CCCMTechPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Baxter, KY | reply to Lumberjack
Re: Others can compete... 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.
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.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
CCCMTechPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Baxter, KY | 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? |
|
 ross96VIP
join:2000-11-02
Huntersville, NC
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| 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. |
|
 dav0rtranslatePremium
join:2003-06-15
Albertville, MN | 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.
I agree. I got slammed on my *** a couple years ago in the telecom industry. I think it's cable's turn to realize they can not corner any given market either. Welcome to free enterprise and the land of competition.
--
Ever met someone from Microsoft Q/A? ...EXACTLY! |
|
 pit_viper1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24 | 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.
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 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 |
|
 RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | 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)
Which city do you live in? What state? Country? Please show at least a link to the "reports" that you are quoting from...
Boogie |
|
| reply to RR Conductor
said by RR Conductor:
Actually, it's ours, we paid for it through our fees
Actually, it's not yours. Being a customer of a company does not make you an investor too. I should own a good chunk of the broilers at Burger King too- since the money I have paid for all those Whoppers I bought was used to pay for the broilers to make them! They should now only charge me exactly what the beef costs- as cooking it costs nothing anymore- the broilers have been LONG paid for.
I also should own the apartment I live in. I've rented for years now- and the place is really old. The tenants have MORE than paid for the investment by now! It costs NOTHING and the landlord keeps on pocketing the profits! The tenants own the land and the building!
Wrong answer. The fact that you are a customer of a service or product does NOT mean that you own a stake in the company providing it. ALL companies (yes- ALL) use ratepayer (and if they pay taxes too, then that makes them taxpayers) revenue to pay for the investments made to offer the service or product sold. That does NOT make the "ratepayers" the owners of the business. It makes them "customers."
Boogie |
|
RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | I was kidding, yeesh, chill out, didn't you see the ? |
|
| said by RR Conductor:
I was kidding, yeesh, chill out, didn't you see the ?
Wasn't sure which post you were replying to with that... |
|
