majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | Thats not right
So verizon and att can do what ever they want and cable companies cant? That seems a little unfair dont you think? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Cable companies will be getting the same perks shortly. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to majortom1029
I see this as precedence to change cable's franchise agreements/requirements. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to majortom1029
said by majortom1029  :So verizon and att can do what ever they want and cable companies cant? There is nothing stopping cable companies from pursuing the same legal offensive. Just because the cable companies chose not to do this doesn't mean that the phone companies should be chastised for choosing to do this.
In the end, it helps to bring about another choice for customers, and more jobs to CT, among other things. So it is good.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
soup du jour
I'm so bad... I should be in detention
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Danbury, CT
| reply to majortom1029
said by majortom1029 :So verizon and att can do what ever they want and cable companies cant? That seems a little unfair dont you think? i cant honestly say i agree or disagee - my only thoughts are that comcrap CANNOT be the only option for tv service - that is unconstitutional
other than the dish that went out every time it sprinkled
i say again - YEA AT&T U-VERSE and BOO to COMCRAP - i will never have cable from them again... NEVER! |
|
jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL | reply to majortom1029
then phone companies should not be forced to open their networks to competitors either. I don't see cable companies being forced to provide competitors the ability to move into their buildings and provide access to their voip network...... |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | reply to soup du jour
Look up in my area. We can't even get one of the big boy cable companies. We are either DSL or Metrocast Communications.
I would love to have more than to choices. |
|
supernac
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO | reply to soup du jour
How is it "unconstitutional"? I'm glad ATT came out on top, but I don't see how having a cable monopoly is "unconstitutional". |
|
kpfx
join:2005-10-28
Kerrville, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Karl Bode
Actually the "perks" only come with the state franchises and "shortly" is only relative to the city you're in.
Traditionally when negotiating for a city franchise the thinking of the lawyers was to get the longest term possible. Over here in Texas most cities signed franchises for 10 year terms. There are even a few cable systems running under a 99 year term with the cities.
The problem is that the companies running under these city-signed franchises cannot just drop them for the state franchises. What's unfair is that in many of these cities you'll now have one company running on a city franchise and another under the state franchise which tends to be more pro-business than pro-consumer.
But the point in this case is that AT&T is trying to pass their TV services off as competition to cable while telling lawmakers that its service isn't cable. Reality will eventually hit them too. Just because their delivery is IP based doesn't change a thing about their services. Cable and FiOS can already go switched digital over QAM and IP formats respectively, and they're classified as "cable". To the end user its the exact same thing. |
|
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| reply to soup du jour
"...unconstitutional"
Heh, heh... thanks for the chuckle. 
(Reply to--no one in particular...)
Used to be:
Locality says to provider, "For the privilege of providing our citizens with your TV service (by using our ROWs for your media--cable, fiber, whatever), we will require you to carry local channels, provide community access channels, and control your rates & how much you may increase them."
Now:
Provider says to locality, "For the privilege of allowing your citizens to view our TV service, we will tell you what channels we will carry, we will not provide any community access channels, and we will decide how much we charge and how often & how much we increase our rates."
Granted, "community access" has largely been supplanted by Internet access... in some number/percentage of localities. And, granted, things change, so why shouldn't "cable TV" (and, sorry, but whether the "cable" is coax or fiber or twisted pair or whatever, it's still "cable TV")... and none of it is an essential service (I could easily do without any TV service; I couldn't do without Internet access--unfettered, net neutral Internet access). Do I care about community access? or red-lining/cherry-picking? Nope. Do I care about a la carte--paying for what you want and not paying for what you don't want? Yep. When are we gonna get that? Hmmm, I wonder. |
|
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| reply to supernac
said by supernac :How is it "unconstitutional"? I'm glad ATT came out on top, but I don't see how having a cable monopoly is "unconstitutional". Was thinking the same thing myself.I dint think they had a Cable clause in the Constitution.
--
"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."-George Carlin
|
|
boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI | reply to pnh102
A short sighted statement if ever I heard one. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by boober321 :A short sighted statement if ever I heard one. How is that?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | reply to jtorre69
Cable did not get PUBLIC money to build their network. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Jigsaw
said by Jigsaw :Was thinking the same thing myself.I dint think they had a Cable clause in the Constitution. It was mentioned in Police Academy II.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :How is that? It brings a choice to a select few, brings a hand full of low paying jobs to the community and in the end will cost the community in terms of service and selection. |
|
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| reply to majortom1029
Well, I'm a member of "the public", and Comcast has been getting my money over the years, so that's "public money" of a sort. More importantly the cableco (and telco) infrastructure is built on public property (as in, property not owned by the cableco or telco). It's really just a problem of timing. The Cable TV build-out started decades ago, and the rules were different, and they made sense for the time. Now the rules are changing and not in a particularly "fair" way--fair to whom depends on whom you talk to.
Government regulation is bad--it means more taxes; or it's good--consumer protection is of paramount importance to all of us consumers (and I'll let you know when I think my interests are actually being protected over and above the interests of these large corporations... if that ever happens. ) For now, more competition is the best we can hope for expect. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to boober321
said by boober321 :It brings a choice to a select few, brings a hand full of low paying jobs to the community and in the end will cost the community in terms of service and selection. Huh?
Let's see. If U-Verse doesn't exist in a place, then that is one less choice for service. If it does exist, then that is one more choice. Simple math at work.
How will more choice cost the community selection?
And as for jobs, what would you rather have, low paying jobs that people who would otherwise have no other form of employment could take, or no jobs?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Claybraker
join:2002-04-13
none
| reply to boober321
said by boober321 : brings a hand full of low paying jobs to the community I'll agree with you there. at&t should pay their people much better than they do now. |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | reply to supernac
Not arguing. But monopolies are usually illegal. That's why Microsoft usualy gets into trouble. There are some exceptions. Utilities seem to be one of them. |
|
