patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to wentlanc
Re: Non profit networking....
1984 deregulation (or reregulation if you want to call it that) worked very well. No player can offer the functions/services that its competitor offers. IE, ILEC can only offer copper loop, only ISP can offer DSL, only local exchange CLEC can offer intra-LATA, and only long distence can offer inter-LATA. When no players can control more than 1 part of the service, there will be competition |
|
ajkvndgtsdreyegs
@omcastbusiness.net
| Wrong! If you want competition and the best possible service for the lowest price. totally deregulate everything. any ISP has the right to come into any town so long as the citizens of the town have a chance to vote the ok that so called applying provider is allowed to run lines into the town to provide a service. It is called free market capitalism. as long as each provider applies to the town and the town votes to allow another ISP to come in then you will have the best possible rates. for those that vote no then no lines can or will be run through their premises for a said period of time. so they either have a choice to not get the service and vote no ro they get the service possibilities and say yay. to hell with regulation in all shapes and form this is what hurts the consumer in price economics. |
|
LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA
 ·Charter Pipeline
| you make since but since there is never a vote for the people to decide i see this a moot point. the company's go to the top level of gov in that town and sign exclusive deals. there is no vote. Only politicians that think they know what there doing is the only vote. that's why most cities/town don't have two or more companies competing in the same area. imagine if you could choose between two or more cable company's, its a dream waiting to be had. a choice between cable, dsl, wireless, and satellite Internet is not competition since there speeds differ greatly in a given area. very few cities/towns get any competition between the 4 and usually there in huge cities. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| I CALL B.S.
The only thing stopping multiple builds is the lack of payback in the private sector business model to do so.
The "crooked politician" arguments don't hold weight. Blocking a cable build by an "exclusive" agreement is against the law.
See: »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod···00-.html
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
hjkjshjkhkashk
@verizon.net
| really. I have personally tried to get fiber from another cable company 10 miles away for a great price because a cable company (suscom) was going to allow this however suscom was bought out by comcast and comcast will not allow mediacom to run fiber to our buisness. whether its against the law or not i dont know but i do know that we are not going to pay a bunch of lawyers to find out. but this is the exact statement given to me from mediacom and they are and were very serious about getting our buisness for the next three years by running fiber to 6 different sites but no, freemarket ISP doesnt exist in my neighborhood |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to batageek
That law you cite does ban exclusive franchises, but in practice it does nothing to stop them. Sure, in *theory* the startup can get a franchise. But only if they hand over 5 percent of revenue to the city, promise to offer service in low-income areas with low adoption rates, and in the case of TV grant a channel devoted to city council meetings that barely anyone actually watches.
Yes, in some cases private investment payoff is too low to justify building a network if there's already one in place. But if you really think the huge burdens of franchise agreements do not discourage broadband choice, then I advise you to search DSLReports news about the obstacles FiOS and U-Verse have dealt with for the past couple years. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to ajkvndgtsdreyegs
Deregulation = allowing anti-competitive practices |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to jaminus
it's a level playing field argument. You can't expect one provider to get one deal and another provider a different one.
From the city's point of view, it would dump them into a legal quagmire. The city, as it should, is looking to serve all its citizens with the same service and should be looking to get something out of the deal for its citizens.
As to the huge burdens, it's no different than what the cable cos are existing under presently. Cable cos have (in most places) universal buildout clauses for a franchise area (where local franchising has not been replaced with statewide franchising). Cities are typically trying to require the same of the bells when they begin offering video services.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
