dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
29
share rss forum feed
« Forget cable
This is a sub-selection from Sounds Good to Me


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

Re: Sounds Good to Me

Companies wanting to compete SHOULD play on a level playing field. We have the Level Playing Field Statute in IL. I am all for competition, but not when one certain Telco wants preferential treatment to deploy - and only will serve the customers they deem worthy of their video service. Competition for some, but not all?

I also don't believe the munis need to be stripped of any local control. The system isn't broken here, and Verizon is deploying fiber and providing video after entering into local franchise agreements. Does anyone really want AT&T to have the power of eminent domain in their community? They can place a huge Lightspeed box in your yard if they deem it necessary, and there won't be a thing anyone can do about it at the local level if this horrendous legislation is passed in IL.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

I agree, there should be no preferential treatment in any direction. Government should allow (not mandate) commercial entities to serve customers and the commercial entities should not expect special treatment or protection from government. I don't necessarily have issue with franchise agreements in general, however I do see a problem when the franchise agreement goes above and beyond allowing a commercial businesses the ability to operate and provide service. I do not believe businesses should be required to fund local interest items. I do not believe businesses should be mandated to provide service to every citizen for luxury items. As for placing equipment in the ROW, that's progress. How should businesses provide services to citizens if they aren't allowed to place equipment?



Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

In this case (IL) no one is preventing AT&T from deploying any services. They simply do not want to play on a level playing field with competitors. They want preferential treatment and the ability to redline customers they don't deem worthy of their "competitive" service.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by Octopussy2:

ability to redline customers they don't deem worthy of their "competitive" service.
/Flame retardant suit engaged....
That's the part I don't have a problem with per se. If the ROI isn't there, don't force the providers' hands into a money losing situation that costs other customers extra money to make up for.


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

There are many communities in IL that are not served by AT&T right now - because it is not profitable for them to do so. They have a right to choose who they enter into an agreement with. If they don't like the rules of the game, and the Level Playing Statute (designed to protect consumers), no one is saying they have to play. Verizon is choosing to play. AT&T wants to make their own rules in the name of "competition" - and wants to sue towns that don't agree with their way of looking at things. They don't want any competition from munis that could offer competitive services though. Heck no! They feel THAT is unfair. They want to be in the business of telling Gov. what they can and cannot do and have the governmental power of eminent domain, yet don't want any Gov. involved in competing with the private sector. Hmmmmmm. Why do they get to have it both ways? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander....



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to Octopussy2

said by Octopussy2:

The system isn't broken here, and Verizon is deploying fiber and providing video after entering into local franchise agreements.
Verizon is deploying but also lobbying for state franchise law. New Jersey now has a state franchise law and FIOS is now being run in Netcong.

All it would take to throw a monkey wrench in a FIOS deployment would to have one town to make unreasonable demands. FIOS is deployed by Central Office not towns.

FIOS is expensive to deploy, and feeding pork to every two bit hustling hog makes it much more so.


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

Do you know of such a town that has made such unreasonable demands?



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by Octopussy2:

Do you know of such a town that has made such unreasonable demands?
In NJ there are 328 towns, it is an unreasonable demand to burden a network provider with having to feed pork to 328 hogs. The pork has been set by the state and applies to all.

Really, I don't care. FIOS is being run in Netcong, batterup will soon ride the light. batterup's 85 year old father is at this point in time riding the light. You people can kiss a leach and stay on dial-up.


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

So, that would be a "no" about a specific town?



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by Octopussy2:

So, that would be a "no" about a specific town?
Is having to building a swimming pool unreasonable? Is setting up a permanent $50,000.000.00 a year scholarship to be doled out by the local hogs unreasonable?


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

Again, name the specific town and proof.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by Octopussy2:

Again, name the specific town and proof.
You have no standing to do anything concerning this issue so why would I waste my time?