 soup du jourI'm so bad... I should be in detentionPremium
join:2001-12-12
Danbury, CT | reply to majortom1029
Re: Thats not right 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! |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | 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. |
|
| 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". |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
 JigsawStardust We ArePremium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH | 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
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| May be illegal, but not unconstitutional. The Constitution does not establish laws, it limits what the federal government can do. |
|
 QumahlinNever Enough TimePremium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state | reply to soup du jour
said by soup du jour: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! If you think you not having access to different cable providers is "unconstitutional" then I suggest you re-read the constitution. |
|
