U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2018, 06:55 PM
 
4,866 posts, read 2,158,779 times
Reputation: 12399

Advertisements

On a side note. Verizon is NOT allowed in our area, DESPITE some of us who are fed up with COMCAST (XFINITY) Monopolizing the area. OUr Townships and Boroughs have all signed the NON compete ( which none of us residence had a vote in to consider an open market for internet/tv). OUr Townships get a Hefty Kickback from Xfinity ...Which is not used for community but rather to keep the board members in warm homes.

If Verizon so much as even tries to advertise in our communities (Billboards, Flyers, Radio ads) ...a Fine is levied. So Yeah...Explain how Keeping Verizon out is a FAIR Benefit to them in gaining Customers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2018, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,084 posts, read 1,040,161 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3 View Post
On a side note. Verizon is NOT allowed in our area, DESPITE some of us who are fed up with COMCAST (XFINITY) Monopolizing the area. OUr Townships and Boroughs have all signed the NON compete ( which none of us residence had a vote in to consider an open market for internet/tv). OUr Townships get a Hefty Kickback from Xfinity ...Which is not used for community but rather to keep the board members in warm homes.

If Verizon so much as even tries to advertise in our communities (Billboards, Flyers, Radio ads) ...a Fine is levied. So Yeah...Explain how Keeping Verizon out is a FAIR Benefit to them in gaining Customers?
Most towns sold cable access rights to an exclusive vendor decades ago. If a small town even has one alternative provider (usually crummy ADSL), they're lucky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 10:02 AM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,031,855 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Most towns sold cable access rights to an exclusive vendor decades ago. If a small town even has one alternative provider (usually crummy ADSL), they're lucky.
so town gets paid and not realizing the future of competition is healthy market for the customers, not the bank books of the town. Im sure they can find a loophole to get out of that contract one way or another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,084 posts, read 1,040,161 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
so town gets paid and not realizing the future of competition is healthy market for the customers, not the bank books of the town. Im sure they can find a loophole to get out of that contract one way or another.
It's more complicated than that, and (even with my suspicious viewpoint) not really all that sinister.

Cable is, or at least was, a public utility. It needs a whole host of permissions and rights simply to exist within public property. So long ago, it was classified with phone and electric and gas and so forth and treated as a public utility. Until very recently, and still not in most jurisdictions, there is only one utility for each service - and even when you have competitive electric service, one company still owns the poles and wires and gets paid for "delivery" while another company gets paid for the juice.

So when cable rolled out, each town granted some winning bidder the right to be the sole provider and use public right of way and poles and so forth - in exchange for somethiing between one-time payment and royalties and ongoing lease costs and such.

(I lived in Sacramento County, and in the mid-1980s it was by far the largest community without cable service in the US - something like 250,000 homes outside of the city itself and a few small towns that had no cable service. The county commissioners kept jacking the price until Comcast finally gave in and paid a fortune for the rights, including things like planting 10,000 trees across the county and so forth - pure pork and loading and graft because the county could demand it. I think the next largest community without cable was below 50,000, so you see the stakes.)

(Me? I was blocked from getting into my driveway with my new satellite dish because they were trenching for cable...)

The situation is slowly changing, but I gave more than 30 talks across Connecticut on the general topic, and it was the rare town that had more than one cable or internet option. One had created their own network 20 years ago... and found it to be such a cash sink they sold it to a private owner.

Some large jurisdictions require sharing of the physical cable structure, but it's much like electricity - you still have to pay Comcast or Charter or Cox or whoever owns those lines for "delivery" and then pay an alternate provider for service.

Given the difficulty of rolling out new wired infrastructure (and I was on a town committee overseeing an upgrade from about 1986 tech to wideband fiber - so I know the nuts and bolts), about the only thing that's going to change the game is some future area WiFi or 5g or 6g wireless service, which would be more competitive while it cooks our brains.

But there's hope. A while back, I was with a provider that was helping Venezuela expand its phone system. After fifty years of laborious running wire through the jungles and still only having about 30% service coverage and nightmarish maintenance issues... they were among the first to stick big-azz cell phone towers on every ridge. Presto, 90%+ coverage within a year or two.

Ask me about the great copper crisis sometime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 11:40 AM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,031,855 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
It's more complicated than that, and (even with my suspicious viewpoint) not really all that sinister.

Cable is, or at least was, a public utility. It needs a whole host of permissions and rights simply to exist within public property. So long ago, it was classified with phone and electric and gas and so forth and treated as a public utility. Until very recently, and still not in most jurisdictions, there is only one utility for each service - and even when you have competitive electric service, one company still owns the poles and wires and gets paid for "delivery" while another company gets paid for the juice.

So when cable rolled out, each town granted some winning bidder the right to be the sole provider and use public right of way and poles and so forth - in exchange for somethiing between one-time payment and royalties and ongoing lease costs and such.

(I lived in Sacramento County, and in the mid-1980s it was by far the largest community without cable service in the US - something like 250,000 homes outside of the city itself and a few small towns that had no cable service. The county commissioners kept jacking the price until Comcast finally gave in and paid a fortune for the rights, including things like planting 10,000 trees across the county and so forth - pure pork and loading and graft because the county could demand it. I think the next largest community without cable was below 50,000, so you see the stakes.)

(Me? I was blocked from getting into my driveway with my new satellite dish because they were trenching for cable...)

The situation is slowly changing, but I gave more than 30 talks across Connecticut on the general topic, and it was the rare town that had more than one cable or internet option. One had created their own network 20 years ago... and found it to be such a cash sink they sold it to a private owner.

Some large jurisdictions require sharing of the physical cable structure, but it's much like electricity - you still have to pay Comcast or Charter or Cox or whoever owns those lines for "delivery" and then pay an alternate provider for service.

Given the difficulty of rolling out new wired infrastructure (and I was on a town committee overseeing an upgrade from about 1986 tech to wideband fiber - so I know the nuts and bolts), about the only thing that's going to change the game is some future area WiFi or 5g or 6g wireless service, which would be more competitive while it cooks our brains.

But there's hope. A while back, I was with a provider that was helping Venezuela expand its phone system. After fifty years of laborious running wire through the jungles and still only having about 30% service coverage and nightmarish maintenance issues... they were among the first to stick big-azz cell phone towers on every ridge. Presto, 90%+ coverage within a year or two.

Ask me about the great copper crisis sometime.
I get it, as i seen my cable bill in my old town with a "city tax" was like 1 dollar. so do the math, im sure it was in the 100k a month just off that one dollar. So kickbacks for sure. all because a Non compete clause
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,084 posts, read 1,040,161 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
I get it, as i seen my cable bill in my old town with a "city tax" was like 1 dollar. so do the math, im sure it was in the 100k a month just off that one dollar. So kickbacks for sure. all because a Non compete clause
Well, no.

The city is more likely taxing you for costs related to its part of the infrastructure - poles, underground access, maybe even some of the major wiring and power costs not paid/owned by the provider. It may be a net revenue stream for the town, but it's not simple graft.

And while public utilities are granted exclusive access (traditionally, at least), it's not really a non-compete situation. It's to prevent massive, costly and problematic overlap of a fixed infrastructure. Go find one of those photos of NYC around the turn of the century, with absolutely mind-boggling tangles of phone and electric wire everywhere. That's what letting each provider run his own wires or pipes gets you.

I mean, we have competitive garbage service here... which makes the price no lower than I've paid to county or town services in the past, but does mean we have ten garbage and recycle trucks rumble down the street each week instead of one. Yay competition.

A "non-compete clause" is a business agreement, almost always voluntarily entered into for benefit to both parties, and almost never imposed by law or regulation. It is not synonymous with every other kind of non-competing service or restrictions on competition, like public utilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 12:13 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,031,855 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
A "non-compete clause" is a business agreement, almost always voluntarily entered into for benefit to both parties, and almost never imposed by law or regulation. It is not synonymous with every other kind of non-competing service or restrictions on competition, like public utilities.
Um well it may not be a term for a non-compete.. but is a sure fire way to create one..
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...nd-competition

Lobby the states laws to prevent them from building out against them. So it may not be in writing its a non-compete, but sure does act like one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,084 posts, read 1,040,161 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
Um well it may not be a term for a non-compete.. but is a sure fire way to create one..
And you can call a rabbit a smeerp, too.

A non-compete clause is a very specific entity. It does not refer to all forms of competition other than an unbridled free market.

But then, a good half of the posters here can't distinguish between non-profit, not-for-profit and unprofitable, either. So I'll just leave it there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
5,945 posts, read 6,755,416 times
Reputation: 4278
Non-compete may be becoming a thing of the past in my state Massachusetts. Good for me as someone who does a fair share of contract work. This is being legislated this year and may pass soon. Other states will likely follow suit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 12:38 PM
 
8,389 posts, read 7,382,268 times
Reputation: 18272
As some have pointed out a lot of areas have signed non compete clauses with a company such as Comcast. Now no other supplier can offer a similar product in the same area.

This is done, to attract a supplier to an area, when with competition they would not have enough customers to support coming in and installing the infrastructure to provide a service.. Without such an exclusive agreement, there would be no one offering the service in the area.

The cost is very high to set up services for any type utility, from electrical service to the Internet in a town or city. Without an exclusive agreement, no company is going to come in and bring a service to the community. To give you an idea of cost. Our housekeeper and her husband, about 10 years ago, bought 30 acres with there home on top of a hill. Electric service, phone/internet service was at the end of their long driveway. It would have cost them $ 10,000 to bring in electricity charged by the electric company. They instead installed solar panels with a backup generator for their electric service. They got their phone by cell phone service, as it would be another $10,000 to bring in phone landline service for phone and Internet. For Internet they got it by a cell phone attachment, with unlimited service. A couple of years later, they started charging a graduated higher fee for over so much Internet service up to a high fee for unlimited, but they were grandfathered in so they kept unlimited at the same fee.

And retail stores have the right to sell their product at a certain store, and can advertise in a certain area for their business. But they are not allowed to advertise in another area, due to non compete clauses in their contracts with suppliers. Another store, has the exclusive rights to advertise that product in the other territory.

When the government broke up utility companies, etc., year ago, the newly reorganized companies started a non compete contract in cities, so they could afford to supply the service they supplied. Without such non compete clauses, a lot of the country outside major cities, would no longer be able to get public utilities, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top