 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Pointless The NCTC is a private organization. It has every right to restrict or admit membership as it chooses.
Kinda funny I think... the same governments that can and do force taxpayers to subsidize cable TV or Internet service get pissy when a private organization chooses to push back.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Well if the article is correct in stating; The cooperative, open to all TV operators (including municipal)...". Then it would be interesting to know why a municipal cannot join. Of course I would never suggest the incumbents within that organization would deny membership simply because a municipality had the gall to force other local ISPs into that unspeakable position of actually competing. The hubris of it all. |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Stumbles:Then it would be interesting to know why a municipal cannot join. We already know why they can't join.
Because the NCTC says so.
It is not a government agency, it owes no one no explanation for its decisions.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL
1 edit | They may not owe an explanation but their decision speaks very clearly. |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Kinda funny I think... the same governments that can and do force taxpayers to subsidize cable TV or Internet service get pissy when a private organization chooses to push back. Force taxpayers? The taxpayers are the ones that forced our publically owned utility to deploy fiber! Just like they did when LUS deployed electricity to our community in the late 1800s. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:The NCTC is a private organization. It has every right to restrict or admit membership as it chooses. If the organization is truly "open to all, including muni", then they really can't choose to block an applicant. If they can choose who will belong, they should not claim to be "open to all". False/misleading claim.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to phiber_fed
i'm sure that everyone did NOT want the Fiber. And forced? HA! You can't force them to do anything just because of a vote. Someone had to come up with the idea to start off with.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! |
|
| reply to NormanS
it is open to ALL to apply. doesn't say anything about all being accepted. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by hottboiinnc:it is open to ALL to apply. doesn't say anything about all being accepted. What is the point? If you can turn down an applicant, it isn't "open to all". |
|
DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | reply to pnh102
It is a violation of federal law for the NCTC to deny access to LUS Fiber. Since it's a cable industry collective, with some of its board members cable executives who have part ownership interests in some cable programming networks, the 1992 Cable Act specifically forbids discriminatory pricing and access to cable programming, which is exactly what NCTC is doing --
Section 628(b)
It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers.
I know this very well since I was integrally involved in the battle to pass the 1992 Cable Act, the only bill to survive a veto by George H.W. Bush.
We actually negotiated FOR the NCTC in Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the bill. Of course, back then the NCTC wasn't dominated by big corporate cable like Cox and Charter. It was a co-op for wireless cable operators, community-owned co-ops, utility cable co-ops and independent cable systems.
That section was also designed to protect home satellite dish viewing rights.
These days, Cox and Charter dominate the membership of the NCTC and the group has gotten increasingly cagey about admitting cable industry competitors. That's why there is a justified FCC complaint. Expect the NCTC to eventually cave, because their admissions process is not defensible under federal law.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com |
|
JohnSJ
join:2004-08-14
Lafayette, LA | reply to pnh102
The hell we can't ask for an explanation from a "private" chartered cooperative that exists in its current powerful form only because of federal law and arm twisting.
I can also ask the same from a "private" oil company that has been accepting subsidies from my governments.
I can and I do.
This kind of "I don't know-nothing and don't think I even ought to know anything" comment is a blatant attempt to defend these jerks from real consequences. There is no such thing as principled ignorance.
Louisiana has lots of reasons to ask questions of major corporations and their handmaidens.
And we are asking them. |
|
