yuutomo
The Wonder Kitter
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT | hey congress
seems Indiana did it right, why can't you? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Lets see if I get this straight...
This 'video franschise law' promoted by teleco (AT&T) to deploy Uverse worked. I think AT&T also strong armed the state with some threats of pulling its call centers out.
Give it a little bit of time...costs will be as high as the rest of the country.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Couch Potato
What?
Premium
join:2004-08-29
Evansville, IN
·Insight Communicat..
| said by en102  :I think AT&T also strong armed the state with some threats of pulling its call centers out. Last year, AT&T opened a NEW call center here in E-ville, making use of the huge, old Sam's Club building, and creating a butt load of new jobs.
I am not a fan of AT&T, just stating that fact. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| said by Couch Potato :said by en102 :I think AT&T also strong armed the state with some threats of pulling its call centers out. Last year, AT&T opened a NEW call center here in E-ville, making use of the huge, old Sam's Club building, and creating a butt load of new jobs. I am not a fan of AT&T, just stating that fact. That's what sealed the deal. Even without the call center, more techs would have to be there for Uverse. Indiana is about the only place where prices have went down. Since AT&T employees get 20-40% off, is that the decrease though? Sure it is part of it. Prices sure as hell aren't going down in Florida.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
Yauch
join:2005-06-24
1 edit | reply to en102
said by en102 :This 'video franschise law' promoted by teleco (AT&T) to deploy Uverse worked. I think AT&T also strong armed the state with some threats of pulling its call centers out. Give it a little bit of time...costs will be as high as the rest of the country. The strong arm tactics were also paired with a promise to the state to deploy basic DSL to 100 unsevered rural communities "within the next year". A promise they did actually uphold, in December of 2006. The "explosion" of new broadband connections may have taken place, but there's no indication of any ongoing expansion of services taking place.
Edit: Oops - Not 2007 |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to yuutomo
Re: hey congress
said by yuutomo :seems Indiana did it right, why can't you? It worked because with statewide franchising it took all the little towns and cities out of the extortion game where the local pols held things up unless their pet projects were funded.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Duopoly
Is creating a state endorsed duopoly really good? It may make sense to allow telcos to do video, but it makes no sense to lock all other competitors out of the broadband market, as the FCC has done with it's elimination of the wholesale market.
Will a duopoly behave much better than a monopoly? This is one step forward and two steps backward.
-Dane |
|
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
| It was a trade off.
There's allot of farming communities and to get them "up to speed" the state made a deal the the death star. Now the question is will the empire change the deal and leave a garrison of solders behind. 
--
PentiumD 930 DC 3.0GHz - 4GB PC2-4200 - 300GB SATA - BFG Nvidia 7950GT OC 512MB
- Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600(1101MCE) - Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to DaneJasper
I understand where you're coming from Dane, but the "success" in this situation, was due to state legislation and franchise reform, not the easing of the wholesale market by the FCC, which a different topic that has been bantered to death around here. |
|
MDReferee
Federal Flack
Premium
join:2001-10-21
Germantown, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Source...
I normally don't comment too much on the news around here, but this totally reads like an AT&T Press Release.
It would be one thing if the BBR story quoted a newspaper "story" written by a reporter (which has it's own caveats, but is supposed to at least appear to be objective). This BBR News story, however, references a column. Big difference.
The columnist is the Director of the "Bureau of Business Research" at Ball State. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I wonder how much AT&T contributes to the Bureau of Business Research at Ball State.
I know it's a touchy topic, but Verizon is managing to deploy FiOS in many areas without a statewide franchise. The two schools of thought, of course, are the consumer protections provided by a strong and empowered local franchise authority versus the burden on the free market imposed by local governments.
I don't have the answer as to which is the "correct" way to do it, but I at least felt like I needed to point out the problem of pointing to this column as journalism, which it is not.
--
If I didn't see it... it didn't happen! |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| reply to openbox9
Re: Duopoly
said by openbox9 :I understand where you're coming from Dane, but the "success" in this situation, was due to state legislation and franchise reform, not the easing of the wholesale market by the FCC, which a different topic that has been bantered to death around here. Competition is what's been killed by the FCC. I understand that the state believes that they've created some new competition in TV by allowing the telco to deliver video, but my point was that it's just more steps down a road the US shouldn't be on.
-Dane |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to DaneJasper
How does this amount to a state-endorsed duopoly? The 2006 Telecom Reform Act, from what I can tell, doesn't say that just AT&T can enter the video market. All it does it make it a whole lot easier for new companies to get franchising. Before, anybody who wanted to provide video service had to deal with greedy municipal officials who demand a chunk of profits. Now, laying new wire in public rights of way is less expensive because you only have to deal with the state government.
Just because AT&T has been the biggest benefactor of this law so far doesn't mean we have a duopoly by any means, unless there is some reason why a third company couldn't enter the market by obtaining a statewide franchise in Indiana. Plus, isn't two video providers still better than one choice-the cable company? |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| The duopoly I'm referring to is the cable and telco - as created by the FCC's forbearance decisions with regards to the requirement to wholesale next generation and today's DSL networks.
The state's video franchise just makes it easier for AT&T to deliver video over this network. My point is that the elimination of competition in wireline Internet access will not likely prove to be good for consumers in the long run, as it creates simply two competitors where previously there were thousands across the country.
Here's some thought on where we're headed, from: »www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a27bdb16-5ecd···340.html
"The US is facing a competitive crisis in broadband deployment. Yet as it continues to fall behind its competitors, the Federal Communications Commission continues to live in denial. The more it has “deregulated” telecommunications, the worse (comparatively) broadband competition and service have become. When it was 10th in the world George W. Bush, US president, said that “10th is 10 spots too low”. The nation is now 16th. Broadband in the US is 12 times the price in Japan and six times the price in France."
See also: »www.ectaportal.com/en/upload/Fil···inal.pdf
"Countries with the highest levels of broadband penetration in Europe were mostly characterised by strong competition through a combination of local loop unbundling and cable. Lower ranked countries often lacked significant unbundling competition."
My only point is that with the FCC's decisions to block competitive access to AT&T and Verizon's networks, they've signed the death warrants of many competitive ISPs, and that this will not serve consumers will in the long term.
-Dane |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to DaneJasper
Maybe I would see things differently if I was a CEO of an ISP providing DSL using an ILEC's last mile infrastructure, but I don't see competition beings killed by the FCC. You can't say that competition has been killed off by the FCC and then turn around and say that states have created new competition. |
|
goofy01
join:2004-02-05
Hammond, IN
·Comcast
| Not all true
As a resident in Indiana, I haven't seen any lower prices for broadband. All I have seen is less services due to the new law. This new law removed the requirements of local public access channels. Due to this, important public meetings, like city and county council meetings are no longer shown, since the new law said they didn't have to show them anymore. Comcast and WOW both cut off the broadcast once they were allowed to. My city has had both companies here for quite a while and no one around here has seen any price reductions. |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| reply to openbox9
Re: Duopoly
said by openbox9 :Maybe I would see things differently if I was a CEO of an ISP providing DSL using an ILEC's last mile infrastructure, but I don't see competition beings killed by the FCC. You can't say that competition has been killed off by the FCC and then turn around and say that states have created new competition. Ya, that's sort of my point. The state is saying that they've created competition in video by making franchise easier - but the whole concept has come at the expense of competition in DSL and cable. I see this as less competition, but the state says there is more. In a narrow segment (TV) there is one new entrant, while there is a huge sucking sound in the broadband access area that everyone is ignoring.
-Dane |
|
steelyken
join:2002-03-04
Plainfield, IN | reply to goofy01
Re: Not all true
Also a resident, and I see the same yearly increases as always. Where is the proof? |
|
eternal
join:2006-09-14
Knox, IN
| Where's the beef
I am also a resident but unlike the others I am one of those who live "in the sticks" I finally gave in and ordered satellite broadband (and I use the term broadband lightly).
There are no other options. ATT did expand their dsl coverage but only to a new housing development consisting of higher class homes. This new development is FARTHER away than I am by miles so I have no other choice the way I see it. Cable hasn't even tried to expand. |
|
saveaccess
@mindspring.com
| Read the actual report - not the news articles
The 'academic' study/review this article refers was written by the 'Digital Policy Institute' of Ball State University. AT&T helped fund and support the study - only fitting since they wrote the bulk of the Indiana State Video Franchise Law.
An Interim Report on the Economic Impact of Telecommunications Reform in Indiana
»www.bsu.edu/digitalpolicy/media/···ster.pdf
I suggest you read the study carefully, it cites many studies by industry funded think tanks (Heartland Institute, etc) and actually provides little research of its own. It also relies heavily on those questionable FCC and GAO reports on broadband penetration. The 20% decline in pricing is actually from a reference to the GAO report. Later in the report, the writers cite anecdotal evidence of a few subscribers negotiating price breaks over the phone when they threaten to switch providers (there's some solid research data).
There are also numerous and notable exclusions: public right-of-way, build-out, red-lining and PEG are never mentioned anywhere in the report - these the most controversial issues of any state-wide video franchise legislation. The phrase "Public Interest" is nowhere to be found, though "consumer interest" appears in a sentence celebrating the "hands-off" regulatory framework of the legislation. The closing paragraph pretty much sums it up; "In conclusion, this is the beginning of the parade, not the end. . . . For now, the digital welcome mat is out in Indiana". I'm not sure why anyone would want corporations to come and wipe their feet all over their state, much less give them a parade for doing it - but there it is.
In short - this is a 100 page puff piece to prop up AT&T and probably something can leverage in their current fight in Tennessee. Ball State should be ashamed - this reeks of academic research for hire.
For another take, this is a good read:
Blind Alleys
»riedelcommunications.blogspot.com/
- saveaccess.org |
|
Mumbly Joe
@charter.com
| That's an ATT Press Release.
The validity of the article unravels pretty quickly when you scratch the surface. The statewide franchising, which gave ATT a "leg-up" only permitted them to pee on the rights of citizens and pad the wallets of state legislatures. No commitment to provide annual build-out requirements (old cable franchising), no guarantee to serve areas they don't think are financially feasible, and no local franchising fees, etc. etc.
Oh and enjoy your community access (read free-speech TV) after you have waited 90 secs to find it 90 sec to load in reduced resolution and no longer live. Visit Texas or North Carolina and ask them what statewide franchising has done for pricing, redlining, or Access. Remember the old cable equation: "No provider sees profit until they serve at least 50% of the homes passed." Where is ATT in your state? They have a sneaky plan up their sleeves and it has to do with where TV will be in 5 years. Can you guess? |
|
