SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to fredlydeadly
Re: Eliminating local franchises eliminates local pol graft
said by fredlydeadly :
Where do you think that money comes from? It isn't like the cable/telcos reduce their profit margins - they just boost what you pay to pass the additional cost through.
And this makes a difference, how? Those fees will be in your bill whether it comes from a local franchise fee or a national one. I'm talking about how much of that fee actually goes to your community. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to asfdsadfsdafffff
said by asfdsadfsdafffff :
The state franchise laws still require the telcos/MSOs to carry Public, Educational, and Governmental channels and the 5% the communites get can help pay for it. This isn't that different from current practice, but should stop extortionate attempts from local special interests to get just one more concession from a MSO.
Still says nothing of the consumer protections that are built into the franchise agreements with respect to things like quality of service, etc.
--
Prove it... |
|
asfdsadfsdafffff
@sbc.com
| reply to bmn
said by bmn  :said by TKJunkMail :Getting rid of local franchise agreements eliminates 1 more source of graft - the local politicians. And if we can get rid of state franchises and substitute national franchises( a bill is still waiting in Congress), we can get rid of state graft too. Paying off a lot less pols(only national ones then) should result in a faster rollout and lower costs due to less graft and payoffs. Yeah, and then all the consumer protections offered by franchise agreements will be lost, there will be NO local access content (school channels, government announcement channels, EOC channels, etc.) and there is no way you can complain when the provider fails to hold up their end of the franchise agreement. The creation of national franchise agreements clearly puts all of the power into the hands of the provider and leaves the consumer with nothing. As for your assertion that the providers will spend less time greasing palms... You clearly need to get a dose of reality. The politicians in DC are the neediest bunch of beggars in the political pipeline. The state franchise laws still require the telcos/MSOs to carry Public, Educational, and Governmental channels and the 5% the communites get can help pay for it. This isn't that different from current practice, but should stop extortionate attempts from local special interests to get just one more concession from a MSO. |
|
fredlydeadly
@sbc.com
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :said by TKJunkMail : Actually the national law in Congress sets aside 5% of franchise tax to go to the local community. The money doesn't go back to Washington,DC. Then the local community can do with it as they see fit. 5% seems like a paltry sum, especially if a local community takes in much more from the local franchise fees. Plus what happens to local programming? State and federal franchises give little incentive for providers to cater to the actual local community. Where do you think that money comes from? It isn't like the cable/telcos reduce their profit margins - they just boost what you pay to pass the additional cost through. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
"Paying off a lot less pols(only national ones then) should result in a faster rollout and lower costs due to less graft and payoffs."
Faster Rollout? Lower Cost? Umm, the reason they want to get rid of local franchise agreements is so they can cherry pick the area's they want to serve, not faster rollouts. The reason they don't like the local community to have a say is because then they can't constantly RAISE prices. The local community should have EVERY RIGHT to control what goes into their town. If the cable providers have to provide local access channels, then so do the telcos. There no free lunch for a megacorp at the local level, and that, of course, pisses off the right wing whackos.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to yock
»www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1994/im940207.html
The 1992 Cable Act didn't nullify existing exclusive agreements because it legally couldn't do so... The Congress didn't have the authority to terminate a contract already entered into by the local municipalities and the cable providers. They did have the authority to regulate the rules next time though.
As for whether that's an issue... Since most franchise agreements are no longer than 10 or 15 years, the affects of the 1992 Cable Act will have started to dwindle the remaining exclusive franchises that are left.
It would be nice to see some overbuilding in the cable and telco arenas... Of course everyone knows that the existing provers will use the courts and their current positions to keep any new players out. The talk about competition, but they certainly don't walk it.
--
Prove it... |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to yock
i'd argue their job is not to protect you from your own ignorance, but to provide what is generally considered vital infrastructure. i'd guess most cities would think that advanced telecommunications deployment is vital to their future.
same as electric, gas, and water services. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to yock
if one guesses that the longest typical franchise is around 15 years, and the cable act was passed in 1992, if a new franchise was passed then, the last of the 15 year franchises would be up next year. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | reply to batageek
I guess we'll have to disagree about that then. I firmly oppose any notion that government's responsibility is to protect me from my own ignorance. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to yock
I guess as far as this is infrastructure, I'd disagree.
It's good that you look into the broadband choices, but most don't and assume (i know what "assume" means...lol) it's there.
The pols are responsible for looking out for all of their voters, so they'd be kind of dumb not to require universal coverage. the "you're good enough but you're not" aspect will never sit well with the taxpayers.
Besides, the existing cable companies are already held to these requirements and built out under the same. Why would it be good to not hold the bells to the same standards?
It's not like they're startups, with no capital or equipment. In at&t's case, they're not even bringing fiber to the home, just to dslams so their rollout costs are tons less than verizon.
Consumers want broadband everywhere while the cable and telcos posture about wanting a level playing field. make it level. treat them all the same. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | reply to batageek
Yes, they are barred from granting exclusive rights, btu are the existing exclusive agreements nullified? |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to yock
»findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m···15769154
"Section 621 of the statute ....the 1992 Cable Act.... prohibits local authorities from granting exclusive franchises and from unreasonably refusing to award a second franchise." |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to TKJunkMail
Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing the trend toward large, powerful, Federal government. I just think there are better ways to generate revenue than some arbitrary agreement like franchises.
All that stuff you mentioned? Never happened in my city. Cable and Telco access boxes are in front yards all over town. As for "screaming up a storm" if I'm not served, well, I have a lot of choice in the matter, don't I? The availability of high-speed internet services has been one of my primary questions both times I've moved. The onus is on me to see that it's available. When a landowner cannot sell/lease to me when high speed isn't available, then they can go back to the provider and lobby them for it.
Point being, one must create demand for a service before a company will provide it. Government should not require availability of a service where demand doesn't exist. It drives up prices and presents barriers to newcomers in the market.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
"Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic." -- Bruce Schneier |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to yock
Pol graft? How? "Please transfer all fees directly into my Swiss Bank Account - Love Mayor Moneybags"
Franchise fees go towards a lot of different things depending on the community.
Some cities use it to fund local access programming.
Some use it to fund the public works employee that is responsible for making sure the right of ways are used properly (i.e. that at&t box ends up hidden rather than in the front yard - »www.lightreading.com/document.as···d=109923 - apparently that didn't happen here.)
Regardless of where it goes, the fee comes directly back to your community for the providers use of your city's right of ways - YOUR taxpayer right of ways. Pushing that off to the state or federal level just holds that cash back from your city. You certainly don't expect the state or feds to administer the delivery of those funds for free, do you?
Not to mention, the main thing local franchises do is ensure all of your town is covered. The "free market" bs about who should be served is not true. You'll be screaming up a storm when you're on the wrong side of the equation and not being served. This is the crap at&t is trying to pull with its slightspeed rollout.
The franchising fees do nothing to hurt competition - It's not like the Comcast's of the world eat those fees (or even try to bury them in your bill.) They're passed directly onto the customers anyway as a line item on your bill. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by yock :Franchising fees do help subsidize local government, but it is at the cost of competition. Tell me how it's in your best interest as a consumer that the government is essentially profiting off of your lack of choice in providers. Franchise agreements can no longer be exclusive... Therefore, franchise agreements can not longer prevent competition. Were the existing excludive agreements nullified by this?
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
"Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic." -- Bruce Schneier |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to yock
said by yock :Franchising fees do help subsidize local government, but it is at the cost of competition. Tell me how it's in your best interest as a consumer that the government is essentially profiting off of your lack of choice in providers. Franchise agreements can no longer be exclusive... Therefore, franchise agreements can not longer prevent competition.
--
Prove it... |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to yock
Yeah, the competition is to see who can pay the biggest bribe to lock everyone else out. What is the difference between that and some of the local franchises? I would rather have the local franchise to keep the money local to be wasted locally, not for some fat cat in DC to waste it on something I will never see like a study on how steak and lobster in the private politicians club in DC for a below cost price at taxpayer's expense is good for America. (Wait, they do not do a study, they just take the money and go eat)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : Actually the national law in Congress sets aside 5% of franchise tax to go to the local community. The money doesn't go back to Washington,DC. Then the local community can do with it as they see fit. 5% seems like a paltry sum, especially if a local community takes in much more from the local franchise fees. Plus what happens to local programming? State and federal franchises give little incentive for providers to cater to the actual local community. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to TKJunkMail
If that's the case, then I support it.... |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to yock
said by yock :Franchising fees do help subsidize local government, but it is at the cost of competition. Tell me how it's in your best interest as a consumer that the government is essentially profiting off of your lack of choice in providers. How is this at the cost of competition? We're just talking about fees. This has little to do with actual deployment. The problem is abuse of the local franchises. If you fix that there is no need for state and federal franchising. |
|
