idea of "equal service" is for everyone to get 0 service as is the case now.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by bmn :And ATT isn't in any better a position. Yes, they are. They are offering something that the public might actually be able to use or enjoy. The government simply offers more reasons for AT&T to not be able to offer these services. The former is clearly better than the latter. And if the people don't like what AT&T has to offer, they can make the choice to not buy these services. They don't need the government to make that choice for them. The public might actually enjoy it if AT&T offered tax-free leaded gasoline discounted by using cheaper singled walled underground tanks and vehicles with no catalytic converters, but AT&T can't do that either.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Does AT&T not have a right to lobby for a more favorable regulatory environment? There is a significant difference between lobbying and suing.
Guess which one AT&T has been using in CT?
You actually make a great argument for barring AT&T's lawsuit.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by bmn :ATT and Verizon are both asking to be treated special. They want to use the regulatory system to give them a competitive advantage over the cable companies, without those changes going to the cable companies. Again... why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things? Cable companies can do the same if they want. Again, we are talking about lawsuits, not lobbying.
--
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 marigolds
said by marigolds :Guess which one AT&T has been using in CT? Perhaps if the state got out of the way of progress then lawsuits would not be needed.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
All4Choice
@swbell.net
| reply to bmn
LMAO...You are arguing with someone who fantasizes about Star Trek!!! I am getting a picture of the guy in MIB, sitting there watching a video about the 'Light of Zartha' or whatever the hell the name was....and "living it".
Awesome!!! Go Klingons! Is that the right spelling? Do they, the Klingons, use the European Alphabet or the Klingon. Sory for any typos! |
|
