Have we found an alternative to telecom companies yet?
March 1st, 2007 by Atomictumor
In my house, I’ve really kinda prided myself on, if not living off the grid, trying to rewire the bastard to work better for me. Course, doing anything outside of the box that our infotainment overlords have seen fit to grant us is quasi-illegal half of the time, which doesn’t necessarily temper my pride in doing it, but does keep me from reporting it a lot of the time. In fact, the ‘Tumor is still one of the bigger Google hits for “comcast has received a notification by a copyright owner”, if that tells you something (find the post on your own time, I’m on a roll).
Wait, whats the point? How did this turn into an anti-telecom rant?
AT&T/Bellsouth are working mighty hard on getting into the cable TV racket, and they’re wanting to cut corners to do it. In the state of TN, they’ve got their lobbyists putting out a bill to start the cable franchising to work on a statewide, rather than a local level. The deal has been for years that the TV is franchised municipality to municipality, thus helping to ensure that they don’t ‘cherry pick’ locations that would be more profitable than others in delivering their services. Changing this would make it more affordable for a new company to start delivering services.
Obstensively, this is in the vein of ‘providing competition’, which would ‘lower prices’ and ‘increase services’, which happens so frequently in the cable TV market. We heard this cry trumpeted a few years ago by the FCC, when they deregulated the telephone market to allow things like the ATT/Bellsouth merger, which, as I understand, hasn’t done much to lower prices.
Problem is, as the Oak Ridger pointed out, this will result in the loss of some income thats been a part of the budget for many moons, not just for this, but for pretty much every other town in the state.
Comcast is against the idea, simply because they don’t want to see the competition get an easier entry into the markets that it services, but they’d stand to see some gain out of it, because as the state changes the rules, they’d be able to opt-out of any previous contracts.
I’m on the fence on this, frankly. I love seeing cable and telephone companies duke it out, but I don’t think any solution here will be of the best interest to consumers.
So, I suggest putting on your Arr eyepatch, and trying to squeeze the best deal out of what you have.
This post brought to you by a distinct lack of attention, and the urge to just get something written today…
March 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
The loss of revenue is only one part of the problem; the other part is that it’s the city’s franchise agreement that brings you local government meetings on channels 12 and 15.
Although I don’t particularly like being on tv every 4th Monday, I do like the ability to see what city council is doing from the comfort of my bed.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I’m having a real hard time mustering up any sympathy for Comcast … I would hope that some competition would motivate them to improve their service. At least to bring it up to what they advertise is as!
As much as I despise Bellsouth, I am almost … ALMOST … Willing to give them (AT&T) a shot. And that’s saying something …
From a consumer point of view, let the games begin! Maybe if the city got all up in Comcast’s face and made them provide a decent level of service, I would be less willing to let the state take the franchise. But when I’m paying out $135 a month (up $10 AGAIN) for grainy digital cable TV, and 6MB internet service that trickles in at 1.5MB, and when the whole kit and kaboodle goes it takes my phone service too (VoIP), I start to get a bit steamed.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Ummm… My husband is a premise installer for AT&T’s UVerse… which is the product you’re talking about heh. We have the service and to be honest its buggy as hell. The signal skips causing the program to skip and its just… well… ANNOYING… meh.