'Positively Bizarre' > Others can compete...

Others can compete...

said by Lumberjack:

---

I use Cox. I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.

---

reply to Lumberjack

said by Lumberjack:

---

I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.

---

Cable companies are NOT subsidized in ANY way for their construction and up keep costs. The Telcos are heavily subsidized by federal money to the tune of about 17 billion dollars a year.

I think that makes a big difference as to why cable should not be forced to open their lines to "competition". Let the wannabes build their own stuff with their own money.

Simple.

I'd suggest you look again into how much money most telcos get in government funding. You'll find that 99% of the cable in your area is paid for by the telco, not the government.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?

reply to CCCMTech
Telephone companies own a lot of the poles out there too, and more times than not cable companies are on either a power pole or a telco pole without notifying either and paying rent for the space. That is criminal if you ask me. I think neither cable or telco should have there broadband networks regulated but you can't have one one way and the other the other way, just isn't right.

reply to CCCMTech

said by CCCMTech:

---

said by Lumberjack:

---

I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. ...blah blah blah

---

If you think this way, why should the FCC see telcos any differently from cable companies? They own the facilities, they run the cable, they pay the maintenance yet CLECs and resellers make a large portion of their profits, why should cable have this advantage? I agree it's not fair to companies, cable and telco. Neither should have to provide facilities for upcoming companies who can't afford their own, who would rather leech off everyone else.

---

reply to Lumberjack

said by Lumberjack:

---

The poles are available and if somebody else wants to pay the power company to use them I see no reason why they can't.

---

said by bac522:

---

said by Lumberjack:

---

The poles are available and if somebody else wants to pay the power company to use them I see no reason why they can't.

---

NOT, poles are regulated by local municipalities and just about every city, state and regional PUC which only allows three lines on a pole, electricity, phone and cable.

---

reply to CCCMTech

said by CCCMTech:

---

I'd suggest you look again into how much money most telcos get in government funding. You'll find that 99% of the cable in your area is paid for by the telco, not the government.

---

reply to Lumberjack
Actually cable didn't pay for it. The towns most often foot a great deal of the bill either in direct subsidies or in long term tax credits. If a pole is damaged its not the cable company footing that repair either.

The cable companies have collected off the customer for decades, raking in profits that have made them financial wonders in many cases. Only recently has this come under fire. If a town subsidized the building of the cable system, then that cable is a public utility, and therefore subject to share company providers.

Oh and please don't speak too loudly about how well maintained they are. Signals are crud in thousands of locations, so weak that meters show them as flawed, but no money is ever spent to fix that issue. Gain more customers, split the signal and put as little capital hardware in as possible. The cable company of most towns is FAR from a good corporate citizen.

If they suffer under competition, let em. They've screwed millions of people happily. Time for a bit of just reward.

reply to Lumberjack
Here in Missouri cable companies are operate under EXCLUSIVE contract to the local community, city, etc. This means that they are a government authorized monopoly.

A second cable company, by law, is impossible. Under these rules, a choice in ISP's is the only reasonable answer.
--
Security through obscurity is no security at all

In my area Comcast has an exclusive deal with the county to provide cable service. As one might expect in such an arrangement the county gets lots of free channels and service to schools. The public gets screwed by Comcast with outrageous rates and indifferent support service. On the other hand the copper in Arlington is open to competition, I get excellent phone and Internet service from Cavalier Telephone. I want competition on the coaxial!

reply to Costs

said by Costs:

---

If they suffer under competition, let em. They've screwed millions of people happily. Time for a bit of just reward.

---

said by dav0r:

---

said by Costs:

---

If they suffer under competition, let em. They've screwed millions of people happily. Time for a bit of just reward.

---

Amen brother.

---

reply to CCCMTech
"I'd suggest you look again into how much money most telcos get in government funding. You'll find that 99% of the cable in your area is paid for by the telco, not the government."

Umm.. Adelphia just laid out about.. Oh.. 24000 miles of new fibre in the last year.. Guess who paid for it? Adelphia . No government, no telco, no dish provider..
Its theirs.

Copper carries emergency services. Cable lines currently do not. Big difference between the 2.

jAX

reply to Wall9
Well since we're talking about what's fair and what isn't; then how can you justify telephone companies having to share their networks with any CLEC that wants acesss?? They own the hard copper lines, but they're forced to give open access so please tell me how that's any different here? Cable companies and upstarts hiding under CLEC status have long since been able to sell phone service cheaper than the owner of the lines, or offer dsl service when they don't own the lines... Similar situation.. In all honesty this decision levels the playing field and if the cable companies don't like it then quit selling internet services/VOiP that clearly fall under telcoms domain...
[text was edited by author 2003-10-09 03:38:45]

reply to JacksGhost
Actually, it's ours, we paid for it through our fees

reply to pit_viper

quote:

---

Actually you will find that the city I live in paid for 84% of the funding for the telco according to public reports.

That means my tax dollars are paying for a company I don't even use (No landline phone here)

---

reply to RR Conductor

said by RR Conductor:

---

Actually, it's ours, we paid for it through our fees

---