Verizon: Rules Schmules > Franchise = graft

Franchise = graft

That's the fault of lazy and greedy politicians who lack integrity, not the fault of the franchise agreement. Often those agreements are the only leverage communities have when debating deployment issues.....

An agreement is always blameless - it's words on a peace of paper. But an agreement is only as good as the people that enter it, and if it happens to be politicians and cable companies it ends up like above. So to me it doesn't seem like more franchise agreements among some dishonest hacks is the answer...

If the bridge sucks, I blame the engineers....not the bridge. If that's what you're saying, I agree.

That doesn't mean bridges don't have a function, which seems to be your next jump....

reply to russotto

reply to Karl Bode
If politicians were the only ones that could build bridges me thinks we'd all be taking ferries.

reply to marigolds
Correct - the problem for Verizon is that they want to wriggle out of the clauses that mean they have to provide universal. coverage. At present they haven't figured out how to service multi unit dwellings, or at the very least the technology is still being tested. So in almost all the towns they are deployed in, deployment of IPTV is prevented by their lack of universal coverage.

noz

reply to marigolds
Massachusetts has plenty of exclusive franchise agreements. In fact, only one Massachusetts town (Wakefield) has more than one cable company operating.

Federal law prohibits exclusive cable franchises.

Just because there is only one cable company in a town does not mean the company has an exclusive franchise. It just means that no other company thinks it would be profitable to create an overbuild in that city.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association

You're right, I should have done more research on the subject before posting. I've found the relevant info on the mass.gov website.

reply to russotto
The agreements may not be exclusive de jure, but they are typically exclusive de facto; any competing provider trying to get a franchise gets a cold shoulder from the local politicians, in most cases.

reply to russotto
That is not true at all in my experience as a cable regulator. There is no reason for local politicians to give potential competition the cold shoulder. Instead, the people responsible for franchise oversight are often actively recruiting competing companies. And it's worse than pulling teeth. You can end up spending all of that money to negotiate a franchise and have a vote on it, even put up the money for the vote, and then have the company not sign the agreement.

We already had that happen twice around here. Everything was all set on our end and the company backed out at the last minute and would not sign the deal.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association

reply to russotto
Around here, in Comcast territory, RCN (before it went under) was actively attempting to obtain franchises. At the active urging of Comcast (based in Philadelphia), they were denied everywhere they went.