25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
to mod_wastrel
Re: Oops!The MSOs and Telco's won't have to worry about the lawsuits once the new federal law is voted on, passed and signed by President Obama. It would create a level playing field designed for ALL providers. Meaning EPB can NOT take funds from their electric customers to put into the fiber network, and their services must be IN LINE with everyone else; and NOT undercut and thus put the burden of a failing network onto someone else by rate increases from water, power, etc. And the cities must go through the same paper work and regulations. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 7:07 pm
That's not a level playing field, that's an incumbent protectionist racket. |
|
25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-26 7:16 pm
no that is level.
you don't see Comcast going out and raising power rates to fund their network do you? You don't see them raising property taxes to fund the build, you don't see AT&T raising water prices to find their network.
It is LEVEL when the Cities are NOT allowed to take from Peter to pay Paul and that's what they're doing. If the cities want to build out a network; they need to come up with private investors the way a private company would work. And go through the same red tape.
After all who are we going to depend on? Cities that decide to steal from one department to fund another? Or Google and their BS with KC and wanting to put people in harms way. |
|
| |
to 25139889
That "level" playing field is meaningless where the incumbents refuse to even play by not providing any service whatsoever. And we--the people--will decide just how level the field deserves to be, not the incumbents. They deserve nothing more than what we say they deserve, which, of course, varies with the community in question. A one-size-fits-all Federal law will fit no one in particular (which is, of course, the point with such a law). |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J
|
to 25139889
No, it's not level.
Tell you what. Have them forfeit all their existing infrastructure and networks. So that everyone has zero. NOW it's "level."
What you're saying is "You start at zero, we start already built out, you can't raise funds from the public. Now go succeed, while we bury you. Level!"
Not. |
|
25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-26 9:48 pm
Comcast started out that way. TWC started out that way. The cities can find their own funding and if they can't; well then the network wasn't worth the paper it was planned on. |
|
| 25139889 |
to mod_wastrel
well it will fit all. and the incumbents serving the areas is you meaning; "i want all you can eat at 100meg/100meg" and they tell you if you want it; you pay for it. The way it should be. It'd be like me going to Kroger's and telling them I want 2 gallons of milk but I'm only going to pay $1.37 for it. And that's all I want to pay. And if you don't give it to me, the city needs to go and build their own store and offer it for 50cents for 2 gallons.
If the cities don't like the new rules that are coming; then they don't need to worry about playing, and they can keep what they are offered. |
|
| |
skuv to KrK
Anon
2012-Jan-26 10:22 pm
to KrK
Huh?! The cable companies didn't magic their networks into existence. They build them with money from private investors.
Why would municipalities not have to do it the same way? Just because someone else is already there?! How do you believe that you are making sense?
If cities are increasing taxes or public utility rates JUST to compete with other network providers, that is EXTREMELY wrong.
The other networks can't force anyone to give them money to improve their networks. Yet the municipalities can use the force of tax liens, turning off utilities, or even jail time to help pay for their networks. People can't choose not to pay their taxes and get away with it.
How does that sound like a level playing field to you? |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 11:31 pm
The scenario is that a city builds the infrastructure and then private companies all have equal access to it and pay the same rates to provide services over that same network.
OR the people can choose via the ballot box to build and fund a municipal provider if they so wish, unless you want to argue that the will of the people should always come behind the want of a private corporation.
This Federal law is a lobbyist wet dream, designed to hamper, block and prevent cities and towns from building out their own networks even if the people wish it. In other words, it's just more of the Federal Government telling state and local governments how it's going to be, for the good of their campaign contributors. It's wrong, and it's especially wrong when the incumbent won't step up to the plate and deliver the services the people want, but WILL try and stop them from doing it themselves. |
|
 woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA |
woody7 to skuv
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 12:14 am
to skuv
The cable cos got and still maintain exclusivity from said cities. Telcos have it also. If a city sells bonds and people buy them, what is wrong? |
|
| |
Thank you. All recent power company fiber projects have been funded with either gov't grant money (partially...and private companies got a TON of money from the gov't's broadband stimulus bill so they can't complain) or bonds...or a mix of both.
Also, is cross-subsidy wrong? If so, then why do cablecos (TWC being a big offender) subsidize competitive markets with revenues from non-competitive ones. That's worse than subsidizing fiber connectivity with local power bills (which doesn't happen anyway), wouldn't you think? |
|
| iansltx |
to 25139889
If you're so adamant about that, stay in Toledo...how do you like Buckeye Express internet tere? Or are you an employee of theirs? |
|
|
ncbill
Premium Member
join:2007-01-23
Winston Salem, NC |
to 25139889
It's already state law that municipalities can't do that for pay networks.
Which is why they're currently offering access to this one for free (then they can fund it from general taxes) |
|
| |
to skuv
said by skuv :Huh?! The cable companies didn't magic their networks into existence. They build them with money from private investors.
Why would municipalities not have to do it the same way? Just because someone else is already there?! How do you believe that you are making sense?
If cities are increasing taxes or public utility rates JUST to compete with other network providers, that is EXTREMELY wrong.
The other networks can't force anyone to give them money to improve their networks. Yet the municipalities can use the force of tax liens, turning off utilities, or even jail time to help pay for their networks. People can't choose not to pay their taxes and get away with it.
How does that sound like a level playing field to you?
The cable networks laid their lines when there was no one to compete with. The purpose was to sell CABLE TV, not internet. The ability to sell internet services over those same lines was a fortuitous development for Cable companies. Competing with an entrenched incumbent in an infrastructure heavy market is nearly impossible due to the massive advantage of scale and cost an incumbent that has already paid off its network has. |
|
| sonicmerlin |
to 25139889
said by 25139889:Comcast started out that way. TWC started out that way. The cities can find their own funding and if they can't; well then the network wasn't worth the paper it was planned on.
You're lying again. TWC and Comcast laid cable lines to sell cable TV where no one else was competing. Provision of internet access was a fortuitous turn of events with the emergence of DOCSIS. The cable companies used profits from their cable franchises to finance the buildout of DOCSIS infrastructure. Competing with an entrenched incumbent whose already paid off their infrastructure is nearly impossible. They have massive price and scale advantages, and can easily bankrupt you with predatory pricing unless you have a bottomless pit of money. I think you know this, but you just don't care. You worship corporations so dearly for some twisted reason, the idea of people providing service for themselves at the expense of some millionare executives keeps you awake at night with an ache in your heart. |
|
| sonicmerlin |
to 25139889
said by 25139889:well it will fit all. and the incumbents serving the areas is you meaning; "i want all you can eat at 100meg/100meg" and they tell you if you want it; you pay for it. The way it should be. It'd be like me going to Kroger's and telling them I want 2 gallons of milk but I'm only going to pay $1.37 for it. And that's all I want to pay. And if you don't give it to me, the city needs to go and build their own store and offer it for 50cents for 2 gallons.
If the cities don't like the new rules that are coming; then they don't need to worry about playing, and they can keep what they are offered.
You seem to not care how many lies you attempt to spread. The cities are perfectly willing to build their own network and sell service to themselves. Federal and state interference only serves to make this process more difficult. You act like corporations built their internet services from scratch, which is a complete lie. They used their profits from their cable franchises to provision DOCSIS. They laid their original cable lines with the benefit of large financial incentives and tax breaks (thus the municipal cable franchises) that guaranteed them the ability to recoup their money. Your desire for a "level playing field" is a disingenuous attempt to twist the meaning of "level" to benefit incumbent corporations. I don't know why you care so much about these private companies that benefit you not at all. |
|
| |
hehatemeidoo to ncbill
Anon
2012-Jan-27 5:49 pm
to ncbill
said by ncbill:It's already state law that municipalities can't do that for pay networks.
Which is why they're currently offering access to this one for free (then they can fund it from general taxes)
Did you help pass that one? |
|
woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA |
to iansltx
But there are people in this forum and I am sure you know who (m)they are , that anything done by a muni is evil, will always fail, and screws the telcos and cablecos that screw us. |
|
