John T
@northgrum.com
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| Do local franchises actually help rural buildout?
I can see how local franchises can force companies to serve all of a locale, but I really don't see how, e.g., the City of Philadelphia signing different franchise agreements from its suburbs can prevent Verizon from serving the suburbs but not Philly.
It actually seems to me that statewide agreements are more likely to be able to force a company to serve everyone in a state, and so on. The federal universal service fees and such work similarly-- it is tremendously expensive to run copper, fiber, or anything to rural customers in the middle of nowhere with massive multiacre parcels. There's no real way around that, and for the most part of the century the "solution" has been getting everyone else to subsidize the people in the middle of nowhere. (Combined with regulation, of course.) |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Peace
We have peace here in San Ramon  We are getting IPTV any day now. I signed up at a launch event they held yesterday.
I like driving past and seeing the VRAD boxes Its a status symbol that we have better infrastructure then the towns next to us. |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| I'll vote for Geneva on this one.
Maybe the FCC comments are correct for big municipalities. I certainly felt that way about things when I was a resident of the city of Chicago.
I've been a Geneva resident for 18 years. They really are concerned about their citizens. By contrast, AT&T and comcast seem to only care about their bottom line.
--
Never underestimate the ability of a large organization to screw up |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | I agree. ATT/Comcast's obligation is to their shareholders. If they can squeeze our interests in too, then ok. If not, we lose.
A muni's obligation is to the community. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to ninjatutle
Re: Peace
There's many VRAD boxes here in Santa Clarita (Valencia, Saugus, Canyon Country, Newhall). Of course, all neighborhoods around me have VRAD boxes except mine  limiting me to 2500kbps/512kbps (on a 3008/512 package). You can call AT&T to find out their buildout. According to them, there's no plans within the next year for my neighborhood. |
|
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to JTRockville
Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one.
Yea, and if that means making ATT put in a rec center, then so be it right? Thats the heart of the issue, and while i am ok with a local or state franchise, what im not ok with is the unnessary demands (see above). I think it should be like this:
Require carrage of 3 Public Access TV Channels (Not including PBS), Such as we have it here:
1 is a Goverment Access Channel (city councel meetings, ect)
1 Is a community access channel ( local community produced content, hs "news" channels normaly)
the last one is a community bulleten board. highlihgt community events.
Require reasonable restoration of service
Such as If a tree limb falls on your lines, you have 24-48 hrs to restore service, 72 hrs if winter and ice/snow is involved.
--i would rather untities burry they lines to prevent these issues, though then there is the risk of them being dug up.--
lastly any cabnets,pedistals, ect put into the public or utilty right of may must be maintained (i.e not rusting) and if over 1 ft tall, require couperation with the homeowner/business it is near(i.e. in front yard of) to work out landscaping to aprove astetics.
for meeting the above requirements, we only ask a 5% of total revenue generated from all services (pots/phone, video/catv, and internet/dialup) and this cost CANT be passed along to the comsumer, it is to be considered the cost of operations.
when deploying new services/outside plant upgrades, service will be required to be provided to at leats 75% of the serviceable area.
How many think this is fair for both sides? |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | The Capitalism of today...
demands immediate,big return on investment with NO humane thoughts. ALL rights not specifically reserved to the federal govt belongs to the states |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to RIRWIN1983
Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one.
Communities can't bargain for a rec center. There is a VERY short list of things a community CAN bargain for.
Given the value of property (around here anyway), 5% is a bargain. Federal law specifies that it can only be applied to the video/catv portion of the bill, and it MUST be passed on to the subscriber.
Where on earth do you get your information? |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to RIRWIN1983
Sounds good, but each town can probably think of some details that someone at the state level might not consider.
How about bringing in all the municipalities to a big state-wide conference, then let everyone work out the state-wide agreement together? Leaving the decisions to a few corruptible or ideological people, when it affects everyone for decades, is a mistake; a congress of all the affected parties would be better. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Having read a good deal of the fine print
when it comes to the Geneva~AT&T issue, LEGALLY..I'd have to side with Geneva on this one.
In a nutshell, the law appears to clearly state that AT&T needs to have a franchise agreement to deliver their IPTV services because it fits into the definition of what cable TV services are as defined by the Cable TV Act.
And, as such, AT&T is subject to following the law as it exists today in rolling out this service to communities.
Note the very clear difference there between them and Verizon once again. While Verizon certainly doesn't LIKE it..they choose to FOLLOW those laws while doing as AT&T is obviously doing, to seek to have it modified.
To Geneva, I think it's like this. They have a speed limit set up in town saying you can drive 35MPH. AT&T says there ain't no stinkin speed limit and we can drive as fast as we want. Verizon says there is one and we will drive it, while seeking to legally have it changed or raised.
Who is right in that scenario? I think that CLEARLY, Verizon is.
Whether either of them like it or not, our country is founded on a rule of law. And no man, nor company..should be above that.
Apparently, what AT&T is hoping for is that they'll just kind of get all this up and running anyway and meanwhile, legislation will someday make it all right for them to have done it. A statewide franchise gets passed..they sign it..and all this high speed driving they've been doing anyway will somehow have been ok.
The funny thing is, somehow..sometimes..what is right anyway somehow manages to catch up to you.
Their 15 to 20 markets turns into 1 or 2...making their whole strategy appear problem plaqued anyway..and meanwhile Verizon and their strategy just keeps rolling right along.
Funny how things work sometimes eh? When you do it right..the first time around.
Can I help AT&T with a suggestion?
Actually, 3 of them.
Lose the Uverse. And go with FTTH right now.
Drop the lawsuits...and start negotiating with these communities instead of suing them.
And, continue on with your legal attempts to change and reform the system. Properly constructed statewide agreements really are the better answer for everyone concerned meaning them as a company and we as consumers.
In other words..Think like VERIZON!
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now just Rick! |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: | reply to ninjatutle
Re: Peace
lol..status symbol.
rotflmao. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to JTRockville
Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one.
Both have their obligation to their 'shareholders'...
Comcast (aka Commiecast/Comcr@p) is out there to make profit, boost its stock price and investors return (and CEO's pay). On the good side (if there is one), large corp's will push new services if they can make money from it, or better yet... they have to have high enough profit margins to be deployed.
Muni is out there to service its shareholders...aka the taxpayers, and not spend more than needed. The problem with Muni is that it can be slow to deploy/rollout/upgrade/change due to typical government mentality (not all).
So pick your poison...
Gov't/Muni = access for all, possible limitations/restrictions on use, upgrades, speed, etc.
Corp = typically we will give you whatever you want, assuming its profitable enough. |
|
Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
·SaskTel Saskatchewan
| reply to nwrickert
said by nwrickert : By contrast, AT&T and comcast seem to only care about their bottom line. to be fair, most business's are ruled by the bottom line
good will from a community doesn't tend to pay for expensive infrastructure that you may never recover the isntallation cost for |
|
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Rick
Re: Having read a good deal of the fine print
att vs Vz 1 year |
said by Rick :Can I help AT&T with a suggestion? Actually, 3 of them. Lose the Uverse. And go with FTTH right now. Drop the lawsuits...and start negotiating with these communities instead of suing them. And, continue on with your legal attempts to change and reform the system. Properly constructed statewide agreements really are the better answer for everyone concerned meaning them as a company and we as consumers. In other words..Think like VERIZON! Shareholders tend to disagree with you quite clearly...
FTTH has been more expensive than previously expected, with not nearly the return expected.
Even if AT&Ts choice so far goes kaput (which is likely, the real question is when, 1 year or 5 years?), when they do get towards FTTH, it will be cheaper to do than verizons is now |
|
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :when it comes to the Geneva~AT&T issue, LEGALLY..I'd have to side with Geneva on this one. In a nutshell, the law appears to clearly state that AT&T needs to have a franchise agreement to deliver their IPTV services because it fits into the definition of what cable TV services are as defined by the Cable TV Act. On this, I would have to say you are wrong, based off of precedent. When the cable companies entered the VOIP market, they argued that they should not be subject to the 1996 Telecom Act because they are cable companies and different from the Telecom companies. The Federal government agreed and cable VOIP service is not subject to all of the regulations that the regular Telecom companies are (i.e. line sharing, USF, etc.). The Telecom companies are subject to the 1996 Telecom act, not the Cable TV Act. Unless the Feds change the rules, I don't think the municipalities have a legal leg to stand on.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to JTRockville
Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one.
said by JTRockville :Communities can't bargain for a rec center. There is a VERY short list of things a community CAN bargain for. ... Where on earth do you get your information? The request for a rec center was publicly reputed. Whether or not it's true, we will probably never know for sure. There is no law broken when a jurisidiction makes an unreasonable "request" as part of negotiations or bargaining, and thus no reason for it to be thoroughly investigated. It results in a legal issue when a franchise application is formally refused because of it.
However, I think it's misleading to refer to a "VERY short list of things a community CAN bargain for". You make it sound like it's all cut and dry, but it really isn't. There really isn't a list, is there?
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :Given the value of property (around here anyway), 5% is a bargain. Federal law specifies that it can only be applied to the video/catv portion of the bill, and it MUST be passed on to the subscriber.
Where on earth do you get your information? Maybe you missed the part where he said that this is the way it SHOULD BE. Implying he is ignorant (where on earth, etc) is just trolling.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO | reply to RIRWIN1983
name a town that put a rec center into their cable franchise? can anyone? I'm not saying that a city somewhere hasn't tried, but I doubt the lawyers allowed it.
that argument is a fallacy |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
2 edits | reply to Alakar
Re: Having read a good deal of the fine print
I think I am right. Without rehashing it all here, if you were to read the legal opinion that geneva paid for from one of the countries leading legal firms, I think you'd see why AT&T in this instance would be subject to the cable act.
The link to the story above summarizes that legal opinion in part of it's story.
»arstechnica.com/articles/culture/u-verse.ars
I agree that when you look at the whole picture, perhaps it's not fair to the telco's that while the cable co's can deliver VOIP without the cumbersome restrictions, they have to follow the cable act. But unfortunately for the telco industry, it's the way the laws are today.
Hence, my comments about the way to proceed is to first, follow them, and second, to work to change them.
What is wrong here is for at&t to simply take the laws into their own hands and in this case, to ignore them completely.
Also, if you read the above story, you'll see that AT&T was really trying to pull a fast one on these communities.
They never breathed a word about their real uverse intentions and the fact that it was also a video service.
Obviously, they hoped to just get it installed and up and running before anyone really knew what hit them.
What a crazy plan that was from the start.
BTW..to the above poster posting the respective stock charts might I first say..who cares?
Short term investor sentiment really should play no part in the ultimate outcome of this. It only matters to their shareholders in the short term, not in the long term. And it certainly doesn't matter to we prospective customers.
And secondly, are they really right? Clearly, AT^T is going to spend a whole lot of money anyway for what certainly is a whole lot of problems right now.
Meanwhile, Verizon is rolling right along.
Sometimes it pays to spend more upfront to do the job right. |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by Rick :Sometimes it pays to spend more upfront to do the job right. And watch VZ go bankrupt or sold off trying appease the BBR whiners.
You guys don't care for the companies. You want your fiber at all cost. Where is the love for Verizon's Wireless service?
Why do people use WIFI? Don't they know Gigabit is faster? Everyone should run gigabit outlets throughout their homes.  |
|
