pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| FCC Sanity?
Wow... for once they are right!
It is indisputably, irrefutably true that the biggest obstacle to next-generation broadband/TV service deployments are pesky local governments which put up inane build-out requirements for providers. Like any commodity, a lack of competition leads directly to high prices.
The only real solution here is for voters to get on the ball and vote out local government officials which continue to stand in way of progress. The last thing we need is more Federal bureaucracy in what really should remain a state/local issue.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| I hope they put a stop to Munis asking for anything NOT having to do with BB/TV service. No Community Centers, no swimming pools, no more of the local politicians buying votes by saying "look what I got for you." And you shouldn't need more than about 10 Public access Channels either.
--
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by qdemn7  :I hope they put a stop to Munis asking for anything NOT having to do with BB/TV service. No Community Centers, no swimming pools, no more of the local politicians buying votes by saying "look what I got for you." And you shouldn't need more than about 10 Public access Channels either. I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| reply to pnh102
quote:
Like any commodity, a lack of competition leads directly to high prices.
Which is why FIOS, DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast are roughly (within $5/mo) the same price for each other... Also the reason FIOS also raised rates this year.
Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will. |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :I agree with you. And even 10 is about 8 more public access channels than are needed. 99% of the people NEVER even watch 1 public access channel. Very true, I was just being generous for a very large city, say over 5 million.
--
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to itguy05
said by itguy05 :Which is why FIOS, DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast are roughly (within $5/mo) the same price for each other... Also the reason FIOS also raised rates this year. Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like.
said by itguy05 :Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will. Competition does allows you to play the providers against one another to get a better deal for yourself. Quite a few people have used with success the threat of moving from one provider to another as a means to get their current provider to continue a promotional rate where it would have otherwise expired.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to pnh102
I agree that competition needs to happen as quickly as possible. However, we should question national decisions as they are most likely a compromise that is good for some and bad for others.
Cable competition claims that local governments are impeding progress. But I naturally question that claim since there are always two sides to an argument. Principally, I believe competition only works when it's offered to all residents of a local community.
In 1998 SBC (now ATT) offered DSL to select residents of my area who were within a 3 mile radius of their central offices. Year after year they have promised those too far would be offered DSL "real soon now". It's nearly 2007 and they have NOT delivered on that promise. Should I believe that their television service deployment will be different?
What the government (not just the FCC) should do is ban utility taxes that are not directly tied to regulatory cost recovery. Given this, I seriously doubt local municipalities would be able to justify their current utility-based income schemes. Don't you agree that it's silly to pay a tax to your local municipality based on your electricity, gas or cable bill? I think it's insane.
I understand that local cities without significant retail development cannot operate on retail taxes. However, why not add an assessment to real estate taxes? This has to be more just than a utility consumption tax or do we believe that your ability to pay correlates with utility usage? While still not 100%, I think it's far more likely that someone owning more valuable property is able to pay more taxes.
In exchange for a national franchise the FCC should mandate reasonable deployment timelines to prevent the same thing that happened with DSL in my area. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| I agree with you that certain taxes should be eliminated. However, it is the universal buildout requirement which has doomed many providers from wanting to do business in many localities.
In nearly every jurisdiction that has tried to mandate universal service, the end result was a success of sorts in that everyone got no service whatsoever.
Internet service is a for-profit industry. It should not be compelled to provide service to areas it does not deem profitable.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to itguy05
Im not sure where you live, but if I had chose cable instead of Dishnetwork and received the same programing I would be paying about $21 a month more with cable. |
|
bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD
| reply to itguy05
said by itguy05 :Competition almost never guarantees low prices. It just makes you feel better about the price you pay. A panacea if you will. Umm, a panacea is a cure-all. That is, a solution to all problems, cure for all diseases. I don't think that's what you meant, was it?
»dictionary.reference.com/browse/panacea |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Not to mention I wouldn't call, in any way, the present oligopoly that exists in the communications delivery market, a competitive market at all. So it seems that OP has expressed several logical fallacies. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to pnh102
Property taxes have also been pushed to their limit. (at least in the Northeast and on the coasts) Not to mention they exclude constituents who may be large users of said utilities; namely renters. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Ahrenl :Property taxes have also been pushed to their limit. Heh... keep dreaming 
Government will always find ways to raise "high" property taxes. In MD they just raise it at the state level. In Philadelphia they simply re-assess your house at a ridiculously high price so that you pay more at the existing rate. One way or another, they will keep raising it.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
New York
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like. Are you sure thats what you meant? If a company exists without any competition, they have a better chance of prospering, not the other way around. If there was no competition, there would have been no reason for them to expand their service offerings, they would just have to keep raising the prices of their existing products.
--
" Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by RickNY :Are you sure thats what you meant? Yes. There was a brief period a few years back when satellite TV was killing cable. I remember when Comcast was offering satellite TV subscribers $400 in discounts to become cable subscribers.
However, cable now offers more of the types of services that satellite TV offers. If cable had not made these improvements, those providers would have continued to lose customers to satellite.
Of course, if there were no satellite TV providers, cable would still be making money hand over fist but their product offerings would be worse than what they currently offer.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| reply to bbenso1
quote:
Umm, a panacea is a cure-all.
Yes. Everyone thinks competition is the cure all for high prices and innovation. What they fail to realize is that it is rarely the cure all. It's basically "who do you want to pay you $xxx to?"
They always think competition will result in massively lower rates. |
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| reply to pnh102
quote:
Cable would have gone out of business if not for satellite TV, however. Had satellite not initially provided some sort of competition for cable TV, cable providers would not have offered new services like On Demand, DVRs, real high definition programming and the like.
I highly doubt that. HD programming followed the trend in big screen HD sets. I'd say that one was driven more by consumers and CE companies vs competition.
The rest is nice, but more like a natural evolution. DVR's were the result of Tivo coming on the scene and the CableCo's realizing that they could make $9.99 off Tivo-like functionality.
quote:
Competition does allows you to play the providers against one another to get a better deal for yourself. Quite a few people have used with success the threat of moving from one provider to another as a means to get their current provider to continue a promotional rate where it would have otherwise expired.
And many more are told "see you". And if you do switch, it's often for a short time before your rates go up. I have been with both sat providers and now comcast. After all the rate increases on sat, Comcast is roughly (within $5-10) what I was paying DirecTV. |
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :Im not sure where you live, but if I had chose cable instead of Dishnetwork and received the same programing I would be paying about $21 a month more with cable. You are getting the shaft from your cableco. Here Comcast is about $5-10 more than Dish/Directv. |
|
RealityBot
@bellsouth.net
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Internet service is a for-profit industry. It should not be compelled to provide service to areas it does not deem profitable. And for that reason, America will always lag behind other nations technologically... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Ahrenl
As a landlord I can tell you with certainty that those renters are paying property taxes via monthly rent checks. You don't think we just eat those expenses, do you? Property taxes are one of if not the largest expenses of owning rental property.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
