icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Tough one
It's a tough call. How important is added competition to cable companies? If it's very important, than I can see the need to bypass some of the local regulatory issues.
If local rights are more important, then they are toast.
Rollout would be delayed by months or years in some locations. |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29 | Did the cable companies have to get a second franchise to offer phone service? |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| said by JTRockville  :Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. If that's the case, then Verizon shouldn't have to jump through the cable franchising hoops.
--
Search first, ask questions later. |
|
Kommie
join:2003-05-13
East Haven, CT
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. Here in CT, Comcast had to apply for a CLEC aggrement. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Is Comcast providing digital phone or VoIP in CT? |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
 ·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
·Verizon Online DSL
| Ivan should have called FiOS TV something else
I could understand why cable MSOs didn't get much grief in providing VoIP, as it's currently still considered an Internet application rather than a telecom service.
Now how does Ivan expect Congress not to believe that Verizon isn't deliberately stepping on MSOs toes by rolling this out in already franchised markets?
This is the sort of competition that cable operators need so they stop raping customers with ever increasing monthly fees, but it's gonna be tough to convince already reluctant incumbents in each market. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to yock
Re: Tough one
Not necessarily a fair equation, because VoIP isn't regulated yet.
Cable franchise agreements often fund public TV, ensure local airtime for political events, and are starting to be used to ensure quality broadband service (see Montgomery County, Maryland).
A reworking of regulation makes more sense than a removal of regulation.
Unless people really enjoy having less power in their lives and local communities, then by all means....approve and enjoy. |
|
stoli412
join:2003-02-12
Philadelphia, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to yock
I agree. I believe the main original purpose of cable franchise agreements was to secure rights of way in cities and towns. Since Verizon already has the rights of way (assuming they're laying the fiber in the same conduits and on the same poles they already use for copper), why should they have to obtain another agreement?
At the same time, I do think Verizon should pay some kind fee to local governments. It should be a uniform fee for anyone who is providing telecommunications service using public rights of way. This money would be used to fund public access and other things of that nature. |
|
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI | reply to icp1
I agree Verizon should be given some slack here. The sooner they get their product to the mrket the better we all are. But they should still be required to allow local access and set up local access studios in some areas etc. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Franchise = graft
Franchise agreements aren't agreements that often benefit the community that signs them. Rather, they're a perfect example of legal graft. The politicians benefit, the cable company benefits (through the usually-exclusive franchise), and the customers lose through lack of competition. What's the "community" get? A few community channels on the cable system. Or, in Philadelphia, an agreement for a few community channels which the cable company doesn't bother fulfilling. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | No!
As long a Verizon and the other Telco's continue in their efforts to kill Muni's they should be forced to deal with markets the way a cable system does. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to stoli412
Re: Tough one
quote:
I agree. I believe the main original purpose of cable franchise agreements was to secure rights of way in cities and towns. Since Verizon already has the rights of way (assuming they're laying the fiber in the same conduits and on the same poles they already use for copper), why should they have to obtain another agreement
Because cable franchise agreements don't just cover right of way issues, and phone franchise agreements alone won't be enough to cover all TV service provision issues.
A good primer:
»www.democraticmedia.org/ddc/CCCIntro.php
A hybrid agreement is probably needed that adds some regulation and removes other duplicate provisions..... |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to russotto
Re: Franchise = graft
That's the fault of lazy and greedy politicians who lack integrity, not the fault of the franchise agreement. Often those agreements are the only leverage communities have when debating deployment issues..... |
|
johnsp
join:2001-02-07
Syosset, NY | It's all about the money
Don't forget the franchise fees you see at the bottom of your cable bill. DO you think you're local town wants to give that up? |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Tough one
I'm not sure if I trust that source to be unbiased.
Anyhow, making Verizon pay franchising is probably the legal thing to do here. Whether or not it's right is a question for the pundits, because quite frankly I just don't care enough to argue it.
My point is simply that turnabout is fair play. It is true that television providers must pay franchising fees, and VOIP is not regulated as to require franchising fees of its own, but the spirit of law here is what's being argued. VOIP is essentially a loophole here, and no amount of disdain for Verizon will make me argue that they must pay some regulatory fee when VOIP providers aren't required to pay similar fees just because they aren't yet regulated to do so. Verizon is simply fighting for equal regulatory rights in this case and I don't blame them one iota.
--
Search first, ask questions later. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Karl Bode
Does satellite TV need a franchise agreement? With cable we're stuck with the highest prices and the slowest innovation. As of Comcast taking over, things are finally getting somewhat modern around here, but I beleive that is due to competitive forces, not regulatory ones. About the only thing the franchise agreement does is ensure a cheap locals only tier. Whoopee! People can always go to their cable company for that. All the franchise board can do is threaten not to renew, and when was the last time you heard of that happening? I seem to recall Florida trying to kick AT&T Broadband out but not doing so in fear of lawsuits.
With Verizon entering a market with so much existing competition, I'm just not sure encumbering them with cable's franchise hoops is necessary. If people are disgruntled they have other places to go. It's not like when cable systems were first installed and it was pretty much the only feasable choice for TV.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to JTRockville
Correct me if I am wrong on this but I believe I just read an article that "Digital Phone" is a marketing buzzword used by cable companies for their VOIP.
In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to yock
quote:
I'm not sure if I trust that source to be unbiased.
Ask a local town lawyer then. I'll bet you'll find it less biased than your local bell's PR man, or free market conservatives who think deregulation cures cancer and prevents earthquakes. Franchise agreements, when written and enforced properly, are designed to aid you.
quote:
My point is simply that turnabout is fair play. It is true that television providers must pay franchising fees, and VOIP is not regulated as to require franchising fees of its own, but the spirit of law here is what's being argued.
There's definately some leveling of the playing field that needs to occur between cable and phone providers, particularly concerning line-sharing and USF. Telecom laws are going to be re-written before year's end, and given the current political climate, I'll bet near total deregulation will be the end result......
That doesn't necessarily mean a bell who offers cable shouldn't have to adhere to a franchise agreement that actually addresses what they're deploying (video service).....and yeah, vice-versa for cable companies offering phone service.... |
|
Buttset
join:2001-11-12
Ladson, SC
1 edit |  Re: Rules Schmules
If "competition" is what our elected/appointed leaders truly want, they should be able to enact laws that allow any company/entity to offer any service they are willing to invest their own capital in. What could be "fairer"? |
|
