Robert, Govt. video franchises are not always monopolies. That depends on the municipality or govt. entity granting it. In the case of the Texas state-wide franchise it is not. In the community where I live, two cable companies, RCN and Comcast, have franchises so I have my choice. For broadband I have even more choices if I opt to go for DSL or FTTH. Where I am moving in about 6 months, about 40 miles from here, again, I will have my choice of Comcast,Service Electric, or Verizon for video, broadband and voice, plus numerous DSL resellers if I want it. I know in the past in some communities municipalities would offer monopolies because they could extort more out of the MSO but I do not think that is legal anymore, at least not in PA.
Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Schainbaum, Robert > Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! > > > Citywide or statewide franchise, makes no difference. Still a > franchise > and still a state-granted monopoly. What is the problem with > monopoly? > Well, the classical analysis finds dead-weight costs. What's > the problem > with a state-granted monopoly? Well, there's at least two. First, an > ordinary monopoly might be disentrenched. That's at least the > belief of > some people in some economics depts. Second, competition for grant of > the monopoly through use of influence with the local > government, whether > that be a municipal or a state government, just seems to lead to > obviously sub-optimal outcomes. > > Jim Henry wrote: > > >Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away. Due to the > >ILECs entering the video market they are trying their very > best NOT to > >have to jump through all the hoops the cable company's were > forced to. > >They've already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a > company can > >apply for a state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a > >franchise with each municipality. Since municipal video > franchises were > >just a way for the munipalities to extort all kinds of services for > >free or discount in return for the franchise, this should be > at least > >some improvement. I'm sure the cable company's are not going to sit > >still and allow this to change for Verizon, Quest, and SBC(AT&T) and > >not have a level playing field so they will do their utmost to be > >included in these changes or get the law changed back so > that the ILECs > >must compete with the same rules. Jim > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>Of Schainbaum, Robert > >>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:13 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! > >> > >> > >>Subsidy or no subsidy, we only have to consider the far > >>superior quality > >>of South Korean broadband to realize that the entire notion > >>of providing > >>a market solution to satisfy a market need has absolutely > >>broken down in > >>the case of our country. It has always seemed to me that the > >>underylying > >>theme theme in the capitalistic creed is a lack of orthodoxy. > >>It seems a > >>failure of the creed to ignore the crucial fact that private > >>solutions > >>to telecommunications problems in the US or through the > >>private economy > >>usually (if not always) involve the grant of a local > >>franchise. I don't > >>see why the municipality can't grant itself the franchise. > >>I'm tired of > >>any reflex response that fails to take account of our > >>surpassing failure > >>in this crucial are of our business and social infrastructure. > >> > >>Jim Henry wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Lars, > >>> Perhaps there is no subsidy in your case. I may have > >>> > >>> > >>mis-understood. > >> > >> > >>>If the municipality involved did not fund the fiber build with tax > >>>dollars, and is making a profit on the network, which is > >>> > >>> > >>necessary in > >> > >> > >>>order to support and maintain the fiber network, then there > >>> > >>> > >>is none. I > >> > >> > >>>do feel it would be much better, more efficient, and more > >>> > >>> > >>economical to > >> > >> > >>>have the network operated and maintained by a commercial enterprise > >>>than a government entity. As to the cost of your Internet > >>> > >>> > >>connection, > >> > >> > >>>it sounds like a good deal to me and I did not want to imply > >>> > >>> > >>otherwise. > >> > >> > >>>Jim > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>>>Of Lars Aronsson > >>>>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:33 PM > >>>>To: 'nycwireless' > >>>>Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Jim Henry wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I'd be willing to bet you are not counting the taxes you and your > >>>>>fellow subjects pay for that municipal fiber network as > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>part of that > >> > >> > >>>>>$40/month. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Does every ISP in Manhattan dig the streets to lay down their own > >>>>cables? How does that work in this era of telecom deregulation? > >>>>Since city streets (and street lights) are a municipal > monopoly, it > >>>>makes sense to have one municipal ditch with one municipal fiber > >>>>infrastructre, where telcos and ISPs can rent fibers or > bandwidth at > >>>>or near cost price. > >>>> > >>>>My ISP is a private corporation that pays for using the municipal > >>>>fiber, and their money comes from my $40/month. I don't > see where > >>>>any subsidy would come in. > >>>> > >>>>You're probably right that I pay a higher income tax, and I'm not > >>>>defending that. I'm just curious how you could help me to find a > >>>>more efficient broadband solution than the one I already > have. Where > >>>>and how do you live and what do you pay for broadband? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>> Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >>>> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se > >>>>-- > >>>>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >>>>Un/Subscribe: > >>>>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >>>>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >>>>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release > >>>>Date: 1/5/2006 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>-- > >>>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >>>Un/Subscribe: > >>>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >>>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>-- > >>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >>Un/Subscribe: > >>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>No virus found in this incoming message. > >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release > >>Date: 1/5/2006 > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release > Date: 1/5/2006 > > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
