marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO | Can anyone find the order?
Has anyone been able to find the text of the order?
Based on the various comments, is sounds as if they term "unreasonable" still remains undefined. I am particularly interested in how an unreasonable buildout schedule was defined. |
|
Anoni
@swbell.net | The only time I wax conservative...
...is here -- I'm tired of greedy 'lil 'burbs holding up progress. Yeah baby. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Expect this to be overturned
Come jan, the dems will most definitely overturn this godawful ruling. The local communities have every right to demand the telco's play by the same rules the cableco's do.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits |  New rulings don't apply to statewide franchise areas
One thing I found interesting is that the new rules DO NOT apply to places where statewide franchising laws have been passed, like Texas, California, & NJ among others. What I take from that is that the FCC(at least the 3 Republicans) see the local franchise authorities as the biggest roadblock to telco video rollouts and most in need of FCC oversight.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···11A1.pdf
The Commission concluded that although the record allows it to determine generally what constitutes an “unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise” at the local level, the Commission does not have sufficient information to make such determinations with respect to franchising decisions made at the state level or in compliance with state statutory directives, such as statewide franchising decisions. As a result, the Order addresses only decisions made by county- or municipal-level franchising authorities. Link to story with comments by telco and cable representatives:
»news.tmcnet.com/news/it/-fcc-cab···8472.htm
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to karlmarx
Re: Expect this to be overturned
said by karlmarx  :Come jan, the dems will most definitely overturn this godawful ruling. Even if the Dems can pass new laws on the subject, there is little likelihood they can override a Bush veto. And even if so inclined, this would not be a Dem priority in a new Congress and it would be many months at a minimum before new laws would be crafted. They will be busier addressing a larger military and Iraq issues. TV will be far down the list.
Much more likely that it would go to the courts where it could take years to resolve.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to marigolds
Re: Can anyone find the order?
said by marigolds :Has anyone been able to find the text of the order? The only things published so far on the FCC web site are the Press Release & the statements by the Commissioners. The actual order may not show up for awhile yet.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: New rulings don't apply to statewide franchise areas
said by TKJunkMail :... What I take from that is that the FCC(at least the 3 Republicans) see the local franchise authorities as the biggest roadblock to telco video rollouts and most in need of FCC oversight. You are certainly entitled to that take away.
However, I doubt the 3 republican commissioners see it that way at all - what they see is a big business with lots of lobbying clout that wants something done, so they did it. There doesn't appear to be anything more than anecdotal evidence about the "roadblocks" that local authorities are to the franchise process - an executive at Verizon was even quoted as saying this process wasn't slowing them down.
My take away is that the republican commissioners have a reflexive, knee jerk reaction to grant anything big business wants, without any regard to the wants or needs of consumers.
They must have really agonized about the cablecos opposition to this, but I am sure they consoled themselves with the thought that they are deregulating and all deregulation is good. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to TKJunkMail
Maybe, maybe not. You could read the 'not have sufficient information' as saying that the statewide franchise system(s) in place are so new that their impact is not known.
This is a really crappy decision by the FCC, not so much as what it says or does not say, but rather the FCC doesn't have this kind of authority to basically amend Title 47 of federal law. Like it or not, that's Congress' role.
As stated before, this is going to court. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| reply to karlmarx
Re: Expect this to be overturned
said by karlmarx :Come jan, the dems will most definitely overturn this godawful ruling. The local communities have every right to demand the telco's play by the same rules the cableco's do. The current franchise agreement only insure that cable stays a monopoly. Build requirements keep small investors completely out of play and greatly slow the big boys. This is good news for consumers. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
Re: New rulings don't apply to statewide franchise areas
said by nasadude : an executive at Verizon was even quoted as saying this process wasn't slowing them down. The Verizon response today was a little different:
»news.tmcnet.com/news/it/-fcc-cab···8472.htm
Responding to the FCC ruling, Susanne Guyer, Verizon (News - Alert) senior vice president for federal regulatory affairs, issued the following statement:
“Today’s action will fast-forward the delivery of new choices, lower prices and better services to consumers. The FCC is standing up for consumers who are tired of skyrocketing cable bills and want greater choice in service providers and programming. Verizon has an aggressive schedule to deploy FiOS TV. This order will enable us to reach agreements with local franchise authorities more quickly so we can deliver the benefits of competition to consumers faster. The FCC has taken strong steps to increase consumer choice and spur investment in broadband and video deployment.”
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Interesting.
I thought that more local control, in everything, was a hallmark conservative argument. That huge mandates from Washington were A Bad Thing. That "The People Know Best".
I guess all that is now suspect, in the face of increased corporate profits. They know from whom the campaign contribution blessings flow, apparently. Intimately, too. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to Anoni
Re: The only time I wax conservative...
said by Anoni :
...is here -- I'm tired of greedy 'lil 'burbs holding up progress. Yeah baby.
If you truly 'wax conservative' you'd be mad at this decision as another federal government preemption of local authority.
The 10th Amendment was written for a reason. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to TScheisskopf
Re: Interesting.
If you like cable being a government protected monopoly, then franchise agreements are good. Franchise agreements are in serious need of reform. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: New rulings don't apply to statewide franchise areas
said by TKJunkMail : The Verizon response today was a little different: The quote referenced from Verizon in September (linked in the post):
"Franchising is not holding us back," said Virginia Ruesterholz, president of Verizon Telecom. "I really don’t see that as a necessity, to have nationwide relief on that." ...and people wonder why folks like me don't believe anything coming from the telcos? |
|
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| Great News!
This is good news for many reasons:
1. If I build a fiber network, I shouldn't have to share my network.
2. Why should I be forced to say network all the city's stoplights to monitor traffic as part of my agreement to offer service. If I open a pizza place, I'm not forced to offer free pizza to the mayor.
3. It will increase competition and lower costs. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to cwh
Re: Interesting.
said by cwh :If you like cable being a government protected monopoly, then franchise agreements are good. Franchise agreements are in serious need of reform. Show me where (anywhere) that cable franchises are a 'government protected monopoly'. Federal law has expressly prohibited monopoly franchises for years. The 1996 Telecom Act was intentionally written with 4 avenues for the telcos to get into the video business. They haven't done squat in that time (and in fact, divested themselves of cable - AT&T Broadband, hello). |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Show which cities where the general population has more than 1 choice for cable tv. Most people only have 1 choice for cable tv. The franchise agreements keep it this way as a general rule. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
1 edit | said by cwh :Show which cities where the general population has more than 1 choice for cable tv. Most people only have 1 choice for cable tv. The franchise agreements keep it this way as a general rule. That's economics, not the law. BIG difference. Do you think Microsoft has a 'government protected monopoly' or the fact that we only have three major U.S. auto manufacturers as a 'government protected monopoly'? Both of those situations happened because of economics, not because of some law.
Again, the telcos have had 10 YEARS to get into the video business. It's not local government's fault for THEIR financial decisions. |
|
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| Torn!
I'm a social and fiscal conservative. That being said, I recognize the need for, and am supportive of, responsible regulation in the telco/cable arena. I'm not a lawyer. I don't lay (lie?) awake in bed reading FCC reports.
The consumer in me wants: a statewide franchise in Illinois (NEVER going to happen), IPTV, a 25meg/25meg symmetric pipe, HD VOD movies on the same day as theater release, etc...
The conservative in me sees the push for statewide franchises as an intrusion on the rights of municipalities. Does my state representative or state senator know the minute details about my hometown cable franchise? Probably not. As long as I have a village/city council that I have confidence in, I'll continue to push for local franchises.
What if I lived on the edge of town and the franchise agreement with the cable company demanded that the cable company offer me service? Who do you think would be better prepared to fight for me if there was a disagreement between myself and the cable company? There is no doubt that my local govt. would respond faster than my state govt.
I'm all for the expansion of telco video services. What I don't understand is why all of a sudden the FCC thinks the local franchise system is inefficient. I know that it's all about money, so don't think I'm naive. I just wish politicians would realize how stupid they make themselves look. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to jslik
Re: Interesting.
said by jslik :said by cwh :If you like cable being a government protected monopoly, then franchise agreements are good. Franchise agreements are in serious need of reform. Show me where (anywhere) that cable franchises are a 'government protected monopoly'. Federal law has expressly prohibited monopoly franchises for years. The 1996 Telecom Act was intentionally written with 4 avenues for the telcos to get into the video business. They haven't done squat in that time (and in fact, divested themselves of cable - AT&T Broadband, hello). It is one thing for that law to exist, against monopoly behavior. Or any behavior. It is quite another for that law to be enforced.
If there is anything I have learned over the last six years, it is that. |
|
