Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" agreements, with many municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a regulated monopoly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ municipalities Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets.
Roland, about which country are you holding this discussion? I am located in the US and thought you were talking about the US. If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video. Don't get me wrong, I am *very* much in favor of open access, have a good business selling IP over cable plant and would love to do it over Adlephia/TWAOL/AT&T plant, I just hate to see yet another bit 'o BS propagated. BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more arguably a public resource. good luck, fletcher
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more arguably a public resource.
Except that most of today's cable systems were built while municipalities could, and did, grant exclusive franchises. Overbuilding an incumbant cable operator is as expensive and risky as becoming a CLEC - probably the reason that neither CLECs nor cable overbuilders are showing much commercial success. As to "small entrepreneurs" - that may have once been true, but I wouldn't call AT&T/MediaOne/TCI, AOL/Time Warner, Adelphia, or Charter "small entrepreneurs." These guys engage in monopoly tactics that rank right up there with those of the ILECs. Miles ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:31:53PM -0400, Fletcher E Kittredge wrote:
Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" agreements, with many municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a regulated monopoly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ municipalities Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets.
Roland, about which country are you holding this discussion? I am located in the US and thought you were talking about the US.
If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video.
Some areas still have both a contract with the local government, and tax breaks and other services provided to them by the local government. This is why the 'open access' arguement is raging fiercly in places like Northern Virginia -- Fox Cable got millions in tax and right of access breaks from the government over the years, but now claims that they own the cable and shouldn't be required to resell access to competitors. Governments need to write better contracts when they provide these tax breaks, ala PG&E claiming they own the utility grid that California state paid them to build. -- Joe Rhett Chief Technology Officer JRhett@ISite.Net ISite Services, Inc. PGP keys and contact information: http://www.noc.isite.net/Staff/
participants (3)
-
Fletcher E Kittredge -
Joe Rhett -
Miles Fidelman