shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| fine by me! bring out the compeition
I don't think that we need to have every single local government involved in every town. Competition should be wide open to any company that would like to provide services. Also the telcos/cablecos shouldn't be able to meddle in a town's affairs if they want to build their own network. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| When we're talking rights of way it's not so easy as that. How many times would you want your back yard dug up to facilitate all of that competition? I still say a municipal infrastructure (or a business with no intent on providing content) open to ISPs so they can compete is the best way to go. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | I agree, however, it must be within reason, and the locals must not be overstepped.
This, of course, means the locals must be reasonable for things outside the necessary precautions and protections (such as ROWs). |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| What's more reasonable than a big fat fiber pipe connected to every household that every ISP/telco/cableco can tap into and provide service? You only have to dig that ditch once for a slew of companies to offer up whatever they want in the area. Rights of way won't be much of an issue after the initial laying out of the infrastructure. Sounds like a sweet deal for all involved (except those who don't want competition horning in on their territory). |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Right. Because everyone wants this fiber, from the same company, and everyone wouldn't mind having something like a gigantic box obstructing their house/lawn.
They're public ROWs for a reason, and it isn't so that anyone can ignore them. |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | reply to SRFireside
I've had the same thougths myself. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to tsu9
This sort of thing is happening already with the current telco and cableco infrastructure. They have already dug into your property and put up ugly boxes. If you want competition in your area the conventional way that means more companies need to be granted ROW to build their infrastructure to provide you service. That, to me, is much more wasteful.
The difference here is the people will not be held by a single provider. Whomever owns the infrastructure leases the line out to the content providers. Much like how DSL proliferated a few years ago.
It would mean the rights of way would be used only once. If Time Warner wants to offer cable in your area they won't need to dig into your yard again to do it. They can just lease the fiber. Same goes for Comcast, Earthlink, ATT, Verizon, Mom&Pop DSL, and so on. It would greatly lessen the burden of ROW to the community while at the same time giving the community a full plate of competitive offerings. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Given that companies do not want to lease any form of their network to their direct competition, I'd say this idealogy is in for "the good fight." I wouldn't mind the idea, if not for the greed that is bound to get in the way.
Realistically speaking, if the ROW were expanded to the fiber/groundwork laid to the home, this could work; however, realistically speaking, the companies would fight this just as much as they're fighting to ignore the ROWs and whatnot already. It won't happen. Further, the idea that fiber/groundwork be laid unto the ROW would be hotly disputed as well, unless it were very carefully and systematically constructed in such a way to not be destructive to the business end (and political end)--something like a public ROW box governing the neighborhood's homes' conntectivity, with appropriate availability to providers.
In short, fantastic dream, but things like this will not happen. The fiber/groundwork/copper/etc simply are not deemed a necessity, yet, for this to come to pass. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to SRFireside
Most of this has nothing to do with ROW's or the placement of utility boxes but how many $$$$$$$$ the local governments can get kicked back from the service provider. Here on Long Island we have had villages add on their own special franchise taxes which are passed on to the consumer, demands that they have studios built and supplied with video equipment so they can broadcast their village meetings, requirements that the schools be wired and supplied with free service (isn't that what the USF is for?) plus various other "fees" and "conditions" to do business.
If the role of local government is reduced to simply making sure that the existing infrastructure (ie. roads, backyards, forests, etc.) is not harmed, the esthetics of the community are not effected with oversized utility boxes being places on lawns and the environment is not damaged by the contractors, then that is fine with me. But it appears that the pols in many of these local governments look at these franchise agreements as nothing more than a money grab and a way to feather their own nests at the expense of the public. I have no problem with a higher power be it the feds or the state putting a stop to that practice.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to shashinka
said by shashinka  :I don't think that we need to have every single local government involved in every town. Competition should be wide open to any company that would like to provide services. Also the telcos/cablecos shouldn't be able to meddle in a town's affairs if they want to build their own network. I would really like the chance to try FIOS (TV and internet) and we seriously need competition for comcast.
The fact remains, however, that even with FIOS we still have at best a duopoly in this area. What happens when all the excitement diminishes, subscriber churn dies down and comcast and verizon reach "equilibrium"?
Will there really be much incentive for either comcast or verizon to improve customer service?
Instead of one unresponsive TV/internet provider, will we just have two equally poor providers?
And how long will it take before both start to raise prices?
As much as I would like to get FIOS, I'm not sure the end result will be very satisfactory if the county is unable to have some regulatory authority - keep in mind, if verizon is successful in abrogating whatever oversight the county has, comcast will be close behind in requesting the same relief. Then there will be no check on the behaviour of either company.
This duopoly is still no substitute for real competition; I suspect it will be several years before real competition happens in the U.S., if ever. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to tsu9
They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers.
Frankly each municipal should just build their own small network and let whoever provide service on it. When it's miniaturized the costs are really quite manageable. This way the telcos couldn't complain about infrastructure costs, and there would be an actual free market system, so government regulation wouldn't be needed for things like net neutrality. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to n2jtx
said by n2jtx :Most of this has nothing to do with ROW's or the placement of utility boxes but how many $$$$$$$$ the local governments can get kicked back from the service provider. Here on Long Island we have had villages add on their own special franchise taxes which are passed on to the consumer, demands that they have studios built and supplied with video equipment so they can broadcast their village meetings, requirements that the schools be wired and supplied with free service (isn't that what the USF is for?) plus various other "fees" and "conditions" to do business. But it appears that the pols in many of these local governments look at these franchise agreements as nothing more than a money grab and a way to feather their own nests at the expense of the public. I have no problem with a higher power be it the feds or the state putting a stop to that practice. That is why the telcos want to put limits on local gov't. They often, especially places like MC,MD, want to add on taxes to their own constituents, but try and do it thru franchise agreements instead of thru the normal property tax. They get the money either way but at election time they get to claim the local municipal tax rate remained low, but get to blame Comcast or Verizon for high fees. It is just a back door grab for tax money.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers. This is not a new thought. See this link for details:
»netparadox.com/
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | That's a great "fail fast" letter to the FCC. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to wtansill
said by wtansill :said by Ahrenl :They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers. This is not a new thought. See this link for details: » netparadox.com/ It's certainly not, but it's still right.. |
|
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :That's a great "fail fast" letter to the FCC. Truly. I was going to comment on that as well. |
|
