mailing list archives
Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
From: Joe Rhett <jrhett () isite net>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:17:58 -0700
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.
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/
RE: HR 1542 Joseph T. Klein (May 07)