batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to yock
Re: Eliminating local franchises eliminates local pol graft
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. |
|
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. |
|
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... |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| 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... |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to fredlydeadly
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. |
|
