seems simple enough to me, more competition = lower prices. However, I don't favor giving Verizon a special deal to only provide its services in higher income neighborhoods. How come our legislature can't ever get it right and provide some relief for the average joe our here in the real world? Another simple answer... campaign financing and special interests. Throw the bums out!!!

Then this FCC ruling seems to imply that Gray's proposal wouldn't be legal because it would limit competition.

Here's the real deal on this issue (and keep in mind that I have and DESPISE Comcast myself). For starters Verizon is already entering the market under the current system. The problem is they will ONLY agree to work in 4 counties (Mont. Chester, Deleware and Bucks), but have signed agreements with about a 100 municipalities or so in those 4 counties. Besides that competition isn't simply a matter of flipping on a switch. It will be until 2010 until some of these municipalities see Verizon actually offer them service. Verzion also estimates that it could be at least 10 years until they have their system and networks built up enough to offer service statewide and by then this techonolgy will be totally outdated. Also on the national level both Verizon and the Bells (ATT, and the other Bell monopolies) have said that they plan to target (at least initially) only those who can can spend between $150-$200 a month on "bundled" services which would be the top of the line cable, internet and phone services. I am not totally sure, but my guess is all you who complain (rightfully so) that your Comcast bill is to high aren't going too be excited about spending $150-$200 a month.
Also you have to consider the loss of the local franchise fee. Currently under locally negotiated franchise agreements (LFA) municipalities can charge up to a 5% franchise fee. That 5 percent is on total gross revenues, so that is on your bill, anytime you order a PPV or on-demand, on your DVR subscription, when you lose a remote......anything they charge you for is currently included in that fee, which municipalities use to pay for roads, police, fire and other things. Under the proposed bill basically the only thing that would be included in the franchise fee would be the amount of your monthly bill...which means that local governments would lose $$$ for important services and would have to cut services or raise taxes......something I know you all love.
Customer service standards would also go to hell. Currently local govs. have the ability to negotiate customer service standards in their LFA such as call wait time, # of operators, response time and what not. These are the federal standards, i believe. These standards are not included in this bill, so you think you have poor customer service standards now.....wait until there are no standards.
Loss of local rights away is another issue. Local govs. will lose their ability to manage, control and police their public rights of way....again this is something that they currently have.
I could go on and on and on, but I think that you get my point. This legislation is bad news for local governments and is really a smoke screen regarding competition and how it would benefit consumers. Thats why some consumer rights groups have opposed these bills. Again for someone who has and hates comcast (can't get a satilite where I am currently) I want choices, but this bill isn't the way to do it.

Lets get a bill that will allow a company like blue ridge to compete with Comcast. We need the ability to allow multiple cable competition and not one company who keeps raising rates with no one overseeing there rate hikes.

at manor ridge apts they offer blue ridge and comcast...the apts are located on spencer ave...i am for some competition

Mayor Gray gave into the trash haulers because he knew he broke the law ...he can't take contracts ....see how the trash plan came into effect....i think the king is on his high horse and I think the city residents should attend those council meeting to keep an eye on the activities....