johndoe303
join:2003-01-01
Boca Raton, FL | Give it up ATT! FTTH FTW
The title says it all. |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | TV isTV
...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house! |
|
NewMariner
join:2005-06-24 | Make the Playing Field Level!
So is this same Judge going to rule that VOIP is phone service and should be regulated as such? |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| said by NewMariner  :So is this same Judge going to rule that VOIP is phone service and should be regulated as such? What he said! |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to bamabrad
Re: TV isTV
Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax.
Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS.
And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to bamabrad
I disagree.
Wireline TV is Wireline TV. Satellite shouldn't be required to adhear to frachise agreements since easement and right of way are not involved. That's the problem with wireline transmissions. If your premium TV provider only wanted to wire affluent areas because the money spent to aquire "right of way" would very likely be recooped, people would complain...and rightfully so.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
3 edits | Ding Dong..the ...
Witch is DEAD.
Better put the brakes on those VRAD installations here in CT. because, Uverse..you aint' going anywhere with them just yet.
Some may recall that here in Ct..when this all first started..the Ct. DPUC very quickly gave them the green light to proceed. To his VAST credit..the State Atty General said..hold on just a minute.
And challenged that ruling. As did others with admittedly a more direct financial interest in seeing AT^T's efforts stalled.
This apparently is the result of that effort.
When you read the complete laws that apply in this kind of situation (they were previously brought to BBR by the Geneva folks..who had a top law firm research them..
I think you unquestionably come away with the opinion that yes..it is a cable service as defined by the cable act.
The act doesn't specify that it has to come over COAXIAL cable..but rather, that if a company is engaged in the business of providing TELEVISION service..that it's subject to these regulations. How could AT&T not come to that same conclusion internally? Personally, I think they did..and just decided..to he** with it..to he** with the laws..they would just do it anyway.
I'm sorry to say, but this is just one part of my personal displeasure with this company..and how they operate.
They're just so..well, UN Verizon like..aren't they?
I think some would use the word..bullies. And, I think it's just all blowing up in their face..from this ruling to the dismal showing of only 51,000 poor souls now taking their uverse service nationwide so far.
I think that it gives real credence to the old saying that you'd better be careful what you work for, because it just might come right back at you.
Anyways..jeesh AT&T..how's about those vrads you now have hanging around here in Ct.
What will you be doing about them?
Perhaps negotiating with the powers that be..after the fact maybe?
Have fun. |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| reply to bamabrad
Re: TV isTV
So using your argument, a phone is a phone "doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house!"
That means "cable" companies and VoIP providers should start taxing you to death with 911, USF, "federal regulatory fee" recovery, local fees and taxes.
I say nonsense. |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
2 edits | Let's take fairness a step further
I mean if we're interested in fairness, how about forcing cable to open their HSI lines to ISP competition like the ILECs had to do with DSL? |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | FiOS (a fiber/coax hybrid)
FiOS is fiber to the premises. Why does only the network provider have to buy the mayor a swimming pool and not M$ or Google? |
|
PastTense5
join:2007-05-15 | reply to bmn
Re: TV isTV
The fact of the matter is that virtually nowhere is new cable competition coming in against existing providers. The existing regulations (build-out, etc) are a significant part of this problem. |
|
TheOtherPete
join:2001-06-28
Boyds, MD | Huh, what do think VZ/FIOS is doing? |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| reply to ColorBASIC
Re: Let's take fairness a step further
said by ColorBASIC :I mean if we're interested in fairness, how about forcing cable to open their HSI lines to ISP competition like the ILECs had to do with DSL? The LAWS are NOT saying that AT&T can NOT be engaged in the TV business. Just that they need to follow the LAWS as they now exist in order to be in that business.
Isn't following the LAW important to you? Don't you think that companies should have to do that?
While I may or may not agree with people in terms of voip versus traditional pots..the fact of the matter is..there isn't a LAW that says voip needs to be regulated in that same manner. You can't then just try to use street type justice to make things "fair". If the telco's want that changed..then let them seek to overturn THAT. To have rules put in place for THAT.
They can't then just come running along breaking the cable laws just because you or someone else see's it as unfair.
I mean.what kind of a world would we live in if things operated like that?
It's also well worth remembering how VERIZON approached this issue. They decided to follow the law, and start negotiating right away. Who's ahead of the game now?
AT&T's whole planning and corporate strategy re: Uverse has just been so sadly ill conceived IMHO.
And this is the result of it.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
waynemr
join:2002-01-28
Madison, WI | reply to ColorBASIC
Because historically the telecos were handed a Federally enforced monopoly funded for decades by tax-payer dollars, whereas most cable companies funded their own way. |
|
davl
join:2006-01-28
Furlong, PA
| reply to bamabrad
Re: TV isTV
said by bamabrad :...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house! Yes it does matter HOW. That is the issue here. Are you saying that over-the-air and satellite services should require a franchise fee? How about watching that episode of LOST that you missed but were able to watch on your computer through the internet? Is that TV? Or is the criteria that it must be real time?
Suppose for the sake of argument that an IP provider would offer a service that would store TV programs that you list on a menu (TIVO style)and that you would play back later from the internet. Is that TV? Are we going to have the "TV franchise police" checking the internet to see if you are watching a TV show through the internet and are not paying a franchise fee?
IPTV is as different from regular cable TV service as VOIP is from regular dial-up phone service. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to TheOtherPete
Not to get technical, but they are replacing existing lines with fiber...which just happens to also be able to handle CATV. While it is a new roll out, it's not exactly in the same realm of a new CATV upstart going into an established area with completely new lines.
--
Go Colts |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax. Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS. Just playing devils advocate here...
What makes a CATV provider a CATV provider and not a data provider? If any type of television programming is transmitted, shouldn't satellite providers also be bound by franchise agreements? If it's because the CATV lines run through the city's right aways, isn't the city double dipping on those same wires for both phone and catv franchise fees? If the data is coming across as IPTV, why wouldn't YouTube also be subject to the same requirements? It's just as much streaming video as IPTV. We're all for net neutrality and treating a byte as a byte regardless of where it comes from. If we are going to tax one byte coming from an IPTV video provider, shouldn't we tax all bytes from video providers?
That being said, heck yeah U-Verse should be subject to a franchise. They are a cable company no matter how they get their data. It doesn't matter though because ultimately they are going to pass on the franchise fee and any other costs to the consumer. Now that the deathstar is back and bigger then ever, that whole issue of limiting competition doesn't matter much.
--
Go Colts |
|
dmconwa
join:2007-04-19
Albuquerque, NM
| reply to bmn
You want a valid argument? I would say that MSO's have been able to go into the telephone market without the regulations that the ILEC's have.
Why should it be any different when the ILEC's want to go into the MSO's business?
The justification has always been that the incumbent provider takes on the regulations. In this case the MSO's are the incumbent providers of pay TV services.
The ILEC's should be able to have the opportunity to build their business and if they take a large enough share to negate an MSO's status as the incumbent provider then they should be regulated accordingly. |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
 ·AtlasOK
| reply to batterup
Re: FiOS (a fiber/coax hybrid)
Without content, no one would want/need a network provider. And without the providers, no one could see the content. Both sides have costs associated with their particular part of the "business".
Just like one wouldn't expect AT&T to fill some Chinese politician's pocket with money so Google can be seen in China, one can't expect Google to pay AT&T's costs for stringing wire in some US city. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
Re: TV isTV
said by bmn :Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax. Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS. And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case... Now if we can get some regulation on the Cable Cos on their telephone service, all would be equal.... |
|
