Comcast To 'Help' Consumers By Raising Rates in Washington State → Re: I question the accuracy of this....

Technically, you are correct. It is deemed non-exclusive by the law.

What I mean is that many franchise agreements, while technically non-exclusive, are in reality exclusive as there is little to no chance of anyone outside the other major ISP's entering those markets due to some ridiculous rules and regulations which can change year-to-year depending on how many millions the major ISP's spend to change the law in that state.

Karl has written many times how smaller ISP's want to enter a market and are not allowed due to the major ISP's demanding that ANYONE entering the market must use the EXACT same agreement or else...no agreement. And that is one of many issues that has stopped smaller companies from even entering markets with big players already in them.

Heck, the FCC itself admitted to such issues.

»www.maine.gov/connectme/ ··· ne09.pdf

The FCC found that “[r]egulatory restrictions and conditions on entry shield incumbents from competition…” The FCC identified several factors that have stood in the way of competition. These include: (a) delays in acting on franchise applications; (b) insistence on the same terms for new entrants as for incumbents; (c) unreasonable build-out requirements; (d) LFA demands unrelated to provision of cable television services; (e) excessive demands over franchise fees; (f) unreasonable Public, Education,Governmental (“PEG”) channel and Institutional Network (“I-Net”) requirements; and (h) existence of local “level playing field” provisions.

That's what I thought. My comment was based on your implication that Comcast recently acquired an exclusive agreement and as such were seeking favorable deregulation based on their new position. In reality, there has been no change in the franchise agreement status and they are seeking deregulation based on their assertation that competition has exceeded a previously agreed upon threshold.

....and the FCC through various orders has gotten rid of those "barriers" several years ago (which your link notes), and we still don't see significant competition, and that includes states with statewide franchising. So maybe the "barriers" are something else?

The one specific barrier that I have seen in several cities is the exact-same agreement argument that ISP's make when newcomers try to join the party.

Of course, as I type this I can't find the links but I just read two stories in the Star Tribune and Arkansas Gazette (I think thats their name) where local companies wanted to build fiber slowly through the cities (1/3 in the first year, 2/3 in the following 2 years, etc...) and the major ISP's squashed it due to to them forcing anyone that tries to come into their area wanting a different agreement with the city (not saying better or worse but just different since the buildout is slower).

I believe it was the Minnesota city who is thinking about suing the ISP to allow their city council to agree to slower buildout agreements.

Now, let me go find the articles. Annoying that i didn't save them.