how-to block ads
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| More competition is better
Long overdue, congress should have passed laws to this effect ever since it became a problem. It does go to show how much influence telcos have over the FCC, but it's a wise decision.
No way the cable operators would bypass apartment buildings, they just did these monopoly arrangements because it made them more money. Developers were willing to cash in at the expense of the future owners, now they can't do that. It's ridiculous, glad something was finally done. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| What you guys don't get is that this never was a problem in the past - want to know why?
BEFORE it was a problem, when an apartment unit / complex wanted cable installed in their property, it was at the cost of the apartment owner.
Telco and cable just didn't come in and install service out of the goodness of their hearts, so when it came down to it, a deal was struck, by either, and service went in.
I don't recall telephone rushing in ahead of cable or the other way around beating their doors down for rights to the complex. However, I will say that cable was always more aggressive.
NOW - jump to today. NOW there is competition, and while both companies sat back with their hands out and said "pay me" to the developer, and the developer was looking to make the cost go away, NOW these communications companies are crying foul.
What do I have to say? "boo hoo"... I don't care about the consumer in this case. My standing is that they knew what they got moving in and as the free market goes, if you don't like what's being offered, move on. (I want XM radio built in my vehicle, so that leaves Chrysler and Ford off my radar, doesn't it?) If I am looking at two apartments and one complex offers phone phone and the other offers me access to any service available, guess who gets my business? Those developers that make the right choices will get the business.
But, as I was saying - this is typical of most Americans today - Short term memory.. people only can see what's in front of them and don't care UNTIL it affects them.
NO PLAYER in this is innocent. The only thing I WILL say is that in support of cable, they made a deal.. a good one. 20 years ago, they had a choice to sit back and say "pay us to install services into your grounds" to which most people said "NO!" OR "we'll eat the costs but in doing so, we want X amount of years exclusive"... so what's wrong with that?
So I ask you - since it seems to be Telco crying - why does this seem to be a wise decision? For years, and up to now, telephone wants their money to wire up buildings, homes, and new developments. Why all the sudden have they decided to stomp their feet and now they're willing to do it for free?
I'm glad there is a forum to expose the B.S. on all sides.. including the "poor consumer" who can't make a smart decision for them selves.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
joker5656
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA
 ·Charter Pipeline
| i see your point as to why your for it and all which it does make sense. but what you forget about is if the company that has the deal can keep them people locked in at any speed/cable service they see fit, and also the other bad thing is if something comes around better from another company there SOL. oh and i can get xm in any make or model car i have. if you have the money to to get a new car that comes with xm then surely you can afford a new cd player with sirus if u want it | |
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to fiberguy
If free markets were left unchecked all we'd have left are dueling monopolies (or one big one). | |
|
