dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Manchester, NH
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: AOL could make a comeback

said by IowaCowboy:

AOL could make a comeback if cable companies were forced to lease bandwidth at cost to competing ISPs like telephone companies have to do so with CLECs.

This make no sense. Why would they ever have to do this? Cable companies paid their own money to build their network. It was neither funded nor subsidized with taxpayer dollars like the ILECs copper networks.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

To be fair, most cable networks were originally built through franchise agreements with various incentives to get someone to foot the bill for building it. Those networks have made billions over many decades, but they would not have been built -- investment of millions -- without the tax breaks, free access to right-of-way and poll attachment, and the monopoly guarantee of the franchise. (and local government secured contracts)



PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Manchester, NH
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by cramer:

To be fair, most cable networks were originally built through franchise agreements with various incentives to get someone to foot the bill for building it. Those networks have made billions over many decades, but they would not have been built -- investment of millions -- without the tax breaks, free access to right-of-way and poll attachment, and the monopoly guarantee of the franchise. (and local government secured contracts)

The only one to foot the bill were the cable providers. Remember, franchise agreements are made by the individual municipalities, local taxes cannot possibly fund a network. Poles are not usually owned by the municipality - the cablecos pay the phone or electric company for attachment. That's not free. Also, there is no monopoly guarantee of the franchise. Remember, exclusive agreements are illegal. That's why there are overbuilders in some areas. You are correct about right of way access, though. My main point is that the building of the networks was funded primarily by the companies, not the taxpayers.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

The only one to foot the bill were the cable providers.

While technically true, in that the city didn't write a check, they did subsidize the construction through reduced tax rates, a legal monopoly preventing competition, and ironclad contracts with the city. Sure, the city couldn't write a check for construction, but it sure as hell did sign long-term contracts to buy various services.

Remember, franchise agreements are made by the individual municipalities, local taxes cannot possibly fund a network.

Not directly, but there are MANY ways around that.

Poles are not usually owned by the municipality - the cablecos pay the phone or electric company for attachment.

Even back then, the poles were "public infrastructure" under the control of the Public Utility Commission. They were installed by the power company, but legally owned by the PUC. And the PUC regulates access, and sets (and collects) fees for attachment. (that's "the deal" for putting them on right-of-ways.)

Also, there is no monopoly guarantee of the franchise. Remember, exclusive agreements are illegal.

Yes there is, or was as they're aren't legal anymore. If you really think the government doesn't hand out monopolies, try building your own power, water, or gas system. Hell, just try to build your own power generator (hydro, wind, or solar -- 'tho solar is getting easier) [for the record, my grandfather tried that 30+/- years ago... duke power created such a shit-storm of red-tape he abandoned the idea... a dam on a creek that would've made a few kWh. We got our revenge when they wanted to run a transmission line across the property.]