| Franchise Reform honors the Constitution Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
|
|
 boltEnd of the line DSL sucks.Premium
join:2003-11-11
Charlestown, IN
kudos:1 | said by fAcEtIOUs:]Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. Ya, that deregulation bit has worked so well, for the airlines, the banking industry and the energy businesses. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands.
Isn't America great?
If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by marigolds:While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements. Lets switch to communism where the community owns all property in the USA and then we wont have silly little fights, comrade. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by patcat88:said by marigolds:While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements. Lets switch to communism where the community owns all property in the USA and then we wont have silly little fights, comrade. Oh, I get it, you think that public trust lands are communism.
Because I know you don't read the newspapers:
Martin v. Waddell:
»supreme.justia.com/us/41/367/
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois:
»supreme.justia.com/us/163/142/
And a good summary too in case that is too much:
»www.slc.ca.gov/Policy_Statements···rine.pdf
I think you will find Illinois Central particularly relevant and enlightening on this particular public trust issue.
Meanwhile, Martin v Waddell should firmly establish for you why the public trust is a Constitutionally granted foundation of the American Republic and a capitalist society.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. ahhh...tk, where would we be without the neo-con spin that you provide on a daily basis...
what the telcos have done using franchise reform is allowed themselves not just to choose where they want, but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition. this allows them to offer higher speeds at the same price or lower where areas have competition from indie-sources or cable, but in ares where this competition is lacking, allows a "monopolistic" approach to speeds and pricing. we can see it all over in the disparities between speeds and prices in fios areas and those who aren't served by fios. this is just another incarnation of it.
q.
--
those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by tubbynet:but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition. How so? From what I understand, the franchise reform minimizes the requirements to deploy new technologies into markets. How does that allow an incumbent to choose where competition exists?said by tubbynet:we can see it all over in the disparities between speeds and prices in fios areas and those who aren't served by fios. So competition works? Or am I missing your point? |
|
| reply to patcat88
Uhhh, the "community" does own public land, and easements are private property. In what sense should at&t or any telco/cableco have the right to do anything they want to with land they don't own? Would you simply give over to them the right to do anything with your land that they want to? someone else's land?
All your land are belong to us! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. so TK, you have no problem with me opening a car dealership in your front yard with no conditions and no compensation to you? |
|
| said by nasadude:said by fAcEtIOUs:Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. so TK, you have no problem with me opening a car dealership in your front yard with no conditions and no compensation to you? Not as long as you pay me $500,000 for the privilege. Because a car dealership isn't an easement.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
2 edits | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. The Constitution says nothing about states dictating the terms under which business can operate in their respective boundaries.
Actually, it just dawned on me, the 10th Amendment actually give states those rights to do just the opposite of what you've stated.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
I get the distinct impression you don't believe in easements, since it's one of those "big brother" things.
besides, with your zeal for all things free market, I would think you would jump at the chance to sacrifice for the greater good of corporatism. |
|
 TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:said by tubbynet:but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition. How so? From what I understand, the franchise reform minimizes the requirements to deploy new technologies into markets. How does that allow an incumbent to choose where competition exists? Before: Local franchises dictate 98% coverage of their population.
After: State franchise has little to no coverage requirement.
Result: People in rural / less "competitive" areas get no cable / phone / etc. They choose where competition exists and where to compete. Rather than serve an entire city, they can "cherry pick" and serve only the "rich" area that will buy more of their services. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. Funny you should mention "Big Brother." AT&T and Big Brother are practically synonyms.
I don't even agree that these are wholly private companies when their infrastructure overlays substantial private lands, public rights of ways and public airwaves.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to bolt
Yes, let's not forget the opposition to strengthening regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. |
|
approval from:
ArgMeMatey 
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
If this was a robust competitive market, with many competitors and with low barriers to entry I would agree with you.
Since it is a very capital intensive market that seems to constantly tend toward one company controlling all the wires, with very high barriers to entry, and since these companies need access to a lot of other people's land to get all these wires to potential customers (it requires the government to coerce millions of property owners into granting access to portions of their land for use by such a company), why is it unreasonable for the government to impose conditions on these companies which pressure them to provide universal service in exchange.
Easements require everyone to make a sacrifice by telling them what they can do with their property and by forcing them to provide a free benefit to a company. Why shouldn't the company have a reciprocal requirement to provide a benefit in exchange for the benefit that they are receiving from everyone else? Why is this so unfair or oppressive? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Tsume
said by Tsume:Before: Local franchises dictate 98% coverage of their population. After: State franchise has little to no coverage requirement. I understand the before/after situations, what I don't understand is tubbynet 's comment about allowing providers to choose areas where there is competition. Franchise reform aids providers to choose where they deploy service, but doesn't necessarily allow providers to choose where there is competition...short of them choosing not to compete in a market, which they already do.said by Tsume:Result: People in rural / less "competitive" areas get no cable / phone / etc. How's that different than before?said by Tsume:They choose where competition exists and where to compete. Rather than serve an entire city, they can "cherry pick" and serve only the "rich" area that will buy more of their services. Is there proof of that? I see the "redlining" comment bantered around a lot, but haven't seen any actual evidence. |
|
| They can choose areas where the median income is above average. For example, look at this map with communities with professional degrees
»www.city-data.com/top2/h188.html
overlapped with most income
»www.city-data.com/top2/z0.html
now look at where Verizon Fios is
»/gmaps/fios
now tell me with a straight face that theres no "cherry Picking" going on.
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
| All I see is three lists. I don't see any correlation done by you proving anything.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:now tell me with a straight face that theres no "cherry Picking" going on. Look at Verizon's wireline coverage map. I sense a conspiracy theory.
»www22.verizon.com/wholesale/solu···linemap/ |
|
