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 02-07-2018, 01:09 PM
 
1,953 posts, read 752,771 times
Reputation: 7779

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGab View Post
I had an employer once that asked me to sign a no compete. Basically stating if I quit, I can't solicit any of my clients when I go work for someone else. If I did they could sue me for lost commissions, breach of contract, etc. I was told if I did not sign it then I couldn't work for them. I refused to sign it and I walked.
I, as a low-level (only 3 years out of school) software engineer, was all set to accept a job - until they tried to make me sign a non-compete that said I wouldn't GO WORK for any competing software company. Since all the software development companies in the area were pretty much in direct competition, that would have meant I was locked in to that company and would have had to move out of the area - and even then a lot of doors would have been closed to me because a lot of these companies were national.

I didn't say a word, just got up and walked out as soon as they handed it to me and I saw what it said. They actually chased me out the door and told me I wouldn't have to sign it please come back, but I kept walking, went home and called another company that had made me an offer and asked if it was still open.

It was.

I have never before or since seen one of those. Rank and file should never have to sign such a thing and a company that attempts it is clearly planning on screwing their rank and file over by locking you in to the job so you have no leverage (can't just go get another job). ESPECIALLY when they spring it on you while you're filling out your tax paperwork, LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2018, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,961 posts, read 1,012,279 times
Reputation: 3781
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader View Post
As some have pointed out a lot of areas have signed non compete clauses with a company such as Comcast.
No, they haven't.

A provider was selected for public utility services, under laws and practices that go back at least 100 years. Calling it a "non-compete clause" and raving about unfair business practices is... just ignorant. (Unprofitable, even. Which doesn't mean Comcast is a non-profit.)

Any municipality can decide to do away with public utility restrictions - and do not, for excellent reasons. When public services do not require an exclusive infrastructure - and right now, even cell and wide-area WiFi still do, to some extent - there won't be any need for a restricted market. But that's not the now, not in thousands of towns with one (1) cable distribution network.

But it's your soapbox. Do go on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 01:55 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,026,502 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
No, they haven't.

A provider was selected for public utility services, under laws and practices that go back at least 100 years. Calling it a "non-compete clause" and raving about unfair business practices is... just ignorant. (Unprofitable, even. Which doesn't mean Comcast is a non-profit.)

Any municipality can decide to do away with public utility restrictions - and do not, for excellent reasons. When public services do not require an exclusive infrastructure - and right now, even cell and wide-area WiFi still do, to some extent - there won't be any need for a restricted market. But that's not the now, not in thousands of towns with one (1) cable distribution network.

But it's your soapbox. Do go on.
Cant if the state laws prevent them from doing so. Got to love lobbyist for making such laws. Should never be any territorial rights privilege. Open market creates great competition. So you want cheaper internet, come on and move in xxx town. Then you got town vs town on price wars. Only thing i like about texas is their many choices of power companies. Funny thing is they all USE THE SAME power lines! but i can go from one company to another for cheaper rates when advertised. So what can be said about cable companies, when they use the exact same cables. Like grande vs TWC.. they use the exact same cable lines in austin, but each have areas were they can not go. "Territorial rights".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,961 posts, read 1,012,279 times
Reputation: 3781
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
Cant if the state laws prevent them from doing so. Got to love lobbyist for making such laws. Should never be any territorial rights privilege. Open market creates great competition. So you want cheaper internet, come on and move in xxx town. Then you got town vs town on price wars. Only thing i like about texas is their many choices of power companies. Funny thing is they all USE THE SAME power lines! but i can go from one company to another for cheaper rates when advertised. So what can be said about cable companies, when they use the exact same cables. Like grande vs TWC.. they use the exact same cable lines in austin, but each have areas were they can not go. "Territorial rights".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 02:03 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,026,502 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Im not arguing against your comments. Just stating that no town or community can just open up a new public business due to laws and "exclusive rights". If that was true, then we would have 2-3 cable in a town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 02:28 PM
 
11,300 posts, read 5,834,479 times
Reputation: 20944
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?
Err.... Verizon is a telephone company. Comcast is a cable company. Comcast cannot legally stop the local phone company from competing against them with phone, broadband, or television service. Who is your telephone company? It's obviously not Verizon.

RCN is a cable overbuilder that competes head-to-head against Comcast in a number of markets. Boston. Philly. Chicago. They also compete against what used to be Time-Warner Cable in New York. They can enter any market they want if the state allows it and if your town has not stupidly signed a monopoly franchise agreement. If you live in a town with morons, vote them out. Cable franchise contracts are not forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 02:37 PM
 
11,300 posts, read 5,834,479 times
Reputation: 20944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
No, they haven't.

A provider was selected for public utility services, under laws and practices that go back at least 100 years. Calling it a "non-compete clause" and raving about unfair business practices is... just ignorant. (Unprofitable, even. Which doesn't mean Comcast is a non-profit.)

Any municipality can decide to do away with public utility restrictions - and do not, for excellent reasons. When public services do not require an exclusive infrastructure - and right now, even cell and wide-area WiFi still do, to some extent - there won't be any need for a restricted market. But that's not the now, not in thousands of towns with one (1) cable distribution network.

But it's your soapbox. Do go on.
Yep. Regulated public utilities are monopolies that are guaranteed a fixed amount of profit. Where I live, that's gas & electricity. The town provides water & sewer.

Sadly, a big chunk of the country has a really pathetic local telephone company where broadband service is pretty much two tin cans and a string. You get to pick between your cable company which typically offers very good broadband connectivity or smoke signals from some has-been money losing 1950's company with union CWA workers. Comcast may be evil but they have the absolute best data network in the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,961 posts, read 1,012,279 times
Reputation: 3781
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
RCN is a cable overbuilder that competes head-to-head against Comcast in a number of markets. Boston. Philly. Chicago. They also compete against what used to be Time-Warner Cable in New York. They can enter any market they want if the state allows it and if your town has not stupidly signed a monopoly franchise agreement. If you live in a town with morons, vote them out. Cable franchise contracts are not forever.
Since you seem to be a "reader" as well as a "poster" I'll just point out a few more things here.

Competition, in the last ten years, in large metropolises, is a completely different game from what it used to be. In good part because of huge leaps in technological capabilities. (If all those overbuilders had to run copper coax from the headend to every apartment... it wouldn't happen.)

Smaller towns are not. They are not typically large enough for an overbuilder to come in and compete with their own infrastructure - just as one example (out of 30 or so I know well), my small town in CT had an average distance between houses of 1000 feet or more, counting a slightly denser cluster. There is no way to make a new cable infrastructure there profitable. (We had trouble making a ring-and-spoke fiber network, largely for town facility use, get anywhere near cost-effectiveness.)

Nor were towns or their governing body morons to enter into such completely standard, universal public-utility agreements. By making such agreements, the town, county and state got a measure of control over the provider's operation and economics - not the least of which was that they had to provide service to ALL households in the town (or 99%) instead of some highly profitable cluster areas. The alternative was no cable or internet, other than what some "free market" provider might have decided to come in and offer, at whatever price they could gouge, for some subset of the residents.

I'm as anti-monopoly as it gets. I'm an economic radical in more ways than I can list. But I do understand how this system grew up over the last 60 years, and it's not for reasons that are moronic, greedy or predatory... quite the opposite. The universal goal was to screw Comcast et al. and protect the community's benefits. And it will die a sudden death the week truly high-speed, high-bandwidth wireless service becomes a cost-effective reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 03:09 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,026,502 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Since you seem to be a "reader" as well as a "poster" I'll just point out a few more things here.

Competition, in the last ten years, in large metropolises, is a completely different game from what it used to be. In good part because of huge leaps in technological capabilities. (If all those overbuilders had to run copper coax from the headend to every apartment... it wouldn't happen.)

Smaller towns are not. They are not typically large enough for an overbuilder to come in and compete with their own infrastructure - just as one example (out of 30 or so I know well), my small town in CT had an average distance between houses of 1000 feet or more, counting a slightly denser cluster. There is no way to make a new cable infrastructure there profitable. (We had trouble making a ring-and-spoke fiber network, largely for town facility use, get anywhere near cost-effectiveness.)

Nor were towns or their governing body morons to enter into such completely standard, universal public-utility agreements. By making such agreements, the town, county and state got a measure of control over the provider's operation and economics - not the least of which was that they had to provide service to ALL households in the town (or 99%) instead of some highly profitable cluster areas. The alternative was no cable or internet, other than what some "free market" provider might have decided to come in and offer, at whatever price they could gouge, for some subset of the residents.

I'm as anti-monopoly as it gets. I'm an economic radical in more ways than I can list. But I do understand how this system grew up over the last 60 years, and it's not for reasons that are moronic, greedy or predatory... quite the opposite. The universal goal was to screw Comcast et al. and protect the community's benefits. And it will die a sudden death the week truly high-speed, high-bandwidth wireless service becomes a cost-effective reality.

It has happen, just they want to data cap you at some stupid level that they want more money out of you. Unlimited means that, not to slow you down once you reach this fake data cap. Most cable companies are lobbist for this reason to keep wireless from entering such a market that will put them out of business or push them to lower their rates to a more standard reasonable cost and without data caps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 03:57 PM
 
11,300 posts, read 5,834,479 times
Reputation: 20944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Since you seem to be a "reader" as well as a "poster" I'll just point out a few more things here.

Competition, in the last ten years, in large metropolises, is a completely different game from what it used to be. In good part because of huge leaps in technological capabilities. (If all those overbuilders had to run copper coax from the headend to every apartment... it wouldn't happen.)

Smaller towns are not. They are not typically large enough for an overbuilder to come in and compete with their own infrastructure - just as one example (out of 30 or so I know well), my small town in CT had an average distance between houses of 1000 feet or more, counting a slightly denser cluster. There is no way to make a new cable infrastructure there profitable. (We had trouble making a ring-and-spoke fiber network, largely for town facility use, get anywhere near cost-effectiveness.)

Nor were towns or their governing body morons to enter into such completely standard, universal public-utility agreements. By making such agreements, the town, county and state got a measure of control over the provider's operation and economics - not the least of which was that they had to provide service to ALL households in the town (or 99%) instead of some highly profitable cluster areas. The alternative was no cable or internet, other than what some "free market" provider might have decided to come in and offer, at whatever price they could gouge, for some subset of the residents.

I'm as anti-monopoly as it gets. I'm an economic radical in more ways than I can list. But I do understand how this system grew up over the last 60 years, and it's not for reasons that are moronic, greedy or predatory... quite the opposite. The universal goal was to screw Comcast et al. and protect the community's benefits. And it will die a sudden death the week truly high-speed, high-bandwidth wireless service becomes a cost-effective reality.
So you're going to violate the laws of physics and jump on the "truly high-speed, high bandwidth wireless service" fiction? It simply ain't possible without low power directional antennas that make it point-to-point. At that point, it's more expensive than a fiber node in the neighborhood and coaxial run to the home. The labor is the same. You're replacing dirt cheap coaxial cable (or fiber in newer deployments) with a base station that needs power and needs to operate in the elements at -30F and 150F. It's running phone so it needs a battery to meet regulatory requirements. That's a $200.00+ bill of materials box. You still have to run fiber to those base stations. Big chunks of the country have buried wiring. Where do you mount this device so it has line of sight when you don't have phone poles? You need the matching directional antenna and transceiver at the house. The capital cost for all of that is enormous. The only place you see wireless broadband these days is in rural places where the rest of us in the high population density areas pay the enormous subsidy.

Cable DOCSIS 3.1 delivers 1 gigabit/sec to the home. The whole Comcast network is being converted over to it now and it's going to be the sole distribution system for broadband, video, and phone. Like always, video bandwidth drives everything. 4K HD is a bandwidth hog and 8K is now showing up at the CES shows in Vegas. On a large panel, you're going to need at least 50 megabit/sec to drive 8K without seeing obvious compression artifacts. The data rates to do that are totally inappropriate to wireless unless you're using directional antennas. There's really no getting away from either shielded copper or fiber. It's cheaper.

Speaking of Connecticut, my girlfriend lives in a less small town in Connecticut and has service from Frontier, the local monopoly telco that bought the hairball AT&T hacked up when they dumped their wireline business. It's ATM over fiber to a DSLAM in a concrete bunker 500 meters away. Two pair twisted copper DSL from there with the DSL signal bonded together to make a bigger pipe. Broadband is adequate for email and web surfing but kind of marginal for over the top IP streaming video. Their video product is also IP streaming video and is compressed to the point of absurdity. They throw in telephone which is also VoIP from the same Arris box that terminates the two twisted copper pairs. It's half the price of Comcast but you get what you pay for.
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