NEWS: Cingular claims US first with HSDPA handset

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:20:53 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>>> some in fact do so.
>>
>>"Some" would mean a very very very very very small number that get past
>>the PUC and easement right of ways.
>
>By Federal law such permission cannot be withheld unreasonably.
>
>The problem isn't PUC and easements -- the problem is lack of sufficient
>financial incentives.
>

You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

---

› See More: NEWS: Cingular claims US first with HSDPA handset

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:58:08 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The problem isn't PUC and easements -- the problem is lack of sufficient
>>financial incentives.
>
>You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?

Ameritech New Media

See 47 USC Sec. 541:

(1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the
provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its
jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an
exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an
additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application
for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the
franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to
the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply
with this subsection.
(2) Any franchise shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way, and
through easements, which is within the area to be served by the
cable system and which have been dedicated for compatible uses, ...

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:56:38 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
>><[email protected]>:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Thomas T.
>> Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and they use
>> the
>>>>common carrier to deliver service.
>>>
>>>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
>>>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.
>>
>>There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>>some in fact do so.
>
>Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)

Ameritech New Media

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
> case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>
> fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Hmm ... Comcast ran their cable through easements and up to my DMARC. For a
period of time, I received POTS phone service (called Digital Phone) without
using any QWest lines (the local ILEC). Same equipment and same internal
wiring in my home. In short, there is no monopoly; I can use at least two
companies for POTS (plain old telephone service) and indeed, they each offer
their own wire carrier.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)
>

Coon Rapids, MN. Comcast rans their own cable for POTS.

> fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Your tagline stinks.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

"DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> John Navas wrote:
>> There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>> some in fact do so.
>
> "Some" would mean a very very very very very small number that get past
> the PUC and easement right of ways.

You would think so but in Farmers Branch and Coppell, they have been pulling
16 3" bundles of fiber at a time. As of about 3 years ago there are two
southern termination to the Internet backbone. That's a lot of local
capacity.

I guess that's why our Texas telephone bills carry that 'surcharge' so the
rural schools and indigent get high speed connections. I know how important
it is to the Texas Katrina victims.

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:56:38 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
>>><[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Thomas T.
>>> Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and they use
>>> the
>>>>>common carrier to deliver service.
>>>>
>>>>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
>>>>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.
>>>
>>>There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>>>some in fact do so.
>>
>>Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)
>
>Ameritech New Media
>

Not familar with this area/town. what state in the Union is this?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:58:08 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>The problem isn't PUC and easements -- the problem is lack of sufficient
>>>financial incentives.
>>
>>You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>>case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>
>Ameritech New Media

I think I asked this in a previous post, but where (in the real world) is
this actually taking place? Not pie in the sky, real people can go touch
it, is this actually happening?

Don't tell me choices exist until they actually exist. Because they clearly
do not exist before they exist in reality.


>
>See 47 USC Sec. 541:
>
> (1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the
> provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its
> jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an
> exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an
> additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application
> for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the
> franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to
> the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply
> with this subsection.
> (2) Any franchise shall be construed to authorize the
> construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way, and
> through easements, which is within the area to be served by the
> cable system and which have been dedicated for compatible uses, ...
>

Just so much bullsh*t until someone has strung wire that can be touched.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <%[email protected]>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>> case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>>
>> fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
>
>Hmm ... Comcast ran their cable through easements and up to my DMARC. For a
>period of time, I received POTS phone service (called Digital Phone) without
>using any QWest lines (the local ILEC). Same equipment and same internal
>wiring in my home. In short, there is no monopoly; I can use at least two
>companies for POTS (plain old telephone service) and indeed, they each offer
>their own wire carrier.
>

I missed this, how many cable providers are there and how many phone
companies with wire are in your home (or can get there)?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:15 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Ameritech New Media
>
>I think I asked this in a previous post, but where (in the real world) is
>this actually taking place? Not pie in the sky, real people can go touch
>it, is this actually happening?

"Google is your friend."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:18:37 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <%[email protected]>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>>> case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>>
>>Hmm ... Comcast ran their cable through easements and up to my DMARC. For a
>>period of time, I received POTS phone service (called Digital Phone) without
>>using any QWest lines (the local ILEC). Same equipment and same internal
>>wiring in my home. In short, there is no monopoly; I can use at least two
>>companies for POTS (plain old telephone service) and indeed, they each offer
>>their own wire carrier.
>
>I missed this, how many cable providers are there and how many phone
>companies with wire are in your home (or can get there)?

Here in Walnut Creek CA there are two choices for cable (Astound and
Comcast), which makes three wireline providers.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:12:45 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Ameritech New Media
>
>Not familar with this area/town. what state in the Union is this?

"Google is your friend."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:56:38 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote::
> >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote:
> >>>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
> >>>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.
> >>There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
> >>some in fact do so.
> >
> >Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)
>
> Ameritech New Media

Ameritech New Media is a subsidiary of Ameritech. Ameritech was one of
the original seven RBOCs, though they're now owned by SBC.

So, what you're saying is, there is some area where a RBOC subsidiary
is competing against another RBOC, and they each laid their own
independent wire to consumers' houses?

I've Googled them, and I can find much about their cable TV service in
Chicago. I can't find any references to their telephony services -
perhaps you can point me to some references?

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:12:45 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Ameritech New Media
>>
>>Not familar with this area/town. what state in the Union is this?
>
>"Google is your friend."


Does this mean it is an imaginary place? One made up by you and doesn't
actually exist on any maps?
>

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:15 GMT, [email protected] (Rico) wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Ameritech New Media
>>
>>I think I asked this in a previous post, but where (in the real world) is
>>this actually taking place? Not pie in the sky, real people can go touch
>>it, is this actually happening?
>
>"Google is your friend."
>

Right more made up BS.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.