 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to pkust
Re: Nice, but...... said by pkust:
The main concern I have with regulatory ventures such as this is that it institutionalizes monopoly; these standards do not exist outside of an agreement that gives an exclusive franchise to Charter Communications (a monopoly by any other name is still an abomination in the marketplace). Regulation, even when it nominally is on behalf of the consumer, is still regulation, and, by definition, is a distortion of the marketplace. Defined credits for failure to meet QoS standards, regardless of intention, are arbitrary--and therefore artificial--costs. Artificial costs create additional economic obstacles that work against the consumer in the long run.
To make these standards work, there will have to be enforcement, which creates more legal red tape and more bureaucracy, the cost of which will ultimately be passed to consumers either through taxes (from the government side) or higher fees (from the cable company side) or both. Additionally, who is more likely to be able to successfully exploit a bureaucracy--the cable company or the consumer?
Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal.
In Montgomery County MD, enforcement of our "bill of rights" consists of a 5 member volunteer committee. Any company arguing increased costs to meet the flimsy standards we imposed, should be downright ashamed. said by pkust:
Rather than regulating existing monopolies and oligopolies, we would be better served if government entities would work to remove barriers to competition; there should not be a deal with just one company, but with many. There should be no exclusivity, no franchise, but an open market. That is the capitalist ideal; that is what people should demand of both their governments and their service providers.
In Montgomery County MD, we signed a franchise with an overbuilder - an effort to foster competition. But the entrenched cable company's constant anti-competitive behavior, coupled with the extraordinarily high entrance costs, made it impossible. After covering about 15% of the franchise area, our overbuilder has no plans to complete the overbuild.
We're a very lucrative franchise. The currently entrenched cable company has almost a quarter million subscribers. If our franchise isn't attractive enough for an overbuilder, I don't have much optimism for the rest of the country. I believe only 5% of our nation has cable competition.
I'm not sure I agree with your notion of "no franchise". Cable networks need access to the public right-of-way. The ROW is a precious commodity, and needs to be treated with respect. In addition, cable companies install a drop to your home, which has to comply with safety codes. Oversight is necessary. For this, and many other reasons, I believe local franchises are extremely important. said by pkust:
As much as the city of Dalton is to be applauded for emphasizing the importance of good customer service, I question whether this approach will achieve the desired results. It is far more likely that a regulatory regime will increase costs to consumers while producing at best marginal improvements in service.
We'll see how it plays out. But if nothing else, the cable companies have been serviced with notice:
SHAPE UP! |
