 |  | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Re: This will bring competition to the masses Maybe so, but from athe view of companies like Comcast you will now be able to kiss all those local and regional offices goodbye and plan on having all your cutomer service pumped through India.
One thing people tend to forget about is all the agreements from localities that require Comcast t provide local office for customer. So, plan on not being able to go and pay your or swap out a modem in the near future.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: This will bring competition to the masses Pure rubish there bud. How can and do you automatically assume that because something goes statewide that local and regional offices would go away? Why would you not be able to do anything local in the future? You think the providers can operate with out a customer portal?
By chance, were you along with Bill Gates when he said 512k of memory was all we would ever need?
Absence of requirements of having a local office, they are still necessary to do business dont' you think? Sorry to attack your post but you're not the only one that thinks this way and it never stops amazing me.
There is nothing to say that a state would not put similar requirements on any provider at the state level as they do on the local level.
The one thing that I do NOT agree on is that any sort of franchise agreement should NOT be a federal one. This SO goes against state's rights. Lines are layed on state and county soil.. not federal land. The federal government needs to weed itself down to a dull roar. Besides, doesn't it have a way on terror to fight and an election to rig? | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: This will bring competition to the masses Very easy to have modems be mailed back and forth to a processing warehouse. Billing issues can be taken care of by phone or internet chatrooms. Techs can be sent anywhere in a 2 hour radius, so 3 countys can share 1 garage now. If there are too many service calls, tell the CS people to reduce the amount of truck rolls for the week. A cable co doesnt need to have a physical presence, its a waste of money. Brand impressions are delivered through the cable tv line, not physical offices. Vicious (or benificial) cycle, watch TV, love Comcast brand from ads, watch more tv, love Comcast brand more from ads....... | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: This will bring competition to the masses Ok, you still have not answered the question. You have done alot of assuming, however, but you've made very little attempt to answer the question.
Where are you getting your facts that this would happen? Again, I say since you nor anyone knows what can or will happen in the future, who's to say that anything YOU pose would infact happen? You automatically somehow have associated a statewide franchise with free and open rules. Any rule that can be placed on a an operator on a local level could be applied at the state level as well. The state, just like city or county, can require a point of presence as well as customer service levels. Many state PUCs do this with phone already...
But, to give you something to chew on - customer service centers will always exist. The cable plants do not run themselves. They require techs and engineers to operate them, right? Where do you think many of these "customer centers" are located? In the same place the techs are based. These centers usually have one or two people staffed there at anytime at the customer counter. They accept modems, boxes, and payments there. You also mention modems being mailed out.. so? Phone has been doing that since day one. The modems go out and customer receive them in a day or two in many cases. You don't hear many complaints about that with phone do you? Not to mention, sometimes the mailed modem will show up faster than a scheduled tech. Even then, since techs will always remain in the field, you are not going to be left in the dark.
Phone centers are already somewhat regionalized to a point. It's like that in many business operations. So, I can hardly see how what you say is "going to happen" if statewide franchise happens.
It must be fun to log on and just make assumptions and bitch, but at this point until you can show anything that supports your theory, it will remain just that. I am, however, no fan of anything state wise OR federal wise, just so you know, BUT, it still makes no sense and it not factual that anything you say can or will happen. It's all rubbish at this point. Yes, a cable comapany NEEDS to have a physical presence. | |
| | | | | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | Re: This will bring competition to the masses You are making assumptions that everything will stay the same. If there is money to be saved, a company will absolutely do what it needs to save it. If closing some service centers and running with less techs saves money, it will probably happen. Especially in any case where a town forced a company to meet a higher standard than what the state wide agreement sets. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: This will bring competition to the masses No, I am not making any assumptions. You can ask anyone that's been in the business any amount of time. A statewide franchise is NOT going to cause techs to drop off the face of the earth. It pains me to have to repeat myself since it's above in my previous post, but the plant still needs to be maintained, and the customers still make appointments to be installed, serviced, changed, etc. Techs aren't going away. There is NO way that a company is going to allow appointments to go out 2 weeks just to cut a few techs back. The other companies coming in would see that and capitolize on it.
But, you point out that i am making assumptions.. no, I am not. I am stating a fact based on what's in front of us today. He's make assumptions simply based on "state wide franchise agreements"... NOTHING has been born from these yet so to say "ANY" of this would change is pure assumption. Again, I state a fact - the plant still needs to be maintained by people. Further, who's to say that a state franchise won't closely mirror local ones? The PUC seems to keep the phone in step and they are state wide.
To make any claims of what's to be is nothing more than ranting at this point. Sorry. | |
| | | | 
annony
@pureserver.info
| I think the same happend in NC if I'm not mistaken. But there were also worries that it opened up that now providers can cherry pick not only avoiding providing service to rural areas but also in areas in towns and cities. So does mean a lot better selection in specific areas while others continue to have none and now some that do will find they are no longer an area that is this worth maintaining or upgrading ? | |
| | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Ah yes. So much for states' rights. Don't you love it when fake conservatives show their true stripes? | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Statewide franchises are the way to go I agree that the current way most communities operate isn't the most effective way to handle this issue.
With the size of many companies today and the way they serve so many different areas, it has to be difficult for them to have to have and negotiate so many different agreements in all the communities they serve.
And, even for the communities themselves it can be a burden.
Statewide franchise agreements allow for a much smoother operation and a shorter path towards letting competition exist. But still, by retaining this authority at the state level issues can be worked on and decided upon that affect local governments and their citizens.
I think it should stop there however and national agreements never become a part of the landscape.
I simply don't see the federal government as being effective at overseeing what goes on in our cities, towns and states as far as what consumers want and need and how to most effectively address individual communities concerns. At times, our government shows how ill prepared they are to even address catastrophic events like Katrina that affect wide areas, much less to be able to get down to the local level and address issues like this.
Kudos to Indiana for moving forward with this important legislation and it certainly will be interesting to see how it all plays out for residents of that state.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | | 
Ken
Premium,MVM
join:2003-06-16
Brownsburg, IN | Re: Telecom astroturfing on this website. Of whom do you speak? | |
| | | Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | Re: Telecom astroturfing on this website. employees . stockholders. | |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | So the state gets all the money. This is by far the worst part of this whole thing:
"For example, the town of Munster took in $178,277 last year from its cable franchise surcharge on Comcast customers' bills. Under the new law, the 5 percent surcharge will be paid to the state, which will then distribute the money to localities."
I am sorry but for the state to take hundreds of thousands of dollars away from individual towns makes no sense. They can't be trusted to filter that money in full back to the local level.
I just don't get how the republican party lost the whole notion of small government. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Re: So the state gets all the money. So all the Republicans in your state voted to do this and all the Democrats and other groups voted against it? Like to see that broken down by official voting records.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Re: So the state gets all the money. Odds are all the republicans did vote for it, they are the majority. But the republican party is supposed to be about small government. Now all they want to do is cut taxes in one place just to raise it somewhere else or let the federal debt skyrocket. Then they say they cut taxes so that means they are all about small government, while they spy on us and start wars.
If the democrats or any other party claimed to be about a small government then voted for something like this, they would be liars and cheats also. Unfortunately for you, that's not their parties message. | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Re: So the state gets all the money. said by insomniac84  :Odds are....... Ah.. Odds are. Hmmm...reminds me of the last court session I had to attend. Two bearded men were up on charges of rape. Since they were the only bearded people in the courtroom the odds are.......
Give an official set of numbers, your off the cuff opinion on your state politicians is no better that my off the cuff observation on people with beards. Both have no real value in the real world.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: So the state gets all the money. All of which means nothing, The fact is republicans voted for bigger government. Hypocrisy at its finest. | |
| | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: So the state gets all the money. And nobody else did? Now we are back to the start of this silly thread. Even in California blanket statements like yours are false. Put some numbers and definitive sources to that regurgitation of yours and prove that Indiana politicians voted the way you are implying! At least insomniac84 claims to LIVE in Indiana, and thus has a bit of veracity based on that fact.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
1 edit | Well instead of..... everyone here crapping your pants about this issue read the bills.
HB-1279...»www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/bill···cno=1279
SB-245....»www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/bill···ocno=245
So instead of having a cat fight over this issue read the bills which should give you enough information to really fill your drawers. AT&T controls 93% of the phone business in Indiana in a few years they will be able to screw you over anyway they want the law mandates a 50% penetration of broadband access in about three years. If this is done by population the country side and small towns are screwed. The law has anti-Muni provisions to make it very hard for such areas to start their own systems because AT@T gets to set the standards at which they will permit a muni to connect to them. It goes on. It seems to me like the state legislature of Indiana for the most part has sold their citizenry down the tubes. Only time will tell.
I can't conceive Wyoming's state legislature passing anything like this. They surely know if they do they would be out of office at the next election. We in this state do not take kindly to these kinds of things. We had a state senator who talked, mind you just talked about a state income tax, he got political death treats, and very quickly changed his tune.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Well instead of..... Thank you for that, but you could have just stated your information instead of inflating your posting word count with the garbage.
Did not find the final vote count in it, but to take it out of the "the Republicans did it" mode, there were Democrats who jumped on the co-authoring of it. Face it, in most cases there is no such thing as a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' politician, just one with the hands out trying to get votes by espousing certain view points, and then not following them unless it is politically required. The only difference is not IF they take your money, but HOW.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
grapkoski
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Washington, DC
| Re: Well instead of..... Well the democratic party HISTORICALLY in case you missed basic civics, Democrats (of which, I am) tend to be advocates of larger government on a more broad spectrum as this bill creates with new statewide telecom rules. The Republic Party prided itself, on smaller local rule, which this essentially removes. I find myself agreeing we need statewide standards as do most Democrats, so in a historically sense the GOP is truly going against its old beliefs, but the GOP and DNC are nothing like what they used to be. I do believe the GOP has been stolen by the christian right (hmm utah) and in the coming few elections will bite back at them as people wake up to the corruption in both parties, BUT is much more deeper and deadly in the GOP. | |
| | | | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Re: Well instead of..... Historically. I am talking about perceptions of now.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| said by RayW :Did not find the final vote count in it, but to take it out of the "the Republicans did it" mode, there were Democrats who jumped on the co-authoring of it. Thank you for your kind words, I tried to find the vote count but was unable to track it down. It doesn't matter what party did this the bottom line is the people of Indiana have been screwed. I can understand the attraction of a state wide franchise from the point of view of AT@T, et al, now the Telco only have to deal with an entire state, which removes them from having to deal with local requirements. If AT&T doesn't want to give you DSL you are out of luck, unless cable comes through.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | | | | | | |
justncredible
@rr.com
| BS.... read the bill, 18 months for build out, no one company can stop another company from building, no landlord can stop a company building out. No local charges, no local freebies, that the cost was passed on to the consumers. This bill is brilliant it ends years of corruption at the local level. The mom and pop cable owners can compete and on a level unbiased playing field. If you can build it and have the desire you can not be stopped by AT&T or Comcast. Great move, a end to local monopolistic control. Read the bill it is a great move and I pray all the states follow this move. Some fear choices, and some want the government to control everything. Those people are against this bill. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: Well instead of..... we'll see..... 
--
BlooMe | |
| | | | | | | | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| said by justncredible :
BS.... This bill is brilliant it ends years of corruption at the local level. The mom and pop cable owners can compete and on a level unbiased playing field. You know something you have a good point. Which is why I made the comment only time will tell. It would still seem local choice has been removed. However it was this local control that was reason why I dropped the local Comcast outfit. The City of Cheyenne had all kind of fees on my monthly bill I didn't like. Dish network ended all of that. One question I have do Mom and Pop cable systems still exist?
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | | | | | | | 
backfeed
is giving feedback
join:2002-12-16
Peru, IN | Holy Cow!!..Is there a summary somewhere?...I left my law degree in my other pants!!....What a read!!!
--
dialup?, what's that? | |
| | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: So the state gets all the money. House Bill 1279 - authored by Representative Mike Murphy (R-Indianapolis)
Voted 78-18 for in a republican dominated legislature.
Gov. Mitch Daniels signed bill- republican.
And the big government republican shill at the very beginning of these comments wanting even BIGGER government by taking away states rights and having a nation wide franchise agreement. Lets all give thanks to republicans for making bigger government.
These people are not conservatives. | |
| | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: So the state gets all the money. said by JakCrow :House Bill 1279 - authored by Representative Mike Murphy (R-Indianapolis) Voted 78-18 for in a republican dominated legislature. Gov. Mitch Daniels signed bill- republican. And the big government republican shill at the very beginning of these comments wanting even BIGGER government by taking away states rights and having a nation wide franchise agreement. Lets all give thanks to republicans for making bigger government. These people are not conservatives. SB 1279 Authors: Murphy Republican, District 90, Bell Republican, District 83, Brown Democrat, District 3, Gutwein Republican, District 16, Koch Republican, District 65, Kuzman Democrat, District 19, Lutz Republican, District 35, Mahern Democrat, District 97, Mays Democrat, District 94, Neese Republican, District 48, Reske Democrat, District 37, Thomas Republican, District 44, Torr Republican, District 39
(8 R and 5 D)
Hmm...and more than a third of the people who are listed as authors are Dems. Would you please give me the breakdown on the party affiliation of the 18 nays?
As I count it there are 100 in the Indiana House, 48 are Dems, and 52 are Repubs WOW! SUCH an OVERWHELMING majority! (And I find it hard to believe that all 18 nayers are all Dems.)
Now in the Senate you are correct, out of 50, 33 are Repubs and 17 are Dems. A landslide Repub controlled Indiana Senate.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: So the state gets all the money. This is irrelevant. The republicans should not be voting for more government, per their own lip serviced ideals. What part do you have a problem wrapping your brain around? | |
| | | | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: So the state gets all the money. said by JakCrow :This is irrelevant. The republicans should not be voting for more government, per their own lip serviced ideals. What part do you have a problem wrapping your brain around? Ah. So it is ok that the Dems do? Or that you expected that the Repubs were pristine do-gooders concerned about the common peon voters?
I have no problems with what you are saying, as long as you point out that both parties placed the proverbially shaft up the collective taxpayer. All I am trying for is a balanced thought, not the harping on one party being totally responsible for what many of us consider bad legislation.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: So the state gets all the money. If what the fake conservatives keep telling us is true, we should always expect the democrats to try and screw us at every turn, and the republicans DO expect us to believe they are pristine do-gooders concerned about the common peon voters. They said so themselves. | |
| | | | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: So the state gets all the money. Never thought of Republicans the way you do. This state franchise is what I would expect a Republican to do. Make it easier for corporate to operate and less money for the welfare state. What surprised me was the fact that most of the Democrats voted for it since there is less chance for welfare money to be pulled to buy votes. Oh well.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | Re: So the state gets all the money. The republicans are nothing more than big government nanny staters. They're no better, if not worse than the democrats, because they have to nerve to continue their lip service to small, unintrusive government while pulling crap like this. They give conservatives a bad name. I don't know what more proof people need. | |
| 
WireHead
Hayabusa Eater
Premium
join:2001-05-09
hiatus
clubs:
| I'll take fries with that We just finished our MUNI about 4 months ago. I know several people who use it and love it. I'm considering moving to it myself since it's better than the cable service I get now. Change is happening right now for sure and there are 2 larger cities each within 50 miles that are both FIOS now.
While I don't live in the 'stix' by any measurable means, the infrastructure here is old and there are thousands and thousands in rual areas. There are people here who still have old copper that cant get DSL and there is a very large % of people using satallite for more than just TV.
I honestly dont care if they use cat gut and styrofoam cups, if the connections better and not intermittent and it's within the same tier and pricing I don't see how it will not get better.
--
Retired BBR Team Starfire Team Q III Host
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body;but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and proclaim WHAT A RIDE! | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| How exactly does the national/state franchise work? Ok, I'm being a bit lazy and not spending a few hours digging up the necessary information, but I am hoping someone on DSLR already knows and willing to present in a concise manner.
How does the national franchise agreement work, since both local and states are still operating and evolving, too? Who controls what portions? | |
| | | |
|
|
Indiana Video Franchise Law Takes Effect
·
·
This will bring competition to the masses
Telecom astroturfing on this website.