 needforspeed59Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ | Tax Incentive Statement is Incorrect. "Meanwhile, the FCC and the courts have consistently ruled that the cable and telephone companies are under no legal obligation to share their broadband lines with would-be competitors. Some argue that federally collected monies and tax incentives helped pay for those lines in the first place, and that the current owners of those facilities have an obligation to share them."
This part is only 1/2 true. Cable companies did not get subsidized by tax payers to build their infrastructure. Their capital was raised through investors that put up great risk "back in the day". The fact that they mostly do not have a cable competitor in direct competition is not because of exclusive franchises with cities. Those don't exist as far as I know. Another cableco can come in and compete if it makes sense. The economic reality that it is too costly to overbuild and then share the market. So, now they should be forced to let another entity make a profit on their investment? To force a company to share its lines that IT and its investors built at their risk is tantamount to socialism IMHO. A slippery slope indeed. What's next? A Toyota dealer forced to share its lot because Ford can't compete because they have a crappy location? I know that is not apples to apples.
--
Great success! High five! |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I agree with what you are saying regarding opening privately funded cable networks. However, I disagree with you on cost being the only issue preventing competition. We've seen both cable and telco incumbents fight tooth and nail to prevent municipal plans. Granted, it's one thing to compete with another corporation and quite a different thing to compete with the government. I do understand the incumbent's position. However, if they are not serving or they are underserving a market because they don't see enough profit, why fight municipal projects? |
|
| reply to needforspeed59
You are only 1/2 right. They were granted monopolies in many places. Whether we give them $1 billion to build out, or we make it so they can collect it through exclusiveness and noncompetitive pricing, it is still welfare and subsidization. |
|
