5 ms·

So, do you have any thoughts on the substance?

stonogo 8y ago
Sure: the regulation in question removes the cities' ability to oversee the installation of the hardware. Currently, microcell installation in many places requires a city engineer to sign off on the mechanical part -- can the pole support this load, is the mount going to stand up to stormwinds, and so forth. The FCC edict turns it into a free-for-all: this is irresponsible.
- hcurtiss 8y ago
  Sure they can. They just can’t charge $10,000 for that work. It’s not like every power pole is a unique snowflake.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Who are you to say what to charge, what is fair? What happened to charging what the market will bare, letting the market decide? If Verizon continues to pay $10,000 to use a city owned utility pole, then I'm pretty sure the price is right.
    - hcurtiss 8y ago
      I'd refer you to the article. Generally speaking, it's not a market. You can't place these things on any property (public or private) without a city permit. And if you place it in a city right of way (e.g., a power pole), they gouge you even more with franchise fees. It's precisely because the city has absolute control that FCC involvement is necessary.
specialist 8y ago
Sure. The article you cite is irrelevant to the current debate. Article you cite is about cable & broadband. Current issue is about cell. Article blames government for squelching competition. Ignores phenomenon of regulatory capture. Capitalists like me believe, without proof, that the job of government is to protect the marketplace, ensure competition. Laissez fair minded people only advocate deregulation, which is anti-market, anti-competition. Article advocates 'open access'. That's probably a good idea, for cable. And everyone's for more efficiency. But I'm unclear how this notion translates to cell or how it relates to fees. Current FCC action imposes price controls, dictates procedures. So consumer friendly regulations bad, corporate friendly regulations good? Again, libertarian rhetoric (Freedom Markets™) doesn't match their actions. aka Hypocrisy. Did I leave anything out?

Sure: the regulation in question removes the cities' ability to oversee the installation of the hardware. Currently, microcell installation in many places requires a city engineer to sign off on the mechanical part -- can the pole support this load, is the mount going to stand up to stormwinds, and so forth. The FCC edict turns it into a free-for-all: this is irresponsible.

hcurtiss 8y ago
Sure they can. They just can’t charge $10,000 for that work. It’s not like every power pole is a unique snowflake.
- specialist 8y ago
  Who are you to say what to charge, what is fair? What happened to charging what the market will bare, letting the market decide? If Verizon continues to pay $10,000 to use a city owned utility pole, then I'm pretty sure the price is right.
  - hcurtiss 8y ago
    I'd refer you to the article. Generally speaking, it's not a market. You can't place these things on any property (public or private) without a city permit. And if you place it in a city right of way (e.g., a power pole), they gouge you even more with franchise fees. It's precisely because the city has absolute control that FCC involvement is necessary.

specialist 8y ago

Sure. The article you cite is irrelevant to the current debate. Article you cite is about cable & broadband. Current issue is about cell. Article blames government for squelching competition. Ignores phenomenon of regulatory capture. Capitalists like me believe, without proof, that the job of government is to protect the marketplace, ensure competition. Laissez fair minded people only advocate deregulation, which is anti-market, anti-competition. Article advocates 'open access'. That's probably a good idea, for cable. And everyone's for more efficiency. But I'm unclear how this notion translates to cell or how it relates to fees. Current FCC action imposes price controls, dictates procedures. So consumer friendly regulations bad, corporate friendly regulations good? Again, libertarian rhetoric (Freedom Markets™) doesn't match their actions. aka Hypocrisy. Did I leave anything out?