Verizon: Rules Schmules > Verizon is right in this case

Verizon is right in this case

Lets just say once u see franchise fees on fios u will know but for now its to early to tell since fios is still beta..

Lets think about this for a minute. The phone company doesn't want to go by the same rules. Without a franchise agreement they can do what they want.

They don't have to build I-Nets like the cable company does. How much fiber is Verizon giving the muni like the cable conpanies have to.

If you live in a lower class of town and Verizon doesn't see the profit in the area to wire it they won't wire it. In cable TV franchises there are stipulations that all areas have to be wired and done by a certain time. Where is Verizon's schedules to do your area? What if they don't want to do your house because the profit to run the fiber isn't there?

If your picture is bad guess what. Verizon gets to tell the franchise area to go to hell we don't have to follow those same rules you wrote the cable company. And what if you want a local channel and Verizon doesn't want to carry it. Out of luck again. Those pesky FCC rules don't apply to Verizon.

And Verizon doesn't pay franchise fees for cable tv. Then the cable companise will sue and say they don't have a fair playing field. Who pays for that litagation. You do from higher calbe bills and higher taxes. Do you think that Verizon will pay franchise fees for their High speed internet traffic or VOIP when they offer it. I don't think so.

Why do you think they picked all the places they have so far?

Why do you think you can get fast DSL in some areas and in some areas you can't. It isn't because your too far from the CO. It's the phone company that doesn't want to upgrade their plant or place a CO closer to give it to you.

Why is it that all of the sudden the phone companies are these great guys coming to the rescue of the lowly consumer?

JT where are you on this subject. Or do you just hate cable companies.

I'm right here, watching intently.

I don't hate cable companies - in fact, I've heard pretty good things about Starpower, and would probably be willing to try 'em. But alas, franchise agreements aren't the iron-clad guarantee you seem to think they are, and Starpower reneged on theirs.

Franchise agreements don't require cable companies to "give" anything to the community. In fact, when I was a cable subscriber, there was a line item on my bill for the franchise fee. All the cable company did was collect the fee from me, and pass it on to the franchise authority. The franchise fee doesn't affect cable company costs or pricing.

There was a separate line item on my cable bill for the INet too, and a line item in our county budget for the INet. In 2004, my community spent over $3 million dollars on the INet.

I don't consider the franchise fee or the INet "gifts" from the cable company. That would be like saying property tax revenue is a "gift" from the developer.

Verizon already has access to the ROW, which is what a franchise agreement grants to the franchisee, so it seems to me Verizon has a good argument.

The only requirement I hope Verizon is held to for TV, is broadcasting our PEGs.

I disagree. Let's try another example here.......Verizon (and other ILECs) claim that are already in the ground as telcos and therefore should not have to pay more tax or fee to local government on expanded services and video even though they are using public property to make more revenues. Cable ops make the same argument about alrady doing video and their new phone services are no additional burden to the streets....

"Burden" in not the point......although a superfically clever sound bite by corporations than have never wanted to carry their fair share of federal, state and local taxes....
or pay fair rates for commerical use of public propoerty for private profit.

What if I am a mall owner and I rent a storefront to someone who wants to sell shoes...we sign alease (franchise agreement) that rent will be 6% of his sales.
A few years later, the store decides it wants to sell socks....but claims that he doesn't have to pay 6% of his sock sales as rent because when he rented the realestate he was only selling shoes and the socks aren't taking up any more space......

Meanwhile the store owner selling pantyhose and stockings a few yards down the mall is having a fit because HE pays 6% rent on his stocking sales......

What if I wanted to build a stand and sell hotdogs in the city park. But I don;t want to pay rent for that and my reason is that because it would be so convenient for people to be able to buy food without leaving the park that the city should give it to me for free in the public interest of "food accessibility"

if everyone offering telephone services using PROW pays the same telephone tax rate, and everyone offering video using PROW pays the same fanchise fee rate, there is no competitive harm....it is a level playing field. And the owners of public property (you the citizen) are compensated fairly by the private entities who are using that public properry for commercial profit.

As to the issue of "pass-throughs" to consumers - don;t blame the local govt's...it was the feds and the states who allowed that little gem.....

As to the "exclusive" franchise argument.....

my City's Charter (circa 1916) forbids exclusive franchises of any kind.....in 1984 when we tried to offer two cable ocmpanies city-wide franchises, both refused to sign unless the city was split into 2 separate franchise areas and each company only had to serve one area.....

In a town in one of the Carolinas (Charlotte perhaps ?) two companies were given city-wide franchises and told that both had to build the whole town. They did - then found enough of a loophole that Company #1 served the lefthand side of the street and Company #2 the right hand side....a little collusion goes a loong way....an unanticipate-able loophole they drove a truck through. Local government - fortunately or unfortunately - does not tend to think in the same devious ways as some of these providers.