You might be one of those local cable-TV viewers who curses atyour fuzzy reception, spits contemptuously at rate hikes and wonders:If they can get the Food Network in Winnemucca, Nev. (don't ask us toverify that), then why can't we get it in Colorado Springs? Or, youmight feel you get good cable service for your money.
Either way, though, wouldn't you like an alternative? It'spossible. Believe it or not, there really is such a thing ascompetition in cable TV.
It's called overbuilding, and it's pretty new. So new, it doesn'texist yet in most markets, but it could come to the Springs fairlysoon.
In an industry long thought to be a "natural monopoly" like, say,water or sewer service, overbuilding involves rival cable firmslaying cable alongside one another's - underground, on poles,wherever. That way, residents may choose the service that offers thebest package for the price, the best service, etc. More to the point,both competitors would feel compelled to beat each other's prices,service standards and variety of offerings, including next-generation Net connections.
On the Nov. 7 ballot, Springs voters will have the unprecedentedchance to grant franchises to not one but two cable systems that'llgo head to head - the current, dominant operator, AdelphiaCommunications, and a new company that is laying the groundwork forserving our community, WideOpenWest.
But here's the thing: For the full benefit of competition to takeeffect, both franchises - questions 2A and 2B on the ballot - must beapproved. That means even if you have a beef with Adelphia, you'd bewise to swallow hard and vote in favor of both franchises.
By the way, that's not meant as a swipe at Adelphia, which oflate has been undertaking sweeping upgrades, including, ultimately,digital service throughout much of the Springs metropolitan area.It's just that another competitor - alongside satellite TV, microwaveTV and eventually telephone-borne TV offerings -adds incentive to allparties to be more responsive to consumers. Hence, our support for 2Aand 2B.
Which isn't to say we don't have some reservations about thepending franchise agreements. Ideally, franchises shouldn't benecessary at all. Local government has no business deciding who getsto offer cable service to a community, any more than it should decidewho sells groceries or cars. The reality of the technology, though,is that unlike satellite or microwave TV, cable TV must use publiclyowned rights of way to reach customers. That gives the city the powerto charge rent for those rights of way, as well as to lay down otherconditions under franchise agreements.
Some of those other conditions leave us with reservations, too.We're not crazy about requirements to dedicate channels forgovernment programming (Zzzzzz) or give the city "grants" to fundbroadband Internet hookups for local government and schools. (It's nolonger enough for schools to be plugged into cyberspace? Now, theyneed high-speed Net access, too?)
But we can live with those drawbacks in the interest of promotingcompetition. And the good news is, unlike a year ago, when a failedattempt at a voter-approved franchise for Adelphia would have passedon the accompanying franchise fee to consumers, this time, the $1.20-per-customer-per-month fee each company must give the city won'traise the bill to the customer. Neither side - again, amid theprospect of competition - wants to be the first to make such a move.
We oppose Question 2C, however, which would allow City Hall toexempt from constitutionally imposed spending limits the estimated$35 million in grants/fees it would receive during the 15-year livesof the franchises. In other words, we want the money to be accountedfor in the city's general fund and thus, subject by law to refund tothe taxpaying public.
The services for which the money would be earmarked under 2A and2B - the government TV programming and Net access for the publicschool system - simply aren't essential duties of local government.
No to Referendum F
Better schools? Not via the tax surplus
Count us among the rest of Coloradans who would like to see ourstate's public schools perform better. But count us out of thisproposal, referred to the Nov. 7 ballot by the state legislature, todivert $50 million of the state's surplus revenue toward "performancegrants" to public schools for the next five years. The moneyotherwise would have to be refunded to the taxpaying public (oroffset by tax cuts) as part of the money collected by the state overand above constitutional spending limits.
Sift through the extensive fine print on this proposal and itcomes across pretty much as a giveaway for at-risk and other schools,affording wide latitude over which schools are selected and why.Bottom line: Tax dollars you overpaid to the state - and thatotherwise would be returned to you in one form or another - insteadwould be sent to schools that may not even be in your district. Maybenot even in our community.
Not much accountability. Besides, the legislature already hasboosted statewide school funding - above the rate of inflation -fortwo successive years, with more to come. This proposal isunwarranted.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий