icon key |
 Big Deal
 pnh102 On 2003-10-11 09:05:57
What's the problem here? It's Comcast's network. They built it with private money and they should be able to manage it as they wish. If United Online doesn't like that, they can secure private funding and build their own network and run it the same way.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry.
 | hey mods |  | Expand these replies..
- Re: Big Deal
HSD4490 On Saturday October 11th, @12:08PM
I have been saying this the whole time. I completely agree.
- Automate On Saturday October 11th, @01:23PM
The problem is, why treat them differently than the incumbent phone companies? The phone companies built their networks with "private money" (stock holder money)also. Both the cable companies and the ilecs are benefiting now from the networks built when they were regulated monopolies. Most cable system were originally built after a cable company was given exclusive rights to be the sole cable provider in the community. The prices they charged and everything else was regulated. Now that they are unregulated they have too much of a head start for anybody else to economically come in and build a duplicate network.
- pnh102 On Saturday October 11th, @01:26PM
There is no such thing as an exclusive franchise. Any community is required by law to give a company that wants to lay cables the franchise they need, provided the company pays the local government. Many companies have done this in various places. If they can do it, so can United Online and Brand X.
- Automate On Saturday October 11th, @01:45PM
Wrong, anybody can get right-of-way to lay cable now. But at the time most of the cable networks were originally built they were in a regulated industry and give exclusive rights for a given area. At the time no company would be able to economically justify laying the first networks if they might have to split the customers with another cable provider trying to do the same thing in the same area.
- pnh102 On Saturday October 11th, @02:30PM
said by Automate  :
But at the time most of the cable networks were originally built they were in a regulated industry and give exclusive rights for a given area.
Even if this was verifiably correct, does that mean that anything that occurred in the past that was governed by some "unjust" law automatically entitle new "victims" of that "injustice" to some form of reprieve? I don't think so. I could understand if UOL was suing Comcast back in say, the mid 1980s because Comcast was blocking their deployments, but now nothing can stop UOL from running their own cable if they wanted to. The laws allow for it, other companies have already done it, so let them go ahead and do it as well.
- Rammer On Saturday October 11th, @02:42PM
wrong----- there is such deals and they are all over the country
and its done so no one else can buid out a system
it is very popular in small towns
then it comes back too bite them
- pnh102 On Saturday October 11th, @02:46PM
said by Rammer :
wrong----- there is such deals and they are all over the country
Then UOL and Brand X ought to be suing those towns for violating the law and quit bugging established operations. UOL should have read the terms of their agreement before whining.
I compare it to my own lease, it states that I pay $X a month and I can do certain things... but it also says I cannot do other things. If I want to do these other things, then perhaps I should reconsider my housing choices.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-11 14:48:23]
- moonpuppy On Saturday October 11th, @10:42PM
said by pnh102 :
There is no such thing as an exclusive franchise. Any community is required by law to give a company that wants to lay cables the franchise they need, provided the company pays the local government. Many companies have done this in various places. If they can do it, so can United Online and Brand X.
Really?
Call 410-333-1100. This the the Baltimore City Mayor's Office of Cable and Communication. They beg to differ with you. Comcast has a renewable 10 year franchise agreement that gives them exclusive rights to cable TV (and internet) in the city.
Here is their site too:
»www.baltimorecity.gov/cable.html
- pnh102 On Sunday October 12th, @12:42PM
Its not my fault that Baltimore has possibly granted an illegal exclusive franchise to Comcast. In this case, its the government that is breaking the law and not the company. What you cite is just another example of the government standing in the way of innovation and competition.
- Rammer On Wednesday October 15th, @10:15PM
yea then call 770 583 2289 ask too speak too the mayor
or city manager and they too will show you it does happen
mayor-----billy tucker
city man--doug bennett
city clerk--tanya
sec -----martha
speak too any of them and you might learn that things are not as they seem
the franchise ends here in 2007 and if its not leagal then point me toward a law and i will see if i can get me some broadband
 bocephus On Saturday October 11th, @07:54PM
said by Automate :
The problem is, why treat them differently than the incumbent phone companies? The phone companies built their networks with "private money" (stock holder money)also.
telephone companies receive subsidies from the federal government under the guise of the Universal Service Fund.. supposedly to bring phone service to rural areas of the country..
be it direct grants, or in tax breaks, the phone companies get money from the federal government, so the government has the power to tell the phone companies what they can and cannot do on their networks.
as others have said, the cable companies built their networks with 100% of their own money.
the government telling the cable companies they must allow other companies to use their network would be no different than the government telling you that you must let your neighbors use your car.
- mark0513 On Tuesday October 14th, @08:46PM
said by bocephus :
said by Automate :
The problem is, why treat them differently than the incumbent phone companies? The phone companies built their networks with "private money" (stock holder money)also.
telephone companies receive subsidies from the federal government under the guise of the Universal Service Fund.. supposedly to bring phone service to rural areas of the country..
be it direct grants, or in tax breaks, the phone companies get money from the federal government, so the government has the power to tell the phone companies what they can and cannot do on their networks.
as others have said, the cable companies built their networks with 100% of their own money.
the government telling the cable companies they must allow other companies to use their network would be no different than the government telling you that you must let your neighbors use your car.
I believe that your statement is just partially correct. I will agree with you that the Telcos receive money from the universal service fund. You call it a 'guise', i ask you to explain this. The telcos are required to provide service in their territory to anyone that wants it unlike the cable companies. This is what the fund you are talking about is for. Cable companies can literally pick and choose where they will build their networks so they can make the most money. The telcos don't have that privledge. So why don't we stop with the premise that the Telcos networks were built with taxpayer money. The small amounts that the telcos get for maintaining service to areas where there are not enough customers to pay for those networks is nothing compared to the billions the Telcos spend each year in their capital budgets overall. Your argument saying that the government has the power to tell the telcos what they can do with their networks because of the universal service fund is seriously flawed! Right now the cable companies have it made not having to share their networks. My personal opinion is that both should be treated the same. Both should have to share or neither should have to.
- Alky On Saturday October 11th, @03:59PM
Yeah? The Bells built there own networks, and they were forced to open them up. Why should the friggin' cable industry be an exception?
- telecobum On Saturday October 11th, @08:02PM
Majority of the lines built in this country were actually done by American Telephone and Telegraph(AT&T)before the goverment broke them up and the baby bell's were born.
 Sarick On Saturday October 11th, @04:51PM
said by pnh102 :
What's the problem here? It's Comcast's network. They built it with private money and they should be able to manage it as they wish. If United Online doesn't like that, they can secure private funding and build their own network and run it the same way.
Ugh wouldn't that be public municipals?
Isn't there a law that government can't use tax money to compete with the private sector..
I read all this on BBR!
Now how can they make their own network if they aren't allowed to?
 AmeritecTech On Saturday October 11th, @09:13PM
said by Sarick :
said by pnh102 :
What's the problem here? It's Comcast's network. They built it with private money and they should be able to manage it as they wish. If United Online doesn't like that, they can secure private funding and build their own network and run it the same way.
Ugh wouldn't that be public municipals?
Isn't there a law that government can't use tax money to compete with the private sector..
I read all this on BBR!
Now how can they make their own network if they aren't allowed to?
This has nothing to do with the government. United Online is a PRIVATE company formed by the merger of Netzero and Juno, not a municipality. United Online can spend their OWN MONEY to build a network.
- pnh102 On Sunday October 12th, @12:44PM
said by AmeritecTech :
United Online can spend their OWN MONEY to build a network.
Kinda hard to do when the value of their company is NetZero ;)
|
|
| Cable Broadband Q&A
 JTRockville On 2003-10-11 09:22:49
The Washington Post (publisher of linked article) also published a "Cable Broadband Q&A"
said by
Robert MacMillan, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Cable Broadband Q&A
Tuesday, October 7, 2003; 12:23 PM:
Q: What are my options for getting high-speed Internet service today?
A: It depends on where you live. In many places you have a choice between two forms of high-speed Internet service: DSL, which travels over regular phones lines, or broadband delivered over your cable line.
Q: What kind of competition is there for my money?
A: In many markets, several companies compete in the DSL space -- the local telephone monopoly, such as Verizon Communications or BellSouth, and any of a number of upstarts like Covad, Cavalier Telephone or Quantum Internet Services. Not so -- in most cases -- for cable broadband service. Your local cable franchise typically enjoys a monopoly.
Q: It looks like the cable industry is treated much more favorably by the government than DSL providers. Why is that?
A: It's because various segments of the communications industry and the U.S. government have been unable to agree on a regulatory system that suits cable and phone companies alike.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local phone companies must obey complex federal rules, including a mandate that they let competitors use their networks at rates determined by state utility commissions. This is done because the telephone network in the government's eye is like a public utility that should not be monopolized.
Cable companies, which have built their own private networks, are not required to follow those regulations and have successfully defended themselves lawsuits from competing Internet service providers and local governments to force them to open their networks.
The phone companies want deregulation too and challenged the FCC's rationale that cable should be subject to its own set of rules while telecom carriers continue to be closely regulated.
Q: So the government stepped in to settle the situation?
A: Yes, in the cable companies' favor. In March 2002, the Federal Communications Commission gave its blessing to this dual-regulatory framework, ruling that cable companies provided an "information service" -- an important distinction from "telecommunications services" that, predictably enough, are subject to the Telecommunications Act.
Q: Where does the appeals court come in?
A: The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Oct. 6, 2003, overturned that FCC rule. The three-judge panel sided with legal objections filed by telecom giants Verizon and SBC Communications, as well as DSL Internet service provider EarthLink Inc. and Brand X Internet Services. The Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and the California Attorney General's Office also were among the plaintiffs.
Q: So what's going to happen next?
A: Don't hold your breath for competition in the cable ISP space, as the court ruling will not result in a slew of new broadband Internet options in your neighborhood anytime soon. The cable industry most likely will call for the entire 9th Circuit to review the ruling. Ultimately, the case is likely to move to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then there's always the possibility that Congress might weigh in with its own legislation.
Bottom line: The National Cable and Telecommunications Association correctly interpreted the ruling with the statement, "This is one step in a long process."
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
- Re: Cable Broadband Q&A
keyboard5684 On Saturday October 11th, @02:20PM
This sounds more like an advertisement than an actual news article. Quote an article like that and you are trying to present it as fact. This article is opinions of facts, not a blanket application of laws, including Verizon which I talk about below and the article mentions.
In my area there is Verizon that provides DSL and a few CLECs. The CLECS DSL cost between $50 - $700 a month ($50 is residential). Verizons DSL costs at most $35 for residential. There are a ton of local ISPs that want to offer DSL over the Verizon network, have the money to do it, but cannot because the cost per line from Verizon is more than they charge there own customers.
I can show you a huge market where open DSL markets are not working for anyone but the large ILEC. In this same market cable is the biggest competitor to DSL with wireless 3rd and the prices are low in that area for everything except the CLEC.
Drop the entire law, eliminate the use of new DSL lines by competitors, and don't f&*# the cable companies and its customers like the current law allows for the ILEC to do.
I realize that in some areas the open networks theory works but only because the ILEC allows it to. The law does not force the ILEC to do this as my example with Verizon shows, it just sets a stage for the performance of the ILEC. They can simple do what they wish with prices and rape both the competitor by charging way to much and the customer by forcing the competition to drive up there costs to stay alive.
- JTRockville On Saturday October 11th, @04:18PM
I didn't mean to present it as anything but what it is: an article published in the Washington Post. I though it made for a good discussion topic.
I still think it's a good discussion topic, especially because I really enjoyed your thoughtful and informative response!
Thanks.
 SRFireside On Saturday October 11th, @05:38PM
The article might be jaded, but it is pretty accurate. Cable companies enjoy a monopoly status in the areas they offer their services to. There is VERY little competition in the cable market. Yeah the ILEC's are making the DSL market very difficult for competitors, but at least there are competitors.
|
|
| What is wrong with you people?
 insomniac84 On 2003-10-11 09:25:05
What has the cable companies done for you that is so great? Why defend them? Yes they built the network, but they got their network built before houses went up in the areas they service. Once an area is built up it costs a lot more to run cable. I don't think they should be protected from competitors just because they got there first. Cable companies are monopolies. When an area get competition people pay less.
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
- Re: What is wrong with you people?
 IPingUPing On Saturday October 11th, @12:39PM
said by insomniac84 :
I don't think they should be protected from competitors just because they got there first. Cable companies are monopolies.
If you do some research, you will likely find that your local cable company does not have a monopoly. There are usually no exclusive rights. Normally, cable has a non exclusive agreement to use public right of ways.
I'm sure your city would be glad to offer another company to the same deal if they would make the investment. Because someone had business acumen does not give you the right to steal part of their privately funded business away to fit your concept of fairness.
- vic102482 On Saturday October 11th, @01:07PM
said by IPingUPing :
said by insomniac84 :
I don't think they should be protected from competitors just because they got there first. Cable companies are monopolies.
If you do some research, you will likely find that your local cable company does not have a monopoly. There are usually no exclusive rights. Normally, cable has a non exclusive agreement to use public right of ways.
I'm sure your city would be glad to offer another company to the same deal if they would make the investment. Because someone had business acumen does not give you the right to steal part of their privately funded business away to fit your concept of fairness.
What insomniac84 said is true. In some parts of Maryland comcast has exsclsive rights, but recently they have been overtuned because of their crappy service. Now starpower cable wants in, but it costs far too much for them to deploy service because everything has been established by comcast. Comcast is not only protecting their own lines, but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep star power out.
You want to talk about fairness????!!
Talk to comcast who is bitching about Direct TV not having to pay right of way taxes. Direct TV had to pay hundreds of millions to launch their satellites, and since the waves come from space and they dont have to tear up city streets, they dont have to pay taxes or fees. Now comcast and other cable companies have successfully lobbied in 3 states to have direct tv pay taxes.
I have no problem with comcast getting charged to use their private network after they did that to direct tv, and also their propganda campaigns should be met by lawsuits from direct tv.
 Unit649 On Saturday October 11th, @03:26PM
You could argue about this in many ways:
Airlines have an advantage over railroads because of right of way that railroads require, is a good example-planes don't have to pay for airspace. But, then they have to help fund air traffic control.
Its pretty simple, in my way of thinking-if you pay for the line and the maintance of it, its your line and you should be able to do what you want with it. The reason why these independants are crying is because they want someone else to pay for the infrastructure (spelled "line maintance") so they don't have to pay the costs associated with it. Then they can undercut the person they are leasing from because they don't have those costs.
The bottom line is, if you want to use a line, you need to pay a fee for it, and that fee should equate to your service being roughly the same price-but not 10, 20 dollars less because someone else is paying for the line. The reason why cable customers pay so much now already is the fact that you have to put all those costs into it-cost of laying the line (and if you have to dig up peoples existing yards, paying for damages) and the cost to maintain said line, which means having at a minimum a few techs that know what they are doing "on call" for issues.
And lets be honest-lets say you have Comcast and your neighbor has "Joe Schmoe" cable service, but using Comcasts lines. Comcast cannot make "Joe Schmoe" pay for the line usage. So a storm comes, and both lines are knocked down.
Which line do you think they will fix first? Thiers, and all the other ones that are theirs, because those customers are their own-they will get back to "Joe Schmoe" customers after all their customers are restored. And if "Joe Schmoe" expects Comcast to fix their customers, then "Joe Schmoe" should be billed for said repairs. Only sounds fair to me. I mean if you and your neighbor both had a problem with your house, would you fix your neighbors first? No, you'd take care of yourself first, and thats what any company would do.
Its not fair for the cable companies to fight against someone else running lines-thats fair, you should be able to. But they should fight against those who feel they should be able to use their infrastructure to sell their service without paying for said infrastructure. Thats like paying rent on a house and other people expecting to live in it for free :)
 DSLTech On Saturday October 11th, @09:55PM
The cost the competitor pays for access to the comcast network must include/cover these types of outages, as you mentioned in the second-to-last paragraph.
Comcast is RESPONSIBLE for the layer 1 portion, between where they hand off to the competitor and where the cable wire itself meets the house.
If not, then the price of the service they're providing and being paid for should be reduced.
Technically-speaking, Joe Schmoe is also their customer, in perhaps an indirect way, but all the same, they're responsible for the service they provide to the "competitor".
Lets not forget that comcast would still be making money off of this customer, even if the layer 2 and 3 services are handled by another company.
 achuchma On Saturday October 11th, @01:05PM
said by insomniac84:
Yes they built the network, but they got their network built before houses went up in the areas they service.
Somehow I do not think there was a CATV network in place in 1924, which is when my place was built.
Maybe for most rural areas, but in large cities, there were plenty of houses when cable started putting up lines in the 80's.
- AmeritecTech On Monday October 13th, @11:56AM
said by insomniac84 :
What has the cable companies done for you that is so great? Why defend them? Yes they built the network, but they got their network built before houses went up in the areas they service. Once an area is built up it costs a lot more to run cable. I don't think they should be protected from competitors just because they got there first. Cable companies are monopolies. When an area get competition people pay less.
If your local cable company were a monopoly, you would not have service with SBC right now.
|
|
| The big deal is....
Yowzaaah On 2003-10-11 09:26:44
Comcast and other incumbent cable companies have benefited greatly over the years from public concessions in terms or right of ways, easements, imminent domain usage by communities to obtain desired/needed rights to lay conduit, low cost/no cost usage of public utility closets, and incorporation of cable company needs in growth plans and utility upgrades. In return for this land, access and publicly owned conduits, the companies are expected to allow competition to use their fiber and cables at a reasonable rental rate equivalent to their own cost of using these lines plus some admin costs. The fact that the cable companies happily signed these agreements in order to get millions in goodies from us via gov't, thinking that they would never have to honor them, and now doesn't like it when they have to pony up their end of the deal doesn't surprise me.
The fact that folks seem to think that cable companies infrastructure was built entirely with their own money and without public subsidy does surprise me. If this was "all theirs" then by all means, they have the right to say no. Since they asked us to foot the bill for some of it, then we have a say in what is done with it. Encouraging competition and lower rates to the public in return for massive assistance in creating their business delivery system seems more than fair to me.
--
Don't suspect your friends...Report Them. Brazil (if you haven't seen it, you should)
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
- Re: The big deal is....
 needforspeed59 On Saturday October 11th, @12:40PM
Where did you get your information that cable companies are subsidized? They pay cities 5% for rights of way. Any company wishing to compete can do the same thing.
- JTRockville On Saturday October 11th, @01:16PM
said by needforspeed59 :
Where did you get your information that cable companies are subsidized? They pay cities 5% for rights of way. Any company wishing to compete can do the same thing.
"Pass-through" of the 5% is permitted, so in many systems the subscriber pays the franchise fee, not the cable company.
 THZNDUP On Saturday October 11th, @02:03PM
said by JTRockville :
......."Pass-through" of the 5% is permitted, so in many systems the subscriber pays the franchise fee, not the cable company.
The same as at most gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, water companies, etc. They don't just absorb the cost of their business licenses or taxes, those costs get passed on to the subscriber, errrr.... customer.
- JTRockville On Saturday October 11th, @04:12PM
said by THZNDUP :
said by JTRockville :
......."Pass-through" of the 5% is permitted, so in many systems the subscriber pays the franchise fee, not the cable company.
The same as at most gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, water companies, etc. They don't just absorb the cost of their business licenses or taxes, those costs get passed on to the subscriber, errrr.... customer.
Right, but do you consider taxes on gasoline, for example, to be paid by your gas station, or you?
- keyboard5684 On Saturday October 11th, @02:25PM
"Pass-through" of the 5% is permitted, so in many systems the subscriber pays the franchise fee, not the cable company.
Right, the subscriber pays the fee.
All businesses are in it to make money. The cable companies, telcos, or your local Burger King are there to make money. No matter what every single cost they have will get passed to you, one way or the other.
This is how businesses operate to make money, by charging you enough money to pay there expenses, including employees, franchise fees, and all the other good stuff, and still have enough left over for expansion and profit.
Your comment makes it look like the cable companies is a government agency using your tax dollars to buy swimming pools. The cable company is a business not a favor.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-11 14:27:41]
- telecobum On Saturday October 11th, @08:11PM
Yep your are correct! I appears every month on your cable bill...the francise fee!
- JTRockville On Sunday October 12th, @12:27PM
The franchise fee is assessed only on regulated services, so services such as broadband elude these fees. Since franchise fees are considered to be "rent" of the public right-of-way, unregulated services delivered via the row are subsidized.
The franchise fee is capped at 5% of gross revenues, while the costs of administering the franchise and maintaining the row are not capped. So when the costs exceed the fee, the funding comes from the general fund. In other words, citizens who are not subscribers are subsidizing the administration of the cable franchise, and the cableco use of the row.
said by
Bruce A. Seaman, Fiscal Research Program, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University
AN ANALYSIS OF FRANCHISE FEES IN GEORGIA:
County governments are increasingly concerned that, despite judicial rulings that have limited their authority to collect franchise fees, their limited income from such fees may well constitute an unconstitutional giveaway to private interests. For example, Wayne Hill of the Gwinnett County Commission estimates that the total cost to his county of all right-of-way maintenance is as high as $16 million per year (a total of $80 million since 1993), despite the fact that Gwinnett estimates its cable franchise fee revenues at only $2.25 million per year (in testimony provided on behalf of the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) to the Georgia Legislative Study Committee). He further estimates that the county, if legally able to receive its "justified" franchise fees, could generate as much as $30-35 million per year (which would constitute about 4.7 percent of its $693 million annual budget). The ACCG also argues that many residents of counties are essentially "double-taxed"- firstly in county taxes to pay for right-of-way maintenance, and secondly through their utility bills since the franchise fee burdens incorporate such expenses into the utilities= rate base (even though the municipal base for the calculation of franchise fees is limited to the municipal customer base). Thus, county unhappiness with the current franchise fee structure is growing.
- THZNDUP On Sunday October 12th, @05:46PM
Some others have a different view of where the franchise fees (rent,tax,revenue,or whatever) fit into their accounting. This is from the Vice-Mayor of the City of Mesa,AZ, Dennis Kavanaugh:
".......It is a rental fee, not a tax, for private cable companies to use public right of way, which is owned and paid for by taxpayers. ......"
and the biggie:
"While franchise fees are used as a source of funding for our community's cable-related activities or administration of a cable franchise, there is nothing that requires franchise fees to be used only for these purposes. Thus, the franchise fees are part of Mesa’s general revenues, which support City departments such as Police and Fire."
And in all fairness, I think he also means to maintain the rights of ways.
[EDIT]
While looking thru various items, I stumbled across the following:
"Mesa City Code
Title V - Business Regulations
Chapter 10 - Privilege and Excise Taxes Regulations
REGULATION 5-10-250.1: EXCESS TAX COLLECTED:
If a taxpayer collects taxes in excess of the combined tax from any customer in any transaction, all such excess tax shall be paid to the taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their effective rates. The right of the taxpayer to charge his customer for his own liability for tax does not allow the taxpayer to enrich himself at the cost of his customers."
I guess it DOES allow the City to enrich themselves though.
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
[text was edited by author 2003-10-12 19:15:14]
- pnh102 On Saturday October 11th, @12:42PM
Wrong. Any company can get the exact same easements, rights of way, and all that other stuff just like the cable companies did. Sure it takes a lot of money, but it can be done. I lived in a town with a competing cable company that did this. They ran their own fiber optic cable and coax to get the job done and they competed side by side with the former AT&T Broadband. If this company can do that, so can any other.
Don't raise my cable bill to pay for someone else's failed business model. If anyone feels sorry because Brand X, United Online or any other failure of a company can't get the funding to do this, then open up your checkbooks and become a stakeholder.
- achuchma On Saturday October 11th, @01:09PM
I agree...
RCN (which used to be 21st Century) ran their own lines on the north side of Chicago, and are still in operation today.
POTS lines and CATV lines are two different animals. When POTS service started spanning the country, the Bells got a lot of their funding from the feds...To the best of my knowledge, CATV was a complete private investment paid for by the company, it's investors, and it's Customers...not the gov't.
 dogtech On Saturday October 11th, @01:20PM
Every area is different , so it's impossible to say one way or the other.
In my area the telco paid for and installed all of the CATV lines and operated them for a long time and the out of the blue the city came in and forced them to sell it at a loss to a private investor.
- MJRudzik On Saturday October 11th, @01:24PM
This argument that any company can build their own network is getting really tired. While this is technically true, its alees acceptable solution that opening the current networks. I for one don't really want to see the result of who knows how many cable plants running accross my property. Not to mention that this is really inefficient. Its high time that the industry was busted into two distinct sectors. Physical plant and services. The Physical plant side should be a government controled monopoly that sells access to service companies who sell services to end users. NO service company would own the network and the physical plant company would have no interests in Any service company. I am of course tlaking about the whole industry be it cable or phone. I think this would make for a vigorously competitive marketplace wiht better prices, more options, higher quality service.
 mocycler On Saturday October 11th, @03:04PM
If the government hadn't stuffed it's nose in private business to begin with, none of this would have ever happened.
Truth is, easements and rights-of-way are open to whoever wants them. These companies need to pull their head out their ass, put up the dough and build their own networks. Nobody is stopping them. Upstart companies are having a hard time because they expect someone else to do all the hard work for them.
The Bells and cable companies had several decades head start. They were first to market...so what? The newer companies have the benefit of joining the race after it started. If the incumbents hadn't done what they did, there would be no infrastructure to argue about. Can you imagine where we would be if Alexander Graham Bell sat around waiting for someone else to lay telephone cable...and then bitched because they wouldn't share it with him??
Sorry, technology has advanced since Alex Bell...any business model that wholly depends on a competitor to supply the basic resources needed to generate income deserves to fail.
Peace,
mocycler
- THZNDUP On Saturday October 11th, @03:51PM
said by mocycler :
...Sorry, technology has advanced since Alex Bell...any business model that wholly depends on a competitor to supply the basic resources needed to generate income deserves to fail. ....
Shouldn't that read "any business model that wholly depends upon govt. to force a competitor to supply the basic resources needed to generate income deserves to fail" ?
- Yowzaaah On Saturday October 11th, @07:55PM
Okay:
You're all right. I was wrong about the subsidy and conduit usage - mixing ILECs and Incumbent Cable Providers in my jumbled brain. Do take a look at this though, it's very interesting.
»uspirg.org/reports/failureofcabledereg..
|
|
| Netzero & Juno
 VerticalRave On 2003-10-11 09:56:25
If nobody has yet noticed, I believe that Nezero and Juno (Both free services and dialup internet for cheap) are also a part of United Online.
Can anybody confirm or deny this?
--
If it can be smoked, its prolly not going to be good for you.
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
- Re: Netzero & Juno
 XPAMD On Saturday October 11th, @01:24PM
Yes, they are.
Here is Juno's copyright notice:
Copyright © 1995-2003 Juno Online Services, Inc., ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Juno is a registered trademark, and the Juno logo is a trademark, of Juno
Online Services, Inc. This Website also contains trademarks of other companies.
Unless indicated otherwise, all prices are in United States dollars.
also alink to corp--untd.com
And NetZero:
A link to corporate--unitedonline.com
|
|
| charter monopoly
rid0617 On 2003-10-11 10:42:55
In my city, charter does have a monopoly. They renew their contract with the city and part of that contract is that they have exclusive rights within the city. In neighboring Buncombe County, NC they just renewed their contract for 10 years. If charter won't resolve your issue, the only option left is to contact a city councilman which is like pi----- in the wind. Or at least it is here.
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
|
|
| Its A Cosumer Butt kicking Monopoly without FCC!!
Anomus
Unregistered.
cable.mindspring.com
On 2003-10-11 10:56:51
I use and faithfully contribute on P2P networks. Well over 50 million users depend on me to do what I can to keep P2P strong. Its like the gun lobby. If there were no ARA in america, they would have outlawed gun ownership long ago and only the crooks would be armed. Time Warner Cable kicked me for useing BW for P2P and refuseing to pay $460.00 a month for what I use. Thats $90.00 plus huge overage charges. I then had Earthlink reconnect me and we have been happy ever since. Due to COMPETITION brought to you by the wise folks at the FCC, TWC is now reconsidering their BW hog policies and will no doubt come up with something much more reasonable. Forced cable network shareing keeps priceing affordable for ALL of us. So Enjoy it and quit yo beechin.
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
- What about Muni's?
bigskank On Saturday October 11th, @04:40PM
I don't buy all the BS about "they built it, so can anyone else". Blah. The cable companies are actively trying to keep munis from building a cable infrastructure in communities that aren't happy with incumbent providers. "Government shouldn't be in that business," they say. Fine. Then they whine and cry whenever other private companies threaten them. The way I see it, their cables are buried on my land. Thus, either they pay me for the use of my land, or they have to go thru the government's use of eminent domain and be subject to their regulation. I'd be happy to let them keep their cables on my land for a $25/mo rental fee. If they don't want to play that, and don't want to abide by the government, then I'll find a backhoe and kick the trespassers off my land.
- Re: Its A Cosumer Butt kicking Monopoly without FCC!!
X01 On Saturday October 11th, @04:54PM
in san diego we have to major cable co's cox and time warner it's funn how the boundary's are for them
a freeway is the border line between the 2 here, i believe it's the 52 north of is time & south is cox i think
and / or is it north [parts] of i-8 is time and south is cox. and south bay is time i think
anyway, cox charges 39.99/month for cable inet access 3000/300 & time is 44.95/month in my area. dont know of how time's speed is.
if time warrner came to my area, like thats ever to happen, i may switch if they offer me a good deal
dsl is all over my area i have many to choose from including wireless
but the real eye catcher is sbc yahoo for 26.95/month for a 1 year contract for someone that cant afford/ get cable that is a sweet deal in my opinion
0.02
|
|
| big business likes anything but capitalism
parkbenn4907 On 2003-10-11 14:25:33
uh...NO, you cannot just get access to lay lines, that is a fairy tale, and further, it always amuses me to see the country club republican types, who, theoretically espouse capitalism and enterprenuership, yet they are scared to death of competition. Hypocrites. small business owners ( of which i am one ) are screwed every which way, every day, by "big business" who act like socialists more than captitalists. i wish the country club big business republican types would either 1) wake up, or 2) admit they are not capitalists. this industry, like just about all others, will fall to the monopolists, via the "spawned from hell" lobbyists, and middle class pro business people will continue to mistakenly support big business, who has no agenda that includes in ANY tiny way, a care for the community nor the larger interests of American soverignty.
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
- Re: big business likes anything but capitalism
AmeritecTech On Saturday October 11th, @09:25PM
said by parkbenn4907 :
uh...NO, you cannot just get access to lay lines, that is a fairy tale, and further, it always amuses me to see the country club republican types, who, theoretically espouse capitalism and enterprenuership, yet they are scared to death of competition. Hypocrites. small business owners ( of which i am one ) are screwed every which way, every day, by "big business" who act like socialists more than captitalists. i wish the country club big business republican types would either 1) wake up, or 2) admit they are not capitalists. this industry, like just about all others, will fall to the monopolists, via the "spawned from hell" lobbyists, and middle class pro business people will continue to mistakenly support big business, who has no agenda that includes in ANY tiny way, a care for the community nor the larger interests of American soverignty.
You know, there are some among us who believe the lobbyists should be thrown out of town and also believe that businesses have a right to make money off the cable they laid.
- On Sunday October 12th, @05:07PM
good post parkbenn.
I'll also give a thumbs up to opdude below.
Any true believer in capitalism should be at the forefront of the push to clean up corporate bs.
People seem to forget that one of the primary purposes of incorporation is to socialize risk/liability.
As you point out corporate "capitalism" has very little similarity to small business ownership. It is a completely different game with different rules. The corporate world tries to blur the distinction in order to align all business interests with their own and to hide their sleaze behind the true capitalists of this economy, who are the small business owners.
I wish that all small business owners were as immune to deception as you apparently are.
|
|
| Libertarian illogic on Telcomm
OPDude On 2003-10-11 18:26:26
Dudes and dudesses:
I enjoy seeing the Libertarians and conservatives out there defending the status quo as if it were a religion.
Look, the entire Internet was a government sponsored project and thankfully so. Because is was done by the government, it resulted in a high quality standards-based infrastructure. Of course, companies such as CISCO now have near monopolies on some of the hardware running the internet and that does prevent progress in new standards that do not conform to CISCO desires, but hey, tell that to a Libertarian Fundamentalist.
The current Telcomm mess is *because* of deregulation. Were the Internet to have been developed in such a chatoic manner without some centralized standards oversight from a non-profit making organization, imagine the mess it would have become.
One bright point -- technology is now coming up with methods to lay fiber optics through the gas pipeline infrastructure in cities. If President Bush had even an once of sense, he would get behind a *government* run program to put fiber to every home in the U.S. by 2009. Just like Kennedy inspired us to get to the moon by 1969 and we did it. The operative term here is 'we'. As opposed to private owners of large corporations. If we put our collective democratic mind to it, we could, with government funding and standards, get rid of all that legacy cable infesting our cities, and elimiate the cable T.V. companies completely. The communications infrastructure could and *should* be a well regulated system just as our electrical grid used to be and our highway and street systems, our mail, our sewers, and our gas pipelines still are.
Just as the Internet itself makes it more and more possible to remove power from the media distributors, so to would a government-based communications infrastructure make it more possible for information to flow freely and at high rates from providers to consumers and make it possible for more people to *be* providers.
I don't blame any individulal private cable company owner for making profits, just like I don't blame an individual for buying property and then sitting back and collecting rent while the real work is done by the gardener, the property manager and other salaried people who do the real work.
But even in this climate of capitalist Libertarian fundamentalism, there is some hope that the government, which is, after all, a democracy, as opposed to a corporate autocracy, can set the goals, set the standards, and even fund a very high quality communications infrastructure for the future.
Laugh you will, oh Libertarian cult member.
But think about the high quality of our government run operations. You may or may not agree with the policies that control our military, but for one second do you think that our (U.S.) military is not well run? Or our interstate highway system? Or our national parks? Or our research programs that will lead to the future internet? They are all very well run *without* a profit motive but, rather, with a *quality* motive. And that's how it should be.
Cheers,
Dennis Allard
allard@isi.edu
|
|
| The Telcos were not subsidized!
 spg On 2003-10-11 22:11:32
Stop spreading the lies. The capital for telephone expansion came from the shareholders.
The telcos were granted a franchise by the state governments. You could say that their profits were guaranteed. That is true, however the rate of return was regulated, AND the telcos were forced to provide service to EVERYONE, even if that line was not profitable. It was a trade off.
If anything, the government is taking advantage of subscribers who have a phone; THEY'RE being charged an excise tax that was originally levied to pay for the Spanish American war.
How does that differ with the cablecos putting up plant with their shareholders' money in local cities where THEY have a franchise?
It's the same thing, only on a smaller scale.
It's time to truly open the market on an even footing; either end the restrictions on the telcos, or, apply the same rules to cable. Perhaps even more VOIP would become available from cable CLECS.
| hey mods | |
|
| glad to see some thoughtful posts....but i disagre
parkbenn4907 On 2003-10-12 13:13:43
disagree with the person who said, "this climate of libertarian capitalism" - oh wouldn't that be nice IF it were true. again, i wish those middle class pro business people who take a harder look at "big business." Exxon, Dow, Archer Daniels, etc, etc, are socialist monopolies, if they had to compete on the playing field i compete on they would fail. they are populated with dimwit managers, who have as their no. 1 priority, self-protection, NOT innovation and creativity. just look at what clear channel has brought ( or NOT brought to radio ), no, we do not live in a country that understands or appreciates capitalism, perhaps because our kids are not taught it properly in the monopolistic ( and dull, out of date ) government school system. again, i am pro-SMALL business, but people like me who appreciate pro-business policies need to wake up and call the big business monoliths what they are, and they ain't capitalists.
| hey mods | | Expand these replies..
- Re: glad to see some thoughtful posts....but i disagre
On Sunday October 12th, @05:29PM
I suspect when he said that he wasn't thinking of traditional libertarian capitalist with a small l but, in a sense, modern Libertarian Capitalists with a big L, in much the same way that we distinguish Liberal from traditional liberalism.
Key features of the big L would be, for example, a mindless insistence on deregulating everything, including non-competitive markets, leaving society with unregulated entrenched monopolies with little oversight. They will not be leading us to the promised land of capitalist markets.
I think the two of you are closer in your views than you realize. Though you might not like his terminology the economic Libertarians he is talking about are closely tied, if not synonymous, with the "country club republicans" you dislike. They, unfortunately, dominate conservative thought and important ideas have been turned into absurd caricature by these thoughtless people(in too many cases they aren't just thoughtless, but have bad intentions).
- Dissagreement.
 knower101 On Sunday October 12th, @06:19PM
The navagation and communication I see between is well, Negitive. I have to disagree on this one.
|
|
| | | add to the discussion.. |
|
¬¬¬¬
Posts