this "Rich" arguement needs to end. it is not true and you know it. i am not rich and i have fios. many of my friends are not rich and have fios.
No new BHN channels
- Thread starter skottey
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 5K
this "Rich" arguement needs to end. it is not true and you know it. i am not rich and i have fios. many of my friends are not rich and have fios.
Yes, but I am sure the state collects far less than all the cities added up, a little here, little there.
Bad argument because if you get technical with things, EVERY business uses public infrastructure in some way. The number one example is roads. Everyone uses roads, whether directly or to have product shipped to them. I think it is only fair that cable and utility companies pay for use of the right of way public land, but that is where it should end. Anyway, services like cable benefit everybody whether they use them or not. The guy sitting home on unemployment interacts with a rep at the unemployment office who uses some type of data line (cable, DSL, t1, dial-up, or whatever) to connect to the state. So indirectly, everybody benefits from cable TV lines the same way they do from power or water utilities.
My point was that it reduced revenue to the entity closest to the public and moved it into another higher up pocket. You can rest assured the state didn't replace that revenue that was removed from the cities, so the cities have to raise it from us. We were paying the city (through the cable franchise). Now we pay the state (through the cable franchise) AND will have an increase from the city--in something--to replace that revenue lost to them.
These local cable deals are very small percentages of a city's overall finances. I think more so, the cities are angry about losing their level of control along the lines of mandatory cable access channels, government channels, getting free cable and televisions in city halls, courthouses, jails, etc. The $$$ value is a smaller part of it so there isn't much for them to come after us in other ways. It was a control issue.
By rich I mean not poor. Fios is avoiding areas in which "Lower income" people live because the return is not as great. Its a fact google it.
The cable people do have it. Its the sat guys. And I have no problem with the agreement as long as its equal for all parties involved. My only problem is the cable companies had to go through hell to start their business, and now the phone companies get a free ride. It is government regulation favoring one company over another and its not "free market". If verizon wants to offer tv service they should be allowed to offer it anywhere the same as cable, but they should not get special treatment.
Yes everyone is can use roads. Can you as a pirvate citizen use the government easement? That logic is flawed, becuase normal people cant just dig a cable through the public easement. but a normal person can use the roads. the laws that were put in place decades ago were to ensure that these companies had the rights to use public land, and easement, but at the same time they had to give benefit to the community as a whole. Including public access stations and the likes. Is verizon required to have public access stations? Are they required to carry all the counties/cities governments channels? Heck BHN in the city of ocoee carries 5 channels, free that are mandated by the county/city (thats 10HD channels right their more if they are lower speed) or over 35 regular digital channels....
and those are all things the benefit the community that this new law takes away. So instead of using public land for the good of the community (and profit) they just make even more profit. The cable companies included! if they are allowed to follow the same rules.
So what! They do demographics on the area and make a determination as to whey they will see not only a return on their investment, but a profit. Why should they go into a ghetto where people won't be ordering $100 a month per household or more of service?
My cable and sat bill are about $200. Add in Vonage for my biz phone lines ($60) and Virtual Office Internet ($90).... So I am paying $350 for phone, Internet and television... at least, I probably forgot something... How many homes in the ghetto have service like this? 1 me or 4-10 ghetto homes? It only makes business sense to go after the people that will pay the most for the service.
Come on Steveni! Start your own independent company and offer a service. I'll bet my bottom dollar you go where the money is too. If you don't, you'll be out of business real quick.
The hard work BHN has done in the past is in fact gone, while the Verizons of the world can roll right in with service. However, BHN can now expand far easier and they can break their local franchises and start a state franchise (as I pointed out).
The history of cable and phone companies has not always been fair to either side. Going forward, this law makes it far more fair than it has ever been. Now free market will say who gets to go where. This is good for consumers.
I said "I think it is only fair that cable and utility companies pay for use of the right of way public land, but that is where it should end"
You mention they have to give back to the community as a whole? Why is that a good law? Paying for usage should be enough. Giving back public access is typical government intervening. I would rather see 10 more HD channels than 5 city channels (as per your argument), I don't know about the rest of you.
Which side are you on steveni? Are you saying that they shouldn't have to offer these city and county channels like I am? Or are you saying that since they have to offer them, Verizon should too? Neither should! It is not a job of the cable and phone companies to get the word out of government. Last I checked I can pick up my city government channels with an antenna (not that I care to watch).
Here in Pinellas and neighboring Hillsborough, the governments are whining as we speak since BHN is moving all the government channels to the higher digital tier. One councilman went as far as to say that the (crummy) city channel would no longer get those 'flipping through channels" moving from channel 17 or whatever to the 300's. It is that bad that they have to rely on flippers to catch the action of the city at work?
Their numbers show 1/3rd of the city "watches" the city government channel according to my local paper. I am sure 1/3rd of people have seen it or know about it, but I highly doubt 1/3rd of the city sits and watches it. Most of the meetings aren't live anyway. A truly involved citizen usually goes to the meetings. This is just silly.
We do way too much in this country to make things comfortable to the poor and unfortunate. Whoever said the poor deserve comfort?? You give them a welfare check, county health care, paid electric bills and water bills, free lunch for the kids at school. What is their incentive to rise above? Many of them have it better than their hard working counterparts that are above the magical poverty line. We should cut off all assistance except for the truly disabled. You crap out three kids before you're 20 and that is your problem!
If somebody wants to see the government channels, it is now on digital. Can't afford it? Get a job and work your way up until you can afford digital cable.
Look at all the immigrants that come here from NOTHING. They have nothing and they come here and succeed with small businesses and work their way up from the bottom. Too many people in this country expect too much.
BHN, I agree with you for once.. moving those channels out of the teens and into the 300s! When they call in bitching about it, tell them to get a job or skip the cigarettes and boos and buy rabbit ears!
Its good for consumers on only one ground. that they have tougher competition in their areas. The downside is still that the competition gets to pick and choose where it wants to go, its not required like before to provide access for everyone.. Which can have a negative impact on the consumers. Because if you live in X city you get X price if you live in Y city you get Y price.. The people in the cities with compeition will get discounted rates, and those in cities without will cover the costs of the others discounted rates..
I say again im all for Compeition infact, Im hopeing it happens soon in orlando why? Because not only is their compeition for who your tv company is, their is compeition amoung the companies to get the best employees, which will force companies to pay more to keep qualified employees. So dont ge tme wrong im all for compeition because it will surely benefit me on a personal level, My only problem with the law is it does not protect consumers enough.
I would rather see those 10 HD channels to. and the cable/telco companies dont "pay" for access to the public land. We the consumers do. Thats what all those taxes go to cover. and in Areas where the plant is on poles, The money goes to the local power/telco company. Whomever manages the poles. (att used to manage the entire countries poles but now local companies do) in Orlando Progress Energy handles the majority and we pay a fee per "connect" to each pole.
I am saying if BHN is required to carry them so should verizon. I do not beleive either should be required but if one is so should the other.
