No Wonder We're Not Tops - dslreports.com

Author	All Replies
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD	No Wonder We're Not Tops Once again, government holds back progress. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 09:40:09 ·
Rob In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL ·Comcast	said by pnh102 : Once again, government holds back progress. True, but either the government removes cable licenses all together, or they force tv providers all alike to obtain it. It's no secret that the government has been favoring the telcos for many years, and now that they aren't, the telcos can't handle it.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 10:07:13 ·
skrupowies join:2002-08-22 Wallingford, CT clubs: ·AT&T U-Verse	said by Rob : True, but either the government removes cable licenses all together, or they force tv providers all alike to obtain it. It's no secret that the government has been favoring the telcos for many years, and now that they aren't, the telcos can't handle it. I agree, a level playing field for all parties. Kind of like the way the Telcos were forced to open up their lines to competition but the cable companies weren't. Cable argued that their service was different from the Telcos so they shouldn't have to follow the same rules. And that's true. It is different - technically. But to an end user it's exactly the same, they pick up a handset and hear a buzz. And this, by the way, is how they favored the Telcos for many years -- force the Telcos to open up their lines for POTS and DSL while the cable companies sat back and thumbed their noses at the state and the Telcos while raising prices whenever they felt like it. To an end user Uverse is the same, they turn on their TV and see a picture. But technically it's a VERY different process from cable TV. So the argument that works for cable should also work for Telco.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 10:28:59 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to Rob said by Rob : True, but either the government removes cable licenses all together, or they force tv providers all alike to obtain it. I don't see why any company shouldn't be free to negotiate the best deal it can. Just because other companies agreed to less favorable terms doesn't mean newer providers should have to be bound by said terms if they can avoid it. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 11:25:55 ·
S_engineer join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL ·Comcast	Its not about negotiating a better deal. The Death star is trying to either circumvent or change law. Here in Illinois they lobbied so hard that the legislature passed a different set of tax rules for ATT. What incentive does a cableco have to lower their prices when ATT is delivering the same product without paying a franchise tax....none! The Death Star would be better off in the long run to invest in their infrastructure rather than lobbiests.... -- Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 11:52:46 ·
bogey780 join:2004-03-19 Here	'What incentive does a cableco have to lower their prices when ATT is delivering the same product without paying a franchise tax....none!' Do cable companies pay federal telecom taxes? What about VOIP? Kinda hard to complain when there's been nearly a decade of skirting regulations by the cable companies.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 12:07:27 ·
Neyland join:2003-02-04 USA 1 edit	reply to skrupowies said by skrupowies : I agree, a level playing field for all parties. Kind of like the way the Telcos were forced to open up their lines to competition but the cable companies weren't. I have no problem opening up cable pipes wherever that pipe was paid for by government funds either directly or indirectly by tax breaks. Ok, with this crowd 'pipe' may not be the best word.. but /shrug have fun with it...
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 12:33:40 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 : Once again, government holds back progress. I think its more than that... In this case, as in other cases of telcos and franchise fees, its a case of both parties holding up progress. Neither side wants to budge. It seems like negotiations in these cases are: ATT - We won't pay. Town - Yes you will. Att - No, we won't. Town - Yes, you will.. Ad nauseum... Both sides need to figure out a way around these impasses... Hell, one idea would be an exemption period that allows ATT to be exempt for a couple of years while they build out and recoup some of the investment and then have them pay... -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 12:51:20 ·
S_engineer join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL ·Comcast	reply to bogey780 Cable companies pay local municipal franchise taxes, ATT knew this going into the game so they changed the way the game was being played (via lobbiests). Voip, is a relatively new technology that at first, people thought its applications would be limited, and then were proved wrong. Don't worry about voip...the taxman cometh! Now I hate cablecos like the next guy, but at least they attempt to move forward. ATT moves forward not through technological advancements, but through legislative briberys. -- Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 13:02:03 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to bmn But in this situation, the government is clearly and completely in the wrong. AT&T is trying to do the right thing by providing new services where they were not previously existing. The government wants to stop it. If the government would just get out of the way and let AT&T do business the way it wants to, everyone would be better off: •Customers would have more choices for TV/Internet •Governments would take more money from the investments AT&T has made •Other companies might be encouraged to take the jump if AT&T is successful Government is doing absolutely nothing useful by holding AT&T or any other company back. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 13:25:58 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	reply to S_engineer said by S_engineer : Its not about negotiating a better deal. The Death star is trying to either circumvent or change law. But why is it wrong for AT&T to lobby to change laws that it finds disagreeable? said by S_engineer : What incentive does a cableco have to lower their prices when ATT is delivering the same product without paying a franchise tax....none! There is nothing stopping them from lobbying to have the law changed on their behalf either. said by S_engineer : The Death Star would be better off in the long run to invest in their infrastructure rather than lobbiests.... How can they when the government won't let them do that? -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 13:28:31 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	reply to pnh102 said by pnh102 : But in this situation, the government is clearly and completely in the wrong. And ATT isn't in any better a position. The blame can be spread equally here. ATT knew the video franchise rules, that have existed for years, and doesn't want to play by those rules. It would be like a Quarterback trying to join the NFL and that he should be able to complete forward passes after crossing the line of scrimmage. The NFL would rightly tell that Quarterback to take a hike. ATT and these local governments need to sit down and negotiate a deal that works for both of them. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 13:46:22 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	said by bmn : And ATT isn't in any better a position. Yes, they are. They are offering something that the public might actually be able to use or enjoy. The government simply offers more reasons for AT&T to not be able to offer these services. The former is clearly better than the latter. And if the people don't like what AT&T has to offer, they can make the choice to not buy these services. They don't need the government to make that choice for them. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 13:50:08 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	said by pnh102 : said by bmn : And ATT isn't in any better a position. Yes, they are. They are offering something that the public might actually be able to use or enjoy. That's a strawman, plain and simple. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that ATT is trying to shortcut their way around THE LAW. And if the people don't like what AT&T has to offer, they can make the choice to not buy these services. They don't need the government to make that choice for them. This is another strawman. The government is NOT deciding based on the technical merits of ATT's service offering, the quality of their offering or anything like that. The local and state governments are following the letter of the LAW. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 13:52:54 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	said by bmn : That's a strawman, plain and simple. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that ATT is trying to shortcut their way around THE LAW. And of course the net effect of the law is that there is now one less provider of advanced communications services. Does AT&T not have a right to lobby for a more favorable regulatory environment? said by bmn : This is another strawman. The government is NOT deciding based on the technical merits of ATT's service offering, the quality of their offering or anything like that. I made no such claim. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 13:58:54 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	said by pnh102 : And of course the net effect of the law is that there is now one less provider of advanced communications services. Does AT&T not have a right to lobby for a more favorable regulatory environment? Only if those regulations (a) are applied across the board to them, cable providers and any new entrants into the field and (b) maintain proper oversight and consumer protections. ATT and Verizon are both asking to be treated special. They want to use the regulatory system to give them a competitive advantage over the cable companies, without those changes going to the cable companies. They are gaming the system, practicing regulatory capitalism instead of trying to beat the cable companies at their game by trying to offer a better product, service, etc. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 14:03:08 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	said by bmn : ATT and Verizon are both asking to be treated special. They want to use the regulatory system to give them a competitive advantage over the cable companies, without those changes going to the cable companies. Again... why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things? Cable companies can do the same if they want. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 14:05:03 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	said by pnh102 : Again... why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things? Cable companies can do the same if they want. If you don't have a problem with laws giving special treatment to people or organizations, then this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. The law is suppose to blind and apply to everyone equally. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 14:07:03 ·
pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD ·Comcast	said by bmn : If you don't have a problem with laws giving special treatment to people or organizations, then this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. LOL. Now you're putting up a straw man argument. I never said that the law should give special exemptions to one party over another with regards to enforcement. I simply stated that there is nothing wrong with anyone lobbying to change the law to obtain some sort of benefit. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 14:11:19 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	said by pnh102 : LOL. Now you're putting up a straw man argument. I never said that the law should give special exemptions to one party over another with regards to enforcement. Sure about that... I state that ATT and Verizon want to be treated special. You said "why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things?" In other words, an endorsement that companies should get special treatment under the law if they ask for it. I simply stated that there is nothing wrong with anyone lobbying to change the law to obtain some sort of benefit. That certainly is not what it appeared based on your response... Yes, there is nothing wrong with people lobbying for changes in the law (although the current method that prevails is very wrong - money, trips, free stuff, etc.)... There is a problem when the law being lobbied for is unequal in its application - which is the case with the Telco/CATV franchise debate. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-10-16 14:15:51 ·


Thursday, 26-Nov 04:58:24	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole page compression OFF