nanog mailing list archives
RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 11:33:20 -0700
From: Greg Maxwell [mailto:gmaxwell () martin fl us] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:15 AM On Mon, 7 May 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: [snip]Cable operators are unregulated local monopolies.No. They are regulated, by the franchise agreement. If the agreement isn't strong enough to ensure the highest best use of public right-of-way then it's a failure of the local government for not making it so (or the state/FCC for forbiding the local governments from placing certain requirements in the agreement).
The problem is that the local govs seldom "get it right" or, as mentioned earlier, simply don't care (the latter being more prevalent). Most of this is out of band, as far as state PUCs are concerned. Ergo, there is no recourse or appeal. This is a major disconnect in the system process.
Current thread:
- RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] Roeland Meyer (May 07)
- RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] Greg Maxwell (May 07)
- RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] M. David Leonard (May 07)
- RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] Miles Fidelman (May 07)
- Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] Fletcher E Kittredge (May 07)
- RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] M. David Leonard (May 07)
- Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] Fletcher E Kittredge (May 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] Roeland Meyer (May 07)
- RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] Greg Maxwell (May 07)