hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to jap
Re: But can they?
There is a large company that is the gas provider from what I understand. But as long as the city has the no-dig law in place nobody is allowed to dig where those lines are located. |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to hottboiinnc
If the city owns the infrastructure then they have increased clout by virtue of controlling distribution access. But if competitors want to find another way in then a muni govt cannot easily tell it's residents they cannot buy it.
Usually the infras were developed under monopolies (bells, high-voltage) controlled by state PUCs - not local munis. Those infra (the poles being critical, of course) continue to be under de-regulation influences - so it does vary regionally. In all cases, however, non-compete clauses are time limited - they don't go on indefinitely.
You say "it also keeps problems with cutting cables and gas lines up. That's why Duluth does it." Well, ...achem..., maybe. It also may be because the local faux monopoly has bought-off town hall. Sorry for my hard-bitten NE cynicism but I left the upper mid-west many, many years ago. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to Jeremy341
How can they be special cases?
Many cities only allow one company for everything. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to jap
I didnt suggest that Duluth is in the right. But it also keeps problems with cutting cables and gas lines up. Thats why Duluth does it. |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Jeremy341
said by Jeremy341  :
Those are special cases, and my response still stands.
Agreed. That hottboiinnc says "Duluth pays an anti-trust fine every year" but suggests that Duluth is still "in the right" seems to defy logic. Here, and I'm sure most places, the owners of not only the poles but any related infrastructure (switch-housings, buried conduit, etcetera) must lease space to all comers if that infra was built under PUC review & co-ordination - which nearly all of it was. |
|
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost | reply to hottboiinnc
Those are special cases, and my response still stands. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Jeremy341
NOT TRUE!
Many cities still have them and are allowed to have them.
As long as the company is are "grand fathered" in the government won't buge especially if its a local cable company.
The city i live in had this. TWC tried for years to get in even tried to sue but it was thrown out of court. but the local company ended up selling to TWC so now we got them.
Also cities can stop companies for using their poles if they own them and pass laws to stop people and companies from digging like they have done in Duluth MN.
Pass laws that say companies can not use the poles on streets and dig holes to put in cable and you have it made.
Duluth pays an anti-trust fine every year but its not as near as what they'd lose if they'd let other companies come in with services they stop like Gas and other services that use cable under the ground 
Also i have a friend that lives there. |
|
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| reply to handydave
said by handydave :
Don't towns have to sign a 5-10 year exclusive contracts with cable companies that don't allow them to bring in competing services?
Nope, exclusivity agreements are illegal. |
|
handydave
join:2000-12-14
Totowa, NJ
| Don't towns have to sign a 5-10 year exclusive contracts with cable companies that don't allow them to bring in competing services? If so, isn't it going to be hard for Verizon to break in? I don't like Verizon, but would love some competition in my town. |
|
