 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Yes, this was a total con Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. How ATT pulled off this horrendous con is mind boggling, since providing more competition is clearly a terrible thing. The citizens of Wisconsin should demand ATT immediately cease deploying services, as they are furious they can now choose between two (or more) providers. 
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by wifi4milez:Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. ... yeah, how's that working out for consumers?
quote:
Since the law was enacted, cable and satellite television rates have risen even in areas with increased competition
|
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. How ATT pulled off this horrendous con is mind boggling, since providing more competition is clearly a terrible thing. The citizens of Wisconsin should demand ATT immediately cease deploying services, as they are furious they can now choose between two (or more) providers. You should read the article. It's pointed out that many consumers who had one choice now have zero choices, whereas AT&T has only deployed partially in 125 communities (out of 1852). Far more consumers have lost choices than gained choices.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by wifi4milez:Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. ... yeah, how's that working out for consumers? quote:
Since the law was enacted, cable and satellite television rates have risen even in areas with increased competition
So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers?
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by wifi4milez:So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers? no, I'm asking how a law that was supposed to benefit consumers and was specifically pushed as a way towards competition and lower prices is meeting that obligation.
so far, it appears it is not. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:said by nasadude:said by wifi4milez:Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. ... yeah, how's that working out for consumers? quote:
Since the law was enacted, cable and satellite television rates have risen even in areas with increased competition
So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers? A) Multiple non-competing non-exclusive carriers with no consumer protections in place.
B) Single non-competing non-exclusive carrier with consumer protections in place.
Which option is better?
Oh right, this option:
C) Multiple competing non-exclusive carriers with consumer protections in place.
Too bad that option has been taken off the table by franchise reform.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to wifi4milez
What part of "rates have risen even in areas with increased competition" don't you understand?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
| reply to wifi4milez
Yes, they have more competition... However, they traded in a lot of the protections that had traditionally been in place to prevent providers from acting like dicks.
This is a zero sum situation. The consumers of the state gave up something in exchange for something, so they are no better or worse off.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to wifi4milez
Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. Yeah weird, the same exact choices they could have had under the old franchise system, except with broader deployment, their eminent domain rights intact, and consumer protections. Other than that, great point. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Karl Bode:Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. Yeah weird, the same exact choices they could have had under the old franchise system, except with broader deployment, their eminent domain rights intact, and consumer protections. Other than that, great point. How come it never happened under the old franchise system then? The bottom line is that without changing the franchise laws, no other carriers would have deployed anything anywhere. The old rules were prohibitive and anti-business. The new rules make it attractive for additional carriers to actually want to provide service to a given area. As it stands now a percentage of the residents of Wisconsin (and a number of other states as well) have choices for video content that they didnt have a few years ago.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by wifi4milez:said by Karl Bode:Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. Yeah weird, the same exact choices they could have had under the old franchise system, except with broader deployment, their eminent domain rights intact, and consumer protections. Other than that, great point. How come it never happened under the old franchise system then? The bottom line is that without changing the franchise laws, no other carriers would have deployed anything anywhere. The old rules were prohibitive and anti-business. The new rules make it attractive for additional carriers to actually want to provide service to a given area. As it stands now a percentage of the residents of Wisconsin (and a number of other states as well) have choices for video content that they didnt have a few years ago. Because the old franchise system had consumer protections and coverage requirements.
Just like I mentioned above. The tradeoff for more multi-carrier systems in some areas is no consumer protections and no carriers at all in other areas.
While a percentage have choices that did not have a few years ago, a bigger percentage have less choices than they did a few years ago.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to nasadude
I cant speak for Wisconsin, but it working out pretty well here in Texas. Time warner has become much more price competitive since U-verse came to town. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | The Texas franchise requires existing providers to follow local franchise buildout requirements.
It will be interesting to see what happens as these local franchises expire and incumbent providers are allowed to pull existing services. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:Because the old franchise system had consumer protections and coverage requirements. I think what you just said illustrates why the franchise system needed to be overhauled. Coverage requirements are totally bogus, especially when there is already a carrier serving the area. People always talk about corporate greed, but this is a prime example of local government greed. Why should a carrier need to spend millions of dollars to make a service available in every geographic area? Thats absurd, a business exists to make money not to be a charitable foundation. More services to some people is much better than no additional services to any people. The bottom line is if municipalities keep pushing back on the carriers, then they will simple pass over that town/city/etc and move on. Guess who gets hurt when that happens......THE CONSUMER.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
How come it never happened under the old franchise system then? Because AT&T decided to sue any town or city that told them they could ignore existing laws. The reality is that Verizon deployed FiOSTV to countless markets under the old franchise system (by their own admission quickly, I might ad).The bottom line is if municipalities keep pushing back on the carriers, then they will simple pass over that town/city/etc and move on. Guess who gets hurt when that happens......THE CONSUMER. So stripping consumer protections is pro-consumer. I bet stripping away environmental laws is pro-environment? So glad we have the truth brigades around to clear things up. Because a few municipalities wanted cable TV run to the local high school, the whole system needed to be replaced with a bill that simply suckled the regional teet of the local incumbent phone operator and gave consumers and localities fewer rights? So glad we've got you loyal soldiers out there fighting the good fight for consumers. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
Coverage requirements only apply to the first provider in an area or the dominant (40%+ market share) provider(s) in an area.
They do not apply to overbuilders entering a market. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Because AT&T decided to sue any town or city that told them they could ignore existing laws. Again, that just further proves my point. If the original laws didnt have so many conditions attached then ATT would have simply built out to begin with.
said by Karl Bode:So stripping consumer protections is pro-consumer. It depends. If one of the "consumer protections" is a requirement that some abandoned warehouse 10 miles from town be wired for HSI, then yes. Other such ludicrous requirements actually discourage companies from investing in the local area, which snowballs into a larger economic problem for the whole region.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to Karl Bode
Choice is the ultimate consumer protection. I had crummy customer service and experience with my previous cable provider. They failed to fix on going issues and they got they got fired. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
Also, the requirements never would have related to an abandoned warehouse 10 miles outside of town.
Normally they were along the lines of a minimum 20 households per fiber mile. Occasionally you saw as low as 10, but that was pretty rare and only in extremely profitable areas. |
|
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:Coverage requirements only apply to the first provider in an area or the dominant (40%+ market share) provider(s) in an area. They do not apply to overbuilders entering a market. I know you are informed, but I do not understand this comment. The LFA decides what coverage an overbuilder has to provide in the franchise area. Or are you talking about a state or federal regulation? |
|
