 shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| fine by me! bring out the compeition I don't think that we need to have every single local government involved in every town. Competition should be wide open to any company that would like to provide services. Also the telcos/cablecos shouldn't be able to meddle in a town's affairs if they want to build their own network. | |
|
 | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition When we're talking rights of way it's not so easy as that. How many times would you want your back yard dug up to facilitate all of that competition? I still say a municipal infrastructure (or a business with no intent on providing content) open to ISPs so they can compete is the best way to go. | |
|
| | 
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition I agree, however, it must be within reason, and the locals must not be overstepped.
This, of course, means the locals must be reasonable for things outside the necessary precautions and protections (such as ROWs). | |
|
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition What's more reasonable than a big fat fiber pipe connected to every household that every ISP/telco/cableco can tap into and provide service? You only have to dig that ditch once for a slew of companies to offer up whatever they want in the area. Rights of way won't be much of an issue after the initial laying out of the infrastructure. Sounds like a sweet deal for all involved (except those who don't want competition horning in on their territory). | |
|
| | | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition Right. Because everyone wants this fiber, from the same company, and everyone wouldn't mind having something like a gigantic box obstructing their house/lawn.
They're public ROWs for a reason, and it isn't so that anyone can ignore them. | |
|
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition This sort of thing is happening already with the current telco and cableco infrastructure. They have already dug into your property and put up ugly boxes. If you want competition in your area the conventional way that means more companies need to be granted ROW to build their infrastructure to provide you service. That, to me, is much more wasteful.
The difference here is the people will not be held by a single provider. Whomever owns the infrastructure leases the line out to the content providers. Much like how DSL proliferated a few years ago.
It would mean the rights of way would be used only once. If Time Warner wants to offer cable in your area they won't need to dig into your yard again to do it. They can just lease the fiber. Same goes for Comcast, Earthlink, ATT, Verizon, Mom&Pop DSL, and so on. It would greatly lessen the burden of ROW to the community while at the same time giving the community a full plate of competitive offerings. | |
|
| | | | | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition Given that companies do not want to lease any form of their network to their direct competition, I'd say this idealogy is in for "the good fight." I wouldn't mind the idea, if not for the greed that is bound to get in the way.
Realistically speaking, if the ROW were expanded to the fiber/groundwork laid to the home, this could work; however, realistically speaking, the companies would fight this just as much as they're fighting to ignore the ROWs and whatnot already. It won't happen. Further, the idea that fiber/groundwork be laid unto the ROW would be hotly disputed as well, unless it were very carefully and systematically constructed in such a way to not be destructive to the business end (and political end)--something like a public ROW box governing the neighborhood's homes' conntectivity, with appropriate availability to providers.
In short, fantastic dream, but things like this will not happen. The fiber/groundwork/copper/etc simply are not deemed a necessity, yet, for this to come to pass. | |
|
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers.
Frankly each municipal should just build their own small network and let whoever provide service on it. When it's miniaturized the costs are really quite manageable. This way the telcos couldn't complain about infrastructure costs, and there would be an actual free market system, so government regulation wouldn't be needed for things like net neutrality. | |
|
| | | | | | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition said by Ahrenl  :They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers. This is not a new thought. See this link for details:
»netparadox.com/
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition That's a great "fail fast" letter to the FCC. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition said by JTRockville :That's a great "fail fast" letter to the FCC. Truly. I was going to comment on that as well. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by wtansill :said by Ahrenl :They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers. This is not a new thought. See this link for details: » netparadox.com/ It's certainly not, but it's still right.. | |
|
| | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | I've had the same thougths myself. | |
|
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Most of this has nothing to do with ROW's or the placement of utility boxes but how many $$$$$$$$ the local governments can get kicked back from the service provider. Here on Long Island we have had villages add on their own special franchise taxes which are passed on to the consumer, demands that they have studios built and supplied with video equipment so they can broadcast their village meetings, requirements that the schools be wired and supplied with free service (isn't that what the USF is for?) plus various other "fees" and "conditions" to do business.
If the role of local government is reduced to simply making sure that the existing infrastructure (ie. roads, backyards, forests, etc.) is not harmed, the esthetics of the community are not effected with oversized utility boxes being places on lawns and the environment is not damaged by the contractors, then that is fine with me. But it appears that the pols in many of these local governments look at these franchise agreements as nothing more than a money grab and a way to feather their own nests at the expense of the public. I have no problem with a higher power be it the feds or the state putting a stop to that practice.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition said by n2jtx :Most of this has nothing to do with ROW's or the placement of utility boxes but how many $$$$$$$$ the local governments can get kicked back from the service provider. Here on Long Island we have had villages add on their own special franchise taxes which are passed on to the consumer, demands that they have studios built and supplied with video equipment so they can broadcast their village meetings, requirements that the schools be wired and supplied with free service (isn't that what the USF is for?) plus various other "fees" and "conditions" to do business. But it appears that the pols in many of these local governments look at these franchise agreements as nothing more than a money grab and a way to feather their own nests at the expense of the public. I have no problem with a higher power be it the feds or the state putting a stop to that practice. That is why the telcos want to put limits on local gov't. They often, especially places like MC,MD, want to add on taxes to their own constituents, but try and do it thru franchise agreements instead of thru the normal property tax. They get the money either way but at election time they get to claim the local municipal tax rate remained low, but get to blame Comcast or Verizon for high fees. It is just a back door grab for tax money.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by shashinka :I don't think that we need to have every single local government involved in every town. Competition should be wide open to any company that would like to provide services. Also the telcos/cablecos shouldn't be able to meddle in a town's affairs if they want to build their own network. I would really like the chance to try FIOS (TV and internet) and we seriously need competition for comcast.
The fact remains, however, that even with FIOS we still have at best a duopoly in this area. What happens when all the excitement diminishes, subscriber churn dies down and comcast and verizon reach "equilibrium"?
Will there really be much incentive for either comcast or verizon to improve customer service?
Instead of one unresponsive TV/internet provider, will we just have two equally poor providers?
And how long will it take before both start to raise prices?
As much as I would like to get FIOS, I'm not sure the end result will be very satisfactory if the county is unable to have some regulatory authority - keep in mind, if verizon is successful in abrogating whatever oversight the county has, comcast will be close behind in requesting the same relief. Then there will be no check on the behaviour of either company.
This duopoly is still no substitute for real competition; I suspect it will be several years before real competition happens in the U.S., if ever. | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | No One Died Because of Less Government Any local government which blocks any broadband deployment has outlived its usefulness. GO VERIZON!
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Re: No One Died Because of Less Government Any corporation that blocks any broadband deployment has outlived its usefulness. So DIE VERIZON?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| You do realize that this ideology fundamentally disrupts the foundation on which our current governmental system stands, correct? If there is no need for local government, that means state or federal takes over, and that is absolutely not what can or should happen, within very obvious reason.
It's a very dangerous suggestion that corporations be allowed to surmount government and the people. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government said by tsu9 :It's a very dangerous suggestion that corporations be allowed to surmount government and the people. I'm not saying local government isn't useful. There are plenty of problems for which the local government is ideally suited to solve.
However, if the county is so bored that it has nothing better to do than block FIOS deployments, then something is seriously wrong.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government However, that's precisely what they do: uphold public ROW and other such things, to ensure their constituents are treated appropriately according to their wishes, not the corporations or other jurisdictions.
Removing power from them over such things starts a slippery slope that is, at best, terribly destructive. | |
|
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government said by tsu9 :However, that's precisely what they do: uphold public ROW and other such things, to ensure their constituents are treated appropriately according to their wishes, not the corporations or other jurisdictions. And Montgomery County must do this for FIOS. It isn't like Verizon wants to run toxic waste to peoples' houses. Verizon has gone out of its way to lick the collective @$$es of every local government from here to New Jersey. They have every right to complain about Montgomery County being unreasonable.
But in the end, its the people who get screwed because of less competition.
Besides, there are other more serious problems here which probably better merit the County Government's attention. For one, street gangs are enjoying a resurgence here. Perhaps the County Council should tell them to stop doing what they are doing as well.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government The point is that the locals decide what is proper in their jurisdiction, not the corporations. If the government in the area is doing something improper, there are ways for the citizens to rectify that, and that should be pursued before any corporation is allowed to run rampant, negating the local governmental structure. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: No One Died Because of Less Government (Note: ROWs aren't the only issue at hand, but provide a good example from which to work on this discussion.) | |
|
| | | | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Well, I'll tell you what would happen if this was going on in my town.
FIRED! All 3 of the township supervisors. I would be at EVERY township meeting, making a stink.
Local government is much more accountable to the people than federal or state government. Smaller constituencies tend to magnify issues.
If my town was demanding out of Verizon what MontCO is (and let's face it, their demands are totally UN reasonable) I would be running for town council next election.
That's the beauty of small, local government. Heck, our township supervisors have their home numbers printed in the township directory that gets handed out every year. Even though the town has grown to almost 10,000 people.
I think we can all pretty much agree on the fact that:
1: MontCO's demands are totally UN reasonable, and they look like a bunch of ass hats.
2: The smaller the government the better. Small town or county politics can be a pain sometimes, and lead to crap like this, but I sure as hell don't want the state or federal government stepping in and taking over the local police, fire and road crews. No thanks.
Local jurisdictions that pull stunts like MontCo not only hurt themselves, they hurt every other local jurisdiction by giving the lobbyists in the state and federal legislatures the ammunition they need to take their power away.
The bottom line is, MontCO should just request a reasonable franchise fee, and the other usual "goodies" like some public access, or whatever they get from the incumbent cable provider and green light the project.
Whoever they got running that place needs a brain transplant...
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
|
| | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government said by N3OGH : 1: MontCO's demands are totally UN reasonable, and they look like a bunch of ass hats. I think it is shameful that the government of Montgomery County is acting with the same third-world, bass-ackwards mentality of other local governments that are blocking these broadband deployments in other parts of the country. You would think that at least here, the locals would be a little more enlightened.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | | | | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government After how Comcast has operated, I would imagine they are more enlightened to the situation. Possibly somewhat over-reaching, but vastly more enlightened than you'd be willing to give credit.  | |
|
| | | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government said by tsu9 :After how Comcast has operated, I would imagine they are more enlightened to the situation. Possibly somewhat over-reaching, but vastly more enlightened than you'd be willing to give credit. Credit for what? The council is hampering progress. That makes it part of the problem. I'll happily agree that compared to other countries, our broadband doesn't quite measure up (personally, its not as big an issue to me as it is to others here). But we will never change this if this sort of backwards thinking persists.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government You seem to have forgotten the history Comcast had, didn't you? I guess that "hampering progress" turned out to be worse (currently), eh.
I don't disagree that Verizon shouldn't be allowed in; however, I also don't agree that they should have full access, able to do whatever they damned well please, either.
Concessions from both sides should be made. | |
|
| | | | |
| | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| said by tsu9 :You do realize that this ideology fundamentally disrupts the foundation on which our current governmental system stands, correct? If there is no need for local government, that means state or federal takes over, and that is absolutely not what can or should happen, within very obvious reason. It's a very dangerous suggestion that corporations be allowed to surmount government and the people. Your reading right into the BS the local government is spoon feeding you. All Verizon wants is to not be extorted with unreasonable demands to get a franchise. All the more reason a national or state level agreement is needed and hopefully coming soon. That will bring competition faster benefiting us all. | |
|
| | |
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| quote:
No One Died Because of Less Government
Tell that to the people that drowned in their attics after Katrina, due in no small part to the "less government", largely privatized, FEMA.
Tell that to the pre-Social Security old people (before the 1930's), many of which would die from starvation and/or hypothermia, simply because the were too poor to feed themselves or keep themselves warm.
I could go on with many more examples of the least amongst us, but you get the point. | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | And the big government cheerleaders appear again. | |
|
| wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by pnh102 :Any local government which blocks any broadband deployment has outlived its usefulness. GO VERIZON! That is not true and you know it. Thanks, but even in their current sorry state I suspect that we're much better off with Government Regulations than you know. Pick which of the following you would rather do without in the name of free markets and competition:
• Food and Drug Administration
• Federal Aviation Administration
• Department of Labor (OSHA)
• US Department of Agriculture (Meat inspection)
Not to mention various state and local building inspectors, health and sanitation inspectors, etc.
Yeah, I know -- they're not perfect, and you hear about corruption and so forth, but I still suspect that we're better off with them than without them.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government said by wtansill :Yeah, I know -- they're not perfect, and you hear about corruption and so forth, but I still suspect that we're better off with them than without them. But none of these things compare to stopping broadband deployment. The only opposition is due to the fact that Verizon isn't letting the county screw it hard enough. This is a far cry from the examples you have mentioned.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government said by pnh102 :said by wtansill :Yeah, I know -- they're not perfect, and you hear about corruption and so forth, but I still suspect that we're better off with them than without them. But none of these things compare to stopping broadband deployment. The only opposition is due to the fact that Verizon isn't letting the county screw it hard enough. This is a far cry from the examples you have mentioned. So the fact that Verizon has screwed folks over doesn't count (there was a previous article here on DSLR that went into a fair amount of detail on how VZ got billions in tax breaks and subsidies on the promise of deploying fiber which, until recently, was never laid)? When the local government stands and makes even a small attempt to watch out for its constituency, this is suddenly a bad thing? What am I missing here?
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
| | | | 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: No One Died Because of Less Government What you are missing is that Montgomery County isn't just screwing VZ. MoCo is also screwing *Comcast and RCN* (and their respective customers in the county) as well (according to the county's unique interpretation of the *most-favored nations* clause, as VZ stated in their open). I have seen the clause that VZ referred to (in Comcast's agreement with Prince George's County) and it specifically states that if a competitive provider is offered and accepts better terms than Comcast, then the county must offer Comcast the same terms. It doesn't require that the competing provider be forced to accept the same terms that Comcast did. (Comcast isn't saying that the clause says that, either.) | |
|
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| A bigger problem comes into play when those local government officials lack the knowledge and skills to understand the good, bad, and ugly in almost everything they are placed in charge with.
So, ignorant people elect ignorant representatives to make decisions they might not be qualified to even understand. So, which is the worse evil here?
I think a state-wide national franchise system is a good thing and should be independent on the technology used to deploy it (with the exception of bound vs. unbound systems). It levels the playing fields for all players, but power-hungry bottom-dog mayor (or commissioner) don't like losing that power and will fight to keep it. | |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Eradicate Facilitate fatality. | |
|
serg_leo
join:2001-11-28
Germantown, MD
| Anne Arundel OKs Verizon Cable Deal »www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=842727
A second Maryland county has given Verizon Communications the green light to begin cable television service.
Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens signed the 15-year deal Thursday. Verizon has already been granted a cable franchise in Howard County.
Under the new agreement, Verizon will provide free basic cable service to Anne Arundel County schools, libraries and other municipal buildings. The county will receive 5 percent of the revenue and five channels will be reserved for public access. | |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| Follow the lead of companies Most mid to large companies realised several years ago that they had to eliminate unnecessary levels of management and flatten hierarchies to survive into the 21st century. It is about time that public-funded government realised this too. Government's aim should be to provide value-for-money to the tax payer - not to provide perks to, and boost the ego of, would-be leaders. | |
|
| wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Follow the lead of companies said by DMS1 :Most mid to large companies realised several years ago that they had to eliminate unnecessary levels of management and flatten hierarchies to survive into the 21st century. It is about time that public-funded government realised this too. Government's aim should be to provide value-for-money to the tax payer - not to provide perks to, and boost the ego of, would-be leaders. Corporations are free to reorganize as they see fit within the limits of their charters. Want to flatten local government? Start a petition to amend your state's constitution.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
majortom1981
join:2004-08-26
Lindenhurst, NY
| Hmm I think the local government should be involved.
If the local government is not involved Verizon would be able to dig up any street they want and create traffic chaos.
They will not care about whqat there instalation causes while they are doing it.,
The local government must be involved to keep watch so that verizon doesnt cause any problems. | |
|
| 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Hmm said by majortom1981 :I think the local government should be involved. If the local government is not involved Verizon would be able to dig up any street they want and create traffic chaos. They will not care about whqat there instalation causes while they are doing it., The local government must be involved to keep watch so that verizon doesn't cause any problems. I don't think anyone here agrees that we should eliminate all planing/zoning/construction laws. Noone is suggesting that Verizon be allowed to dig up "any street they want" at any time for any reason. They will still have to apply for a building permit and co-ordinate the tearing up of a street with a city -- regardless of what franchise agreement or legislation that Verizon is able to get passed THEY WILL STILL NEED TO FOLLOW LOCAL LAWS which include obtaining building permits before building anything, and they will need to comply with all applicable laws/codes relating to what they are building.
Verizon is simply trying to eliminate draconian requirements for them to obtain a franchise agreement. They could still even offer FiOS without the TV service if they wanted to...
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
|
|
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: What about all the other jourisdictions? If the local government is incompetent, why are they still "serving"? | |
|
| | |
| | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: What about all the other jourisdictions? It's a problem echoed around the country, but it isn't grounds to allow companies to overstep their bounds.
Fix the problem, but don't force the solution. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: What about all the other jourisdictions? I can't very well not agree that the corrupt practices do not need to stop, but on the same token, the companies also do have to understand reasonable expectations for local areas rather directly benefit the people affected by deployment.
It's give and take. People need to learn how to share a little better.  | |
|
liquidnw
join:2005-06-05
Bronx, NY
| Local COntrol? Basically local control = perks,under the table b.s, etc.
Honestly I'm so tired of localities claiming the loss of local control. Out side of safety concerns the locality really shouldn't be able to block build outs as they do. I'm sure if they took a poll from the people, they would prefer getting some competition and a lower cable bill as opposed to keeping there precious Public access channels and what ever "local control" means. | |
|
3 ideas
@verizon.net
| 3 ideas The ONLY things local municipalities should have control of is rights of way, construction standards, and public access spectrum. Franchise fees themselves should be mostly thrown out the door in reform. No fee should be more than 1% of revenue from a municipality and a land-grab by municipalities should scrap ALL local control, so play nice or lose it ALL. | |
|
| 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: 3 ideas whats happening there is they dont want a giant company gobbling up the town and leaving small buisnesses without any customers. | |
|
| |
neomatsu
join:2002-06-14
Grapevine, TX
| Yea whatever... Working for a certain telco and being a consumer, I get to see life on both sides of the fence...
from the perceptive of a consumer, I am so tired of my community having their hand in everything and then they are not even looking out for our interests but their own d*** interests. this problem of having to go into each and every municipality is one reason there is such a high cost and with negotiations sometimes taking up to a yr or 18 months, who do you think shoulders this cost...
my options are dial up, comcast and slow DSL...even with comcast I never get the 6MB i pay for and their TV is buggy at best and they want me to pay more and more for service that is unreliable and half-a**** at best...
From the perspective of working at the telco, I see where a statewide franchise system like we have in texas does benefit the consumer, it gives the consumer choice and isnt that what America is all about...and when i hear about this local government saying they are closest to the people...that is BS!!!! just look at the towns and cities in TX...one of the worst systems and the folks here are resigned to the fact that they have no say and that they are helpless!!!! | |
|
| 
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| Re: Yea whatever... said by neomatsu :my options are dial up, comcast and slow DSL...even with comcast I never get the 6MB i pay for and their TV is buggy at best and they want me to pay more and more for service that is unreliable and half-a**** at best... From the perspective of working at the telco, I see where a statewide franchise system like we have in texas does benefit the consumer, it gives the consumer choice ... In the first paragraph you basically say you're getting raped by the cable company, but have no real alternative.
The second paragraph you say that state franchises like you have in TX give the consumers choice.
If state-wide franchising works, where are YOUR options? | |
|
| | neomatsu
join:2002-06-14
Grapevine, TX
| Re: Yea whatever... its coming...problem is getting FIOS in an apartment complex...i know from the work i do that the ONT for an apartment building hasnt hit the field yet and so that is now the holdup...i could get the sbc/att for dsl, but that is still slower than comcast, same with verizon dsl...but i am going to look into the fios for my apartment complex next week, i have heard that there is one person here that would not move in if they couldnt get it and it sounds like that they got it...for me the 15/2mb package would be great for the work i do for a certain telco...you might know from some of the knowledge i passed here...so its coming and there is choice but some of those choice's would be a step backward... | |
|
| 
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| said by neomatsu :Working for a certain telco and being a consumer, I get to see life on both sides of the fence... this problem of having to go into each and every municipality is one reason there is such a high cost and with negotiations sometimes taking up to a yr or 18 months, who do you think shoulders this cost... Well, at least you're up front with your bias, and it does show.
1. Name me the City (or cities) where this process took 18 months. If you can, why did it take 18 months? Also, how does statewide franchising curb this 'high cost' when many of the local features (franchise fees, access channels, etc) are still there?
just look at the towns and cities in TX...one of the worst systems and the folks here are resigned to the fact that they have no say and that they are helpless!!!! And they have more 'say' trying to go to the state for such things as service complaints? | |
|
| | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: Yea whatever... there have been many threads on this forum about the alleged abuses in granting local franchises, and there was also one on the FCC fact finding into the issue. There are several current threads where the process has been dragging on...
One of the common arguments is that local franchises necessarily improve customer service. If you mean cable down, signal quality, etc., most local franchise agreements have no provisions relating to customer service. | |
|
| | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: Yea whatever... Sorry for the late post...
alleged abuses in granting local franchises, and there was also one on the FCC fact finding into the issue. There are several current threads where the process has been dragging on... The question is why are these franchises dragging on. Which, btw, are few in number. Many times long franchise processes are a result of the provider being in no hurry to get it done quickly. I think you would find that if a competitive provider wanted to get a franchise in a hurry, the vast majority of municipalities would get one done in a very reasonable amount of time.
One of the common arguments is that local franchises necessarily improve customer service. If you mean cable down, signal quality, etc., most local franchise agreements have no provisions relating to customer service. I would dispute this as most franchises written in the last 10-15 years pretty much all have some customer service standards in them. | |
|
Rob A
Same Old Jets
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | Competition is good Definitely keep fighting verizon, they won the state wide agreement in NJ. Now that has to spread to other areas. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
atowncrazy
join:2001-11-17
Carrollton, TX
2 edits | The needs of the american people should come first Everyday we hear about bridging the digital divide or we hear about how other countries are surpassing us in innovation or technology. Here is an opportunity for us and our children to have the best bandwidth available as well as another option for Video service. This is all a win for American consumers. The politicians should foster competition and innovation not hamper it. Everyone has to agree in areas where Verizon has deployed FiOS the incumbent video provider has either increased the capabilities of there products or lowered rates or both. If the local government isnt willing to help the consumer who is going to help them. | |
|
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Re: The needs of the american people should come first I doubt you can find many politicians (regardless of level of government) that can separate their selfish needs and desires from those of society.
If all Americans could adopt personal responsability we'd have a lot more money in our homes than paying for someone else's kid's education.  | |
|
jazzy112
join:2003-12-05
Fargo, ND
| Public access is unreasonable.... because all of the content is going to be at least regionalized. The beauty of fiber is that you have all the bandwidth you need and don't need to have a head end in every town. The broadcasting of local channels would increase the cost of providing service to the area quite substantially. In the end, if the people want the local crap, then they will keep comcrap and verizon will find itself having to broadcast the channels to get customers.
I don't think the argument is about the local public access, I think it's more about the fees and all of the hoops they will have to jump through just to get the fiber in the ground. My guess is someone on the county council has received a large sum of money to whatever he/she can to keep the competition away. | |
|
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: Public access is unreasonable.... said by jazzy112 :because all of the content is going to be at least regionalized. The broadcasting of local channels would increase the cost of providing service to the area quite substantially. In the end, if the people want the local crap, then they will keep comcrap and verizon will find itself having to broadcast the channels to get customers. Excuse me, but why?
Why should anyone be forced to choose between providers for local access channels? Where do you get the idea that local channels "increase the cost of providing service substantially?" How much is your video service bill goes to channels like ESPN, whether you watch it or not?
The cost of local access is borne by the originating party, not the provider. All they're doing is providing spectrum, and in some cases, capital start-up costs. I don't see the harm in asking for these companies to provide some space for local/community information and shows, especially in light of the kind of money they're making in those same communities. | |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | More about stopping the extortion Having franchise agreements to protect consumers is one thing...extortion for totally unrelated freebees is something else. Good for Verizon for suing the greedy whores in local government. | |
|
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Re: More about stopping the extortion 5% rule sort of applies. The total number of freebies Verizon is kind of willing to give a franchise is capped at around 5% of revenues + including local "must carry", fee$, and equipment/public community channel/s. In ny metro, cablevision calls them "metro channels" and each town/borough has their own "brand" as it were..
Some of the wording/extortion bleeds well beyond these reasonable things into perks which the communities either:
A. don't need
B. don't deserve
C. are priced well above the 5% ratio
D. all of the above
Other tactics include:
A. holding the length of a contract term (10+ years) hostage to perks and nonsense (see above)
B. demanding the ability to censor/control head ends and the kinds of content available to the home (antiquated, since they are getting internet at commercial grade speeds)
C. demanding that Verizon work on their timetable or make unreasonable or overly expensive construction plans, putting the community out of their cost controls for deploying a community/communities.
D. all of the above
And.. to conclude.. Verizon should take those resources and ship them to communities whom are not so ANAL about common sense negotiations. | |
|
|
|
|
Verizon 'Eradicating the Role of Local Government'
·
·