marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO | reply to cwh
Re: Yes, this was a total con
The Texas franchise requires existing providers to follow local franchise buildout requirements.
It will be interesting to see what happens as these local franchises expire and incumbent providers are allowed to pull existing services. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to nasadude
I cant speak for Wisconsin, but it working out pretty well here in Texas. Time warner has become much more price competitive since U-verse came to town. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to wifi4milez
What part of "rates have risen even in areas with increased competition" don't you understand?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez  :said by nasadude :said by wifi4milez :Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. ... yeah, how's that working out for consumers? quote:
Since the law was enacted, cable and satellite television rates have risen even in areas with increased competition
So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers? A) Multiple non-competing non-exclusive carriers with no consumer protections in place.
B) Single non-competing non-exclusive carrier with consumer protections in place.
Which option is better?
Oh right, this option:
C) Multiple competing non-exclusive carriers with consumer protections in place.
Too bad that option has been taken off the table by franchise reform.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez :So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers? no, I'm asking how a law that was supposed to benefit consumers and was specifically pushed as a way towards competition and lower prices is meeting that obligation.
so far, it appears it is not. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by wifi4milez :Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. ... yeah, how's that working out for consumers? quote:
Since the law was enacted, cable and satellite television rates have risen even in areas with increased competition
So you are arguing that having a single carrier in place was actually better for the consumers?
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez :Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. ... yeah, how's that working out for consumers?
quote:
Since the law was enacted, cable and satellite television rates have risen even in areas with increased competition
|
|
