Hey guys,

Thought you might want to check out this article on the Sound & Vision magazine Web site:
http://stage.soundandvisionmag.com/features/2808/8-ways-networks-jump-the-hd-line.html

It looks at all the reasons why unworthy cable channels like QVC get to go HD in your cable lineup before more deserving fare like, say, FX.

Check it out.

None of the article presents anything new.

The solution is more competition. We have 2 choices... cable or satelite. We should have more than 2 choices. Is McDonalds and Burger King enough choice. No. We need a dozen choices to chose from.

One very good choice would be to reserve 10 OTA channels for premium content. Each channel can break down to 2 or 3 subchannels. Imagine if you could get ESPN HD and SCI-FI HD OTA.

There should be multiple cable choices in each community. The cable companies should be forced to share the cables run to houses. There should be more than 1 cable choice.

If this does not happen, then local cities need to pass laws providing basic service. Cities have the money to lay down new fiberoptic and cable lines to provide service. The best part is the middle man is cut out, and it is dirt cheap to the residents. Cities pick up the trash and provide police service, why shouldn't they also provide cable service?

The solution is more competition. If any cable company resists we could sue based on anti-trust.

comcast removed my precious hdnet/movies and a few other good channels last june.
so i removed their hd service last october.

that'll teach 'em!

:p

Another solution would be to have an ala carte option for those subscribers who want it. Give the power of choice to the consumer instead of the broadcaster or networks. If they lose carriage fees they might start listening to the consumer.

Another solution would be to have an ala carte option for those subscribers who want it. Give the power of choice to the consumer instead of the broadcaster or networks. If they lose carriage fees they might start listening to the consumer.

^^We need laws to make this happen.^^ It should be illegal to force people to buy a package. It is all digital so it should be easy to send only the channels people order.

Cities have the money to lay down new fiberoptic and cable lines to provide service. The best part is the middle man is cut out, and it is dirt cheap to the residents. Cities pick up the trash and provide police service, why shouldn't they also provide cable service?

Funny you should mention police and trash. I don't know where you live, but in Los Angeles, the city can't afford enough cops to patrol the city, so they want to raise trash fees to pay for 1,000 more officers (that would barely scratch the surface of what is needed.) Running fiber to the home really isn't a fiscal option when the city can't even afford basic public safety.

Funny you should mention police and trash. I don't know where you live, but in Los Angeles, the city can't afford enough cops to patrol the city, so they want to raise trash fees to pay for 1,000 more officers (that would barely scratch the surface of what is needed.) Running fiber to the home really isn't a fiscal option when the city can't even afford basic public safety.

You have to find a nicer city to live in without those problems.

In Los Angeles the DWP (Dept. of Water and Power) is in the fiber business. They compete with AT&T for professional video service connectivity.

At least QVC "should" be HD at all times, versus some other HD channels that ... arent

What top 50 city is swimming in extra cash these days, doogie?

None of the article presents anything new.
Worse, it claims an absence of FX and USA HD:

Meanwhile, why is there no high-def version of the FX network, which brings us popular original programming such as Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me? Or how about the USA Network, home of Monk? With such limited space on the dial (cable and satellite providers face a tight bandwidth crunch), why waste it on the dumbed-down channels?

I have both on D*.

^^We need laws to make this happen.^^ It should be illegal to force people to buy a package. It is all digital so it should be easy to send only the channels people order.

No, we do not need laws to make it happen. Those that are unhappy paying for packages need to stop doing so. Vote with your wallet - and tell your carrier why. Until you do so, your providing no incentive for carriers to change their business model - one they have every right to follow. You are under no obligation to pay for TV service. There is also no human right that guarantees anyone the ability to watch TV.

We don't need goverment legislation to tell private business how to sell or market their products, provided they are not misleading consumers or pricing their products above the reasonable common market price in areas where there are no other options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiehowser View Post
Cities have the money to lay down new fiberoptic and cable lines to provide service. The best part is the middle man is cut out, and it is dirt cheap to the residents. Cities pick up the trash and provide police service, why shouldn't they also provide cable service?

Funny you should mention police and trash. I don't know where you live, but in Los Angeles, the city can't afford enough cops to patrol the city, so they want to raise trash fees to pay for 1,000 more officers (that would barely scratch the surface of what is needed.) Running fiber to the home really isn't a fiscal option when the city can't even afford basic public safety.

The city of Memphis actually did lay down miles of fiber optic.
Unfortunately, Time Warner took Memphis to court, and screwed everything up.
Memphis ended up selling all they did for pennies on the dollar.

No, we do not need laws to make it happen. Those that are unhappy paying for packages need to stop doing so. Vote with your wallet - and tell your carrier why. Until you do so, your providing no incentive for carriers to change their business model - one they have every right to follow. You are under no obligation to pay for TV service. There is also no human right that guarantees anyone the ability to watch TV.

We don't need goverment legislation to tell private business how to sell or market their products, provided they are not misleading consumers or pricing their products above the reasonable common market price in areas where there are no other options.


McCain is on record for giving us ala carte, if the networks get the broadcast flag.

Another solution would be to have an ala carte option for those subscribers who want it. Give the power of choice to the consumer instead of the broadcaster or networks. If they lose carriage fees they might start listening to the consumer.

A lot of us go back to C-Band and have had Ala-Carte. Even if you only purchase a handful of channels, the pricing is such that it would be the same to just get a package containing those channels plus a lot more. It's one of those things that sound great but doesn't actually help. True ala-carte would kill all but the most popular channels.

I think I am the only looking forward to QVC HD. I thought it was going to launch Q1 of 2008 but I guess that it has been pushed back.

McCain is on record for giving us ala carte, if the networks get the broadcast flag.
...and both of those are completely silly for the government to be getting their hands into. Anytime the goverment mandates something, it gets blown out of proportion and has too many hard and fast rules that don't allow for options or future technology.

The problem is, when you get rules made by a committee, everyone gets their $.02 in. Imagine a chocolate cake recipe made by the goverment:

"What do we need to bake this cake?"
"Well, we need eggs, milk, flour, sugar, chocolate, water and butter."
"Oh, you better get rid of the eggs - too much risk of food poisoning"
"Get rid of the milk and butter, too - too much fat."
"Get rid of the sugar in case someone is diabetic."
"Get rid of the flour in case of wheat alergies."
"Get rid of the chocolate in case of legume allergies."

"Ah, excellent! We have a perfect glass of water!"

"...better get rid of the glass - it might injure a small child if they drop it..."

"OK, so we now have proposed legislation banning chocolate cake and requiring all water to be served in unbreakable cups. Oh, and the plastics industry, which just made a large donation to my campaign, would like to add a rider that states all cups must be replaced every three years - for sanitary reasons, of course..."

Besides, it's your local goverment that is to blame for the fact you only have one cable carrier. If they hadn't allowed exclusive franchise contracts in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue.

Besides, it's your local goverment that is to blame for the fact you only have one cable carrier. If they hadn't allowed exclusive franchise contracts in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue.
That's true. My city, along with many around it, has two cable providers. Plus AT&T Uverse, so there are three terrestrial options.

No, we do not need laws to make it happen. Those that are unhappy paying for packages need to stop doing so. Vote with your wallet - and tell your carrier why. Until you do so, your providing no incentive for carriers to change their business model - one they have every right to follow. You are under no obligation to pay for TV service. There is also no human right that guarantees anyone the ability to watch TV.

We don't need goverment legislation to tell private business how to sell or market their products, provided they are not misleading consumers or pricing their products above the reasonable common market price in areas where there are no other options.

Cable companies lie all the time and decieve people. BIG BOLD PRINT $29.99 PER MONTH, very small print *for 3 months then regular price $99.99 month.

It is a monopoly and this is why government has every right to regulate cable companies. In most cities there is only one cable company. There should be 2 or more cable choices.

Imagine if there was only 1 gas station. What would prices be? Would they require a 2 year commitment in order to buy gas from them? What if there was only 1 fast food restaurant. How much would a big mac cost, and how much smaller could they shrink the patties?

If there is no competition then we need lawyers and government to get involved.

I would love to see a lawsuit by cities against cable companies for the lack of competition and for violating anti-trust law.

I would love to see a lawsuit by cities against cable companies for the lack of competition and for violating anti-trust law.
The cities are the ones who agreed to the exclusivity! How is it the cable companies fault? Not all cities agree to exclusivity, and even if there is only one cable company in the city, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is an exclusive contract with that cable company. Overbuilding is extremely expensive, and risky. That is a big reason why most cities only have one cable company.

I am a small government guy (especially on the Federal level), but the last mile infrastructure should be owned by the city. The customers then should be able to choose from several service providers that have to compete based on price and content and service.

Worse, it claims an absence of FX and USA HD:

I have both on D*.


I took it to mean those hd channels arent on that cable system, not that they arent available.That is why he said "With such limited space on the dial (cable and satellite providers face a tight bandwidth crunch), why waste it on the dumbed-down channels?

It is a monopoly and this is why government has every right to regulate cable companies. In most cities there is only one cable company. There should be 2 or more cable choices. You are very confused. No one is stopping other providers from offering cable service, let alone DBS as an alternative. Look at FiOS & U-verse.

City owned access pipeline "might" be a good idea, but city owned utilites are not. At least around here. We have small cities who own the cable/internet rights in my area and those utilities are much more costly than any private provider.

City owned access pipeline "might" be a good idea, but city owned utilites are not. At least around here. We have small cities who own the cable/internet rights in my area and those utilities are much more costly than any private provider.
The cities should own the pipes, and they should be open to any company that wants to offer access. If the city wants to offer access too, that's fine, but they need to be on a level playing field with the other private companies.

Cable companies lie all the time and decieve people. BIG BOLD PRINT $29.99 PER MONTH, very small print *for 3 months then regular price $99.99 month.
So when the grocery store has a big sale on paper towels in big bold letters, but puts "limit 3 per customer" in tiny ones, would that be deceptive?

The fact that people fail to read all the fine print on ads and contracts is not the companies problem. That same lack of going into something without knowing what you're signing is why some people now expect a government bailout after signing a variable rate mortgage with huge balloon payments.*

It is a monopoly and this is why government has every right to regulate cable companies. In most cities there is only one cable company. There should be 2 or more cable choices.
The very government you speak of is what created this monopoly you say exists. They created these single franchise agreements in return for money paid by the cable companies. In a sense, your government took a bribe.

Imagine if there was only 1 gas station. What would prices be? Would they require a 2 year commitment in order to buy gas from them? What if there was only 1 fast food restaurant. How much would a big mac cost, and how much smaller could they shrink the patties?
See above. These agreements were not made with those businesses.

If there is no competition then we need lawyers and government to get involved.

I would love to see a lawsuit by cities against cable companies for the lack of competition and for violating anti-trust law.
Competition only exists when there is an alternative product that is more compelling and has significantly better pricing or product offerings. Most cable lineups are very similar in nearby areas and priced roughly the same. Just like gas stations that use similar business models and buy from the same suppliers, they will have similar pricing and offerings. They don't have to offer anything different or compelling. A second cable company doesn't mean either will lower prices or offer better service.

Satellite and fiber services offer different business models. As result, they need either more compelling products or cheaper prices to compete with other established services.


* of course, I understand there were cases where financial numbers and assessments were boosted by loan companies, but most people simply didn't read the terms of the contract they signed.

A lot of us go back to C-Band and have had Ala-Carte. Even if you only purchase a handful of channels, the pricing is such that it would be the same to just get a package containing those channels plus a lot more. It's one of those things that sound great but doesn't actually help. True ala-carte would kill all but the most popular channels.

I don't know what channels you were buying, because that absolutely *wasn't* my experience with C-Band a la carte.

Until a couple years ago, I was paying around $6 to $7 per month for a package of channels that included Sci Fi, USA, TV Land, Cartoon Network, Discovery, TLC, and a couple of others that now escape my memory. It was a substantially better deal for me than any of the packages that were available for C-Band subscribers. I think that this was true because I was interested in channels that generally have fairly modest wholesale prices, and wasn't interested in the costlier channels (such as ESPN). So in the C-Band market, the value of a la carte versus packages varied depending on which channels you wanted.

I'll also note that the packages available on C-Band were far more flexible than anything you can find with small dish or cable today.

Besides, it's your local goverment that is to blame for the fact you only have one cable carrier. If they hadn't allowed exclusive franchise contracts in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue.

As I recall, the majority of cable franchises were (and still are) noneclusive franchises, at least on paper. So, for the most part, cities haven't been granting exclusive franchise contracts.

What I do know is that while "overbuilding" (more than one cable company serving the same geographic area) does happen, it is also pretty rare. While I suspect that some of the reason for that is because municipalities don't want the disruption of having right-of-ways torn up by multiple providers, I think that it is even more the case that this situation exists because it is the way that the cable companies want it. Let's face it -- they don't want vigorous competition, and the result is that almost no one will apply for the right to operate the second cable system in an area. Hence the rarity of overbulding -- the long-time perception within the cable industry that their business is a natural monopoly.

The cable/satellite cost problem is not the cable and satellite companies issue. The fact is that ESPN, CNN, FOX News, TNT, etc and other channels charge a fixed amount to all cable/satellite services. Anyone in the subscription TV business needs all of those channels to get subscribers. Most of those channels insist upon a contract that says they will be offered in the lowest priced package. This puts a floor on the cost of subscription TV.

Rick R

The solution is more competition. We have 2 choices... cable or satelite. We should have more than 2 choices. Is McDonalds and Burger King enough choice. No. We need a dozen choices to chose from.

There should be multiple cable choices in each community. The cable companies should be forced to share the cables run to houses. There should be more than 1 cable choice.


I'm not sure where you live. However, I have four (likely six) choices. I can go with DirecTV, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable or AT&T U-Verse. (I also have OTA via rabbit ears. Plus, I guess I could look into C-band?)

I'm currently under contract with Dish until the fall. DirectTV has a less than perfect DVR. Time Warner's DVR, PQ (artifacts everywhere in San Antonio), customer service and channel offerings are inferior (in Austin, not San Antonio) to what I have with Dish. U-Verse? I have two HDTV's. It's not an option at all. I will likely switch to DirectTV in the fall.

Back on topic... The choices are nothing new. Dish made a deal with Voom and Cablevision way back when. That's why they carry Voom channels that many argue could be used for SciFi HD, MTV HD, etc. DirectTV carries Fox Business News because it is partially owned by Murdoch and Co. Time Warner Cable carries CNN HD because CNN is part of Time Warner.

I know I strayed from the original why certain channels are in HD vs. why they get carried. However, creating a channel w/o having a carriage agreement is an incredible waste of money. F/X, TMC, etc. know their HD channels will (eventually) get carried when they get created because carriage agreements are in place for the SD equivalents. "Allargon's Driving around Austin" channel probably would not even if it were all 1080i all the time.

Funny you should mention police and trash. I don't know where you live, but in Los Angeles, the city can't afford enough cops to patrol the city, so they want to raise trash fees to pay for 1,000 more officers (that would barely scratch the surface of what is needed.) Running fiber to the home really isn't a fiscal option when the city can't even afford basic public safety.
Yeah. On top of that here in Los Angeles we have the government providing us with public transportation. (Insert laugh from all LA residents) When MTA was building the metro line there were building sinking (literally) in Hollywood. But I digress.
The point I wanted to raise was this. I called Verizon and asked them why on earth they do not provide FiOS service in my area (West Los Angeles/Santa Monica). And they told me that legally they cannot just run fiber wherever they want they have to get permission from each city/municipality/whatnot individually before they can run the fiber. This to me seems like such a terrible requirement. Does anyone know why it is in place? And even more importantly is there anyone we can flood with emails to tell them that it's a bad idea and needs to go?

Rudy

So when the grocery store has a big sale on paper towels in big bold letters, but puts "limit 3 per customer" in tiny ones, would that be deceptive?

My beef is with the phone/cable ads that do not include all the fees that you will be charged above the advertised rate. Examples include the Federal Access Charge that phone companies try to pass of as a tax even though they keep it. For cable they have fees like Digital Gateway and other bs.

The cities should own the pipes, and they should be open to any company that wants to offer access. If the city wants to offer access too, that's fine, but they need to be on a level playing field with the other private companies.

In theory, this is a great idea. The city owns the fiber/copper/whatever and any and all providers get to use it. The customers get their choice of providers and the city gets revenue from the providers.

In practice, this could be a nightmare (although it doesn't have to be). Repairs to the lines would be the responsibility of the city, which means that a service outage would probably take weeks in most cities. Look at how long potholes take to repair.

Also, providers might not want to play on this field if they don't own it all. You might end up with just one/two providers anyway. (this point is really just speculation on my part).

Lastly, with the city owning the cable lines, subscribers are subject to the financial health of the city. Other utilities/serivces take precedence over TV during a budget crunch. They'll have to take money away from TV and give it to the Water Dept, Fire Dept, Police, Sewer, etc.

ft

.
The point I wanted to raise was this. I called Verizon and asked them why on earth they do not provide FiOS service in my area (West Los Angeles/Santa Monica). And they told me that legally they cannot just run fiber wherever they want they have to get permission from each city/municipality/whatnot individually before they can run the fiber. This to me seems like such a terrible requirement. Does anyone know why it is in place?

All utilities have to get permission before they run anything and then follow certain requirements about how they put things back when they're done digging things up. You don't really want multiple utility companies ripping up your yard and leaving it for you to fix their mess, do you?

...and both of those are completely silly for the government to be getting their hands into. Anytime the goverment mandates something, it gets blown out of proportion and has too many hard and fast rules that don't allow for options or future technology.

The problem is, when you get rules made by a committee, everyone gets their $.02 in.

What does this have to do with a la carte? That would give additional options, not limit options. And I don't see why it would require some committee promulgating arcane rules. It's really a pretty simple thing - not nearly as complicated as the web of regulations carriers already follow.

Besides, it's your local goverment that is to blame for the fact you only have one cable carrier. If they hadn't allowed exclusive franchise contracts in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue.

Does it really matter how the monopoly came to be? I would say it doesn't much - not in law, or in economic theory or in the way it effects consumers. The monopoly does exist, and arguing about who's to blame while doing nothing to regulate it doesn't make much sense.

True ala-carte would kill all but the most popular channels.

I find no problem with this. Any offering that cannot survive on its own merits is unworthy to survive. I dislike subsidizing scores of channels I will never tune.

I find no problem with this. Any offering that cannot survive on its own merits is unworthy to survive. I dislike subsidizing scores of channels I will never tune.

Then, I am sure you would not complain when a network cancels a show you like because of low ratings.

All utilities have to get permission before they run anything and then follow certain requirements about how they put things back when they're done digging things up. You don't really want multiple utility companies ripping up your yard and leaving it for you to fix their mess, do you?
I certainly see what you are saying. However, the point I was trying to make was that it is possible to make the companies comply with the "certain requirements about how they put things back when they're done digging things up" without forcing them to obtain a permission from each and every city individually. I mean that just seems draconian and counter progressive. If I understood the Verizon rep, obtaining this permission is a hassle that requires voting by some representatives or others, and in the end does not always result in a permission.
I also don't see any problem with several companies running fiber in my city as long as they "follow certain requirements about how they put things back when they're done digging things up". :) So I don't understand why that is forbidden.:confused: It seems to me that this is exactly what we as consumers want. No?

Rudy

that just seems draconian and counter progressive.
It is, and some states are trying to change the laws so that the state is allowed to grant state-wide franchises. Some already have.

It is, and some states are trying to change the laws so that the state is allowed to grant state-wide franchises. Some already have.

North Carolina did the exact same thing. The state grants the franchises and not the cities. Too bad they didn't do it years ago. Because the City of Durham decided to issue and exclusive franchise to Verizon Durham is stuck with a Fios-less Verizon that offers 3mpbs up/768 down for internet. 15 miles east over in Raleigh you can get ATT which offers 6mpbs up for about the same price that Verizon charges. And to top it off, ATT will be increasing their speeds while Verizon doesn'r know when Fios is coming to this area.

There are too many commissioners or councilmembers in municipalities that have their hands out when it comes to issuing franchises.

I certainly see what you are saying. However, the point I was trying to make was that it is possible to make the companies comply with the "certain requirements about how they put things back when they're done digging things up" without forcing them to obtain a permission from each and every city individually. I mean that just seems draconian and counter progressive. If I understood the Verizon rep, obtaining this permission is a hassle that requires voting by some representatives or others, and in the end does not always result in a permission.
I also don't see any problem with several companies running fiber in my city as long as they "follow certain requirements about how they put things back when they're done digging things up". :) So I don't understand why that is forbidden.:confused: It seems to me that this is exactly what we as consumers want. No?

RudyThe point is that permission has to be granted to any and all companies that intend to use public property. Otherwise, you might as well replace the word "fiber" with "water pipes", "cell towers", or "dunkin donuts". Because all consumers want more water, better cell phone reception, and delicious fried pastries. ;)

ft

My beef is with the phone/cable ads that do not include all the fees that you will be charged above the advertised rate. Examples include the Federal Access Charge that phone companies try to pass of as a tax even though they keep it. For cable they have fees like Digital Gateway and other bs.
The same thing happens with car ads that don't tell you about all the fees they charge except in fine print.

Insurance companies specialize in giant contracts that don't make it very clear about what is covered and what isn't.

Oil and Lube places tell you the price is $24.99 for "most cars". What they don't tell you is "most cars" refers to a three cylinder Chevy Metro.

Just so you clear on the issue, look at a typical satellite TV bill and all the fees and such that come into play there.

Right or wrong, nearly every customer service has hidden charges. Heck, the local Dunkin Donuts near me now charges for the cup if you order water from the fountain tap.

The point is that permission has to be granted to any and all companies that intend to use public property. Otherwise, you might as well replace the word "fiber" with "water pipes", "cell towers", or "dunkin donuts". Because all consumers want more water, better cell phone reception, and delicious fried pastries. ;)

ft
Do those delicious fried pastries by any chance have any fiber in them? ;)

the local Dunkin Donuts near me now charges for the cup if you order water from the fountain tap.
I would tell them where they can shove their fee, and leave immediately.

I would tell them where they can shove their fee, and leave immediately.
If that's all you're ordering, you probably wouldn't be missed.

If that's all you're ordering, you probably wouldn't be missed.
Oh, you didn't specify that they only charged the fee if you ONLY get water. That's still kind of crappy, but I can understand it more now.

As someone who doesn't drink soda, I'm always the guy asking for "a cup for water" when I order food, and I've never had to pay for it.

The point is that permission has to be granted to any and all companies that intend to use public property. Otherwise, you might as well replace the word "fiber" with "water pipes", "cell towers", or "dunkin donuts". Because all consumers want more water, better cell phone reception, and delicious fried pastries. ;)

ft
ft if you read my post carefully :) you'll see that I'm not arguing for anarchy, where everyone does whatever one wants without any thought or consideration. All I'm saying is that, a company should not have to go to each individual city/county/municipality to obtain permission to lay down fiber. That it should be done at a higher level. Either state level or even federal level. And at those levels the requirements for using the public property would be set as well. Meaning if someone digs up a public road then they should leave it in the same condition they found it in and things like that.
It just seems painfully clear to me that more companies laying down fiber, that's companies in plural, is good for the consumer. That's us. And at the same time the companies want to do it. This is the reason I called the current requirement counter progressive in my post.
In fact I'll go a step further and say, if I knew the name(s) of elected officials, either in California or in Washington, that I could notify about this, I would. And this would be a first for me, that's how strongly I feel about this.

Rudy

if I knew the name(s) of elected officials, either in California or in Washington, that I could notify about this, I would.
California already has state-wide video franchising.

Rudy,

I did read your post ... well pretty carefully. My reply is that if you take something like cable/fiber TV and pass the responsibility up to the State level, you effectively kill the decision making process of the local government. To me, something like this is best done at the local level (maybe at the county level). Definately not the state level.

The state (I live in Pennsylvania) has no idea what goes on at the local level. Let's say that your town has a big food festival every year that takes up all of Main Street. Just about every town resident (and outsiders as well) attend and most of the local restaurants drum up goodwill and advertising during the festival.

Now, what if Verizon happens to dig up Main Street the day before (on Friday) to run fiber to the township residents. And they did this without informing the township ... which they can since they got permission from the state. Of course, they didn't finish on Friday and they don't work on weekends, so the town food festival was a disaster with the road all torn up and all. But Verizon will put the street back in good condition ... albeit too late to save the food fest.

This might be a wild scenario, but when it comes to building out utilities, the town is the one that knows best. They know when the best time to come out is and what impact this will have on traffic, local businesses, and the community. The state doesn't know crap.

Now, is there a happy medium, sure, but with all that's going on at the state level, they probably have their hands full of their own stuff that worrying about local utilities will be the last thing they want to deal with. From a consumer point of view, you'll probably get better results (or at least more responsiveness) leaving it for the township to handle. Talk to your local politicians and tell them your concern about the lack of competition for your TV service. Tell them that you want more choice and that you're willing to speak with your votes.

Anyways, I do hear where you're coming from.

ft

This might be a wild scenario, but when it comes to building out utilities, the town is the one that knows best. They know when the best time to come out is and what impact this will have on traffic, local businesses, and the community. The state doesn't know crap.
This scenario is completely and utterly ridiculous. It's not like the state is going to tell the company to go ahead and tear up a road, and the city won't have a say in it. Things don't work like that.

This scenario is completely and utterly ridiculous. It's not like the state is going to tell the company to go ahead and tear up a road, and the city won't have a say in it. Things don't work like that.

That's my point. Why have the state involved at all? If the city/town is going to have its say in the matter, then just let them deal with it.

Perhaps the solution would be to eliminate the exclusive franchise areas.

ft

Perhaps the solution would be to eliminate the exclusive franchise areas.
How many of those actually exist, though?

Yeah. On top of that here in Los Angeles we have the government providing us with public transportation. (Insert laugh from all LA residents) When MTA was building the metro line there were building sinking (literally) in Hollywood. But I digress.
The point I wanted to raise was this. I called Verizon and asked them why on earth they do not provide FiOS service in my area (West Los Angeles/Santa Monica). And they told me that legally they cannot just run fiber wherever they want they have to get permission from each city/municipality/whatnot individually before they can run the fiber. This to me seems like such a terrible requirement. Does anyone know why it is in place? And even more importantly is there anyone we can flood with emails to tell them that it's a bad idea and needs to go?

Rudy

Many cities get revenue from the use of the "right-of-ways" that utility companies use to get their services distributed to the residents. I know that is a big deal where I live, the city council wants to break away from the county and become an independent city so they can collect the "tariff" and create their own city government. The sell to the residents is that the new city can better target the funds, the reality is it will increase taxes and create another layer of bureaucracy. So to answer your original question, that is why the permissions are in place.