jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to batageek
Re: Non profit networking....
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. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| 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 |
|
