pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to ib50MbSoon
Re: Thames Valley Communications = Losers
said by ib50MbSoon  :T shouldn't be allowed to cut costs by using power company poles. If AT&T and the local power company come to a mutual agreement for the former to use the latter's utility poles then there's no problem with that.
If AT&T owns the poles, then there is also nothing stopping TVC from coming to a similar agreement, and if it can't, it will have to pursue alternatives.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by pnh102 :If AT&T and the local power company come to a mutual agreement for the former to use the latter's utility poles then there's no problem with that. If AT&T owns the poles, then there is also nothing stopping TVC from coming to a similar agreement, and if it can't, it will have to pursue alternatives. If there is no legally binding rule, law or regulation mandating that ATT share their poles - WHY WOULD THEY DO IT? There is a compelling financial reason for ATT NOT to share - keeping out competition. If this is the case, tough sh!t, TVC is screwed.
If there is a reg or law (most likely as a condition of the rights of way use) that mandates ATT must share poles (at a reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates, etc.), then ATT is doing their best to take as long and make it as difficult as possible to do so, for the same reason as above: to discourage or prevent competition.
If the second is the case, ATT should be fined hugely and swiftly to make them comply with their agreement, otherwise the rule or law is useless (as it appears to be if there is one).
the reason the 1996 telecom act did zero for competition is the telcos just ignored the law and ate the fines when they got caught (the fines were apparently not huge enough).
Although I consider ATT evil, they are just acting like any other company should when there is no regulation - do whatever possible to prevent and/or eliminate competition to enable as high a price for their product as possible - it's the corporate way and they are legally bound to make money for their shareholders.
BUT, that's why regulation is needed in some cases: some companies don't care about their customers and if they are in a low competition or no competition environment, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. They also don't have to care about the common good or what is good for the country.
Obviously, some people on this forum want to live in the kind of world where corporations do whatever they want - rape the environment for private gain, prosper at the expense of the well being of customers and the country, etc.
That's all fine and good, but that's not the kind of country I want to live in.
and in response to the certain comeback (don't live here), I have certainly thought about that lately.
and when things change back eventually (and they will), I say the same to you - if you don't like it, don't live here. |
