major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Hello and Welcome to 2001
The nation's chief telecommunications regulator stands accused of misrepresenting the facts while pushing through rules that will make it easier for big phone companies to get into cable television. Paid telco shill Martin misrepresented facts in favor of his corporate taskmasters? Quick, alert the presses, we have a newsflash here... |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | people thew away freedom for a quick fix
Anyone who was against franchising is going to crying one day, when service levels aren't up to par. People said "oh. 10m, i don't care about my consumer safety laws, just give the bandwidth.!" Wait until they cant get on service when they need it. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | Just the telco and cableco shills. By that time, however, they will have slunk away, back into the mists and vapors from which they came. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to DaveNJ
said by DaveNJ  :Anyone who was against franchising is going to crying one day, when service levels aren't up to par. People said "oh. 10m, i don't care about my consumer safety laws, just give the bandwidth.!" Wait until they cant get on service when they need it. The town can't do anything about service. The town can only wait until franchise agreement expires then get concessions. The could be 10 years down the road. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| said by batterup :said by DaveNJ :Anyone who was against franchising is going to crying one day, when service levels aren't up to par. People said "oh. 10m, i don't care about my consumer safety laws, just give the bandwidth.!" Wait until they cant get on service when they need it. The town can't do anything about service. The town can only wait until franchise agreement expires then get concessions. The could be 10 years down the road. Not true, in the franchise agreement there are usually terms of service agreements, which means service cant be down for more then 2 days, otherwise a credit must be issued. This is what my previous town had in there agreement.
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales
|
|
package
@lsllp.com
| said by DaveNJ :said by batterup :said by DaveNJ :Anyone who was against franchising is going to crying one day, when service levels aren't up to par. People said "oh. 10m, i don't care about my consumer safety laws, just give the bandwidth.!" Wait until they cant get on service when they need it. The town can't do anything about service. The town can only wait until franchise agreement expires then get concessions. The could be 10 years down the road. Not true, in the franchise agreement there are usually terms of service agreements, which means service cant be down for more then 2 days, otherwise a credit must be issued. This is what my previous town had in there agreement. Throwing freedom away is a bit of hyperbole to say the least. There has been no indication that the FCC rules will take away the ability of local jurisdictions to require minimum levels of service, or to require credits for extended outages. Also, these franchises are for CATV only, and not Internet service, which is unregulated. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to major marco
Re: Hello and Welcome to 2001
said by major marco :The nation's chief telecommunications regulator stands accused of misrepresenting the facts while pushing through rules that will make it easier for big phone companies to get into cable television. Paid telco shill Martin misrepresented facts in favor of his corporate taskmasters? Quick, alert the presses, we have a newsflash here... Read the article; the story the FCC sounds pretty credible. The Tampa lawyer Smith first claims that the FCC made false accusations... then practically admits those claims are true later in the article. The city submitted a $13 million dollar "wish list" that included video cameras for a school math tutor program; Smith claims it wasn't necessarily a demand... but why submit this "wish list" during franchise negotiations if it wasn't?
Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Not bloody likely; of course it was a demand, whether officially represented as so by Tampa or not. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by dynodb :Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Yes, really. Conduct a quick due diligence on all things telco shills do for their masters. A multibillion dollar telco corporation like Verizon getting something for nothing is nothing new. It's SOP. Just take a good look at the recent mega merger of Bellsouth and AT&T. Martin did everything in his power except blow the panel of judges to facilitate and otherwise ensure that merger went through without any sort of oversight or accountability whatsoever.
--
The Toll
|
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Gee, which side are you on Karl?
"Tampa officials are annoyed after the FCC inaccurately claimed they were forcing Verizon to film math tutoring classes in order to get a video franchise." Oh really? Reading the article and what the Tampa rep admitted, it sounds like the claim that the city demanded video cameras for the tutoring class isn't inaccurate at all. It sounds like Tampa is engaging in good old-fashioned extortion, and they're not exactly the first municipality to engage in it.
Unless of course you actually believe the city's story that it was just part of a "wish list" that was more or less voluntary and not really part of the franchise agreement 
If you're concerned about facts being misrepresented, perhaps you should start with your articles, Karl. |
|
package
@lsllp.com
| reply to dynodb
Re: Hello and Welcome to 2001
said by dynodb :said by major marco :The nation's chief telecommunications regulator stands accused of misrepresenting the facts while pushing through rules that will make it easier for big phone companies to get into cable television. Paid telco shill Martin misrepresented facts in favor of his corporate taskmasters? Quick, alert the presses, we have a newsflash here... Read the article; the story the FCC sounds pretty credible. The Tampa lawyer Smith first claims that the FCC made false accusations... then practically admits those claims are true later in the article. Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Not bloody likely; of course it was a demand, whether officially represented as so by Tampa or not. Yea, headline unfairly labels the link "made up stories entirely" when that clearly isn't the case. I am all for bashing the telcos when it's warranted, which is often enough that you don't have to ... errr... make it up. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to major marco
And just what was the something they got for nothing? Permission for the merger to go through? Do you really think that it's not costing SBC and AT&T anything to go through the approval process? If so, you'd be very, very wrong.
SBC is paying $16 billion to buy AT&T, it's not as if the government is buying it for them. Even if it were the case that they were "getting something for nothing", it doesn't excuse the kind of legalized extortion that cities like Tampa engage in just to allow a provider to do business in their town. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to dynodb
Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?
The consumer's side, to answer your qwestion. As a Qwest employee, which side are you on?
Tampa officials note that was just a dream list required by Florida law as to what franchise funds could potentially be used for. It was not a straight demand -- nor was it included in the language of the actual franchise agreement -- something admitted to by Verizon down the line -- who ultimately apologized for misrepresenting the "demand". Verizon isn't the type of company to apologize for nothing.
Of course that's all in the article...
The franchise system here is being demonized and its flaws amplified by telco lobbyists to pass desired legislation. I think this "blame franchises for cancer" push of the last several years is a little melodramatic...
Yes they're dysfunctional, but so is every man-made social system on the planet I can think of. They're also responsible for huge swaths of "unprofitable" America getting cable....oddly the benefits of localized franchise control seem always omitted... |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to package
Re: people thew away freedom for a quick fix
quote:
There has been no indication that the FCC rules will take away the ability of local jurisdictions to require minimum levels of service, or to require credits for extended outages.
No that comes later, after one-stop lobbying allows telcos to make the state-level guidelines utterly toothless...
Then in ten years, your marketing department (after blaming a lack of competition on Aardvarks or whatever else) can again tell the people that true competition will come if we do X. 
(X=another rule change aimed solely at maximizing revenue at the cost of the consumer) |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?
I'm on my own side; video isn't a major part of Qwest's business and the franchising issue has little or no affect on my employer at all. You see I have cable at home, and am paying rather high rates due to the Minneapolis city-imposed cable franchise monopoly in my town. Franching limits competition, and thus hurts the consumer- me.
As far as the city of Tampa suggesting it's merely a "dream list". Yeah, right; how naive would a person have to be to buy that story? Sounds like when the mafia shows up at your door asking you to pay for "fire insurance". They don't include written demands either, but it's implied that you'd better pay it- or else.
This story was worth front page submission, but your one-sided, biased misrepresentation of it was not.
Verizon initially stated that they (very reasonably and almost certainly correctly) interpreted the list as implied demands by the city- the city was asking for things in the course of a negotiation.
If later Verizon backed down, it was most likely for the same reason they agreed to supply items on the "wish list" in the first place- in order to get franchise approval.
If Verizon isn't the type of company to apologise for nothing, I doubt they're the type of company to spend $13 million dollars in "gifts" just as a favor without expecting something in return- namely franchise approval.
Tampa claims that the FCC misrepresented the facts, the FCC says they didn't... but they both agree that $13 million dollars in items (including the cameras in question) were asked for and received in the course of franchise negotiations. Given that the only dispute is whether it was an actual demand or voluntary request, it's beyond misleading to state as fact that the FCC version was "made up" as you implied since there was basis in fact to support the FCC side. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to dynodb
Re: Hello and Welcome to 2001
said by dynodb : Read the article; the story the FCC sounds pretty credible....Are we really supposed to believe that Verizon could've said "no thanks, I don't think we'll pay" and still gotten the franchise? Not bloody likely; of course it was a demand, whether officially represented as so by Tampa or not. Did you read the article?
"Oddly enough, Verizon mentions the tangle with Tampa in its comments with the FCC, but does not name the city nor does it reference the math program. It did, however, revise its comments and apologize after a complaint from Tampa about how the company represented the negotiations"
If the FCC is so 'credible', why did Verizon apologize to Tampa?
Why didn't the FCC do some cursory investigation to find out if any of the local franchise allegations were true?
Why did the FCC take the telcos at their word, apparently?
Franchise negotiations always start with the 'wish list', the provider says no, nothing, and you end up with something in between. That's why they're called 'negotiations'. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb :Even if it were the case that they were "getting something for nothing", it doesn't excuse the kind of legalized extortion that cities like Tampa engage in just to allow a provider to do business in their town. ...and where is the PROOF of this 'legalize extortion'?
Every time the telcos have to provide actual, real life examples, they can't do so.
If the process is so bad, why did Verizon's president say "local franchising wasn't holding them back"? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to dynodb
Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?
quote:
As far as the city of Tampa suggesting it's merely a "dream list". Yeah, right; how naive would a person have to be to buy that story?
Since it's the truth, I have no idea. I've already clarified your misinterpretation in my post above: Florida requires that franchise income expenditure is itemized to show where revenue will go. Verizon misrepresented this as a franchise demand, then retracted and apologized. The FCC then used the misrepresented "demand" as fodder in political efforts that demonize localized franchise negotiation to pass telco-friendly legislation. Big long posts declaring otherwise do not somehow shift reality. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to jslik
Re: Hello and Welcome to 2001
Keep in mind, once the franchise system is shifted from the local to state level and we kill off these evil town leaders trying to improve their municipalities, you'll see competitive Utopia where the telcos and cable companies offer triple play services for $20 monthly. Why must you impede progress so? |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to dynodb
Re: Gee, which side are you on Karl?
said by dynodb :I'm on my own side; video isn't a major part of Qwest's business and the franchising issue has little or no affect on my employer at all. You see I have cable at home, and am paying rather high rates due to the Minneapolis city-imposed cable franchise monopoly in my town. Franching limits competition, and thus hurts the consumer- me. You do realize that you implicitly rebutted your own argument in the same paragraph?
"video isn't a major part of Qwest's business and the franchising issue has little or no affect on my employer at all. You see I have cable at home, and am paying rather high rates due to the Minneapolis city-imposed cable franchise monopoly in my town."
...and why is Qwest not offering video in a major way? Is it local franchising, or the fact that a major rollout would be billions, which Qwest doesn't have? It's economics, not local franchising, that is preventing real competition. The telcos were specifically given 4 ways of entering the video market in the 1996 Telecom Act, and they told Congress that with the passage, they'd get into video. They've done squat. That's local government's fault now?
said by dynodb :As far as the city of Tampa suggesting it's merely a "dream list". Yeah, right; how naive would a person have to be to buy that story? Obviously, you don't know how these negotiations take place. Go do some research between what cities asked for initially and what they actually got. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Hello and Welcome to 2001
said by Karl Bode :Keep in mind, once the franchise system is shifted from the local to state level and we kill off these evil town leaders trying to improve their municipalities, you'll see competitive Utopia where the telcos and cable companies offer triple play services for $20 monthly. Why must you impede progress so?
Well, like you said elsewhere, I wonder who is going to be the 'bad man' when the telcos get their way with franchising and rollouts still aren't happening. |
|
