garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Eliminating local franchises eliminates local pol graft
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. Riiiiiiiight. This will directly lead to more deployment. (rolls eyes)
Maybe the local muni's in NJ are how you describe them, but I take great umbrage to others deciding, through legislation, that all muni's are greedy and corrupt. Like broadband penetration, everyone assumes since they have it bad, well everyone must have it bad. (or vice versa) This is not the case here, so why should I go along with this assumption?
I'm certain if you polled the entire nation about their local governments, you may be surpised to find most are satisfied with the services they receive from them. And franchise fees help make that happen-without raising taxes. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | 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. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| 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. |
|
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... |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| 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 |
|
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. |
|
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 | 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 | 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. |
|
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... |
|
