how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to woody7
Re: Hmmmm..... said by woody7:Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... Everything you said is irrelevant.
Bottom line is, and yes, Oliphant - hear it here, if Telco is going to offer IPTV services, the city has NO business standing in their way with franchise agreements.
This is not "cable television" like what comcast, TWC and the likes offer. Just as cable modem service is an informational service, so is IPTV. It's pure data transport over an IP backbone, therefore, under the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, this is an informational service.
Who is the city of Walnut Creek or anyone else for that matter to stick their forks in the telco company for hostage money?
To this day, there still remains a PHONE company and a CABLE TV company. They can call them selves COMMUNICATION companies or BROADBAND companies, but by all definitions, one is a TV company running over hyb.fiber-coax that offers alternative types of services (HSI and Telephony) and the other is a PHONE company running twisted pair (mostly) and offers HSI and now possibly a service which is like television service..
One has to play by franchise rules, the other is regulated by the PUC.
Governmnet, GO AWAY! | |
| This argument coming from a company that has insisted that cable is its primary competition and has bitched incessantly about a level playing field between cable and the bells and the unfair nature of a different regulatory treatment between the two.
Now they come back trying to play with the technicalities of regulatory definition to gain differential treatment, precisely the kind of regulatory BS a level playing field should mitigate.
Then they go back to funding astroturf orgs supporting voip companies paying into usf.
blech. | |
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:Who is the city of Walnut Creek or anyone else for that matter to stick their forks in the telco company for hostage money? You are familiar, perhaps, with the concept of government? All money is theirs except a little which they let you keep.
And, really, is anyone surprised that some place in California would demand special treatment? | | |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to fiberguy
Well, the critical distinction will be whether or not the system is a closed video service.
If the telephone company is providing closed video services using public right of ways, then the city probably does have an argument that the more restrictive video franchise may apply to that telephone company.
Telephone franchises meanwhile are less restrictive and issued automatically, part of the reason the reverse argument over VoIP does not fly quite as well (but still could be applied, just not by the city because of how phone franchises are granted).
The exact language is generally "cable, fiber, or other wires or lines that are within the public-rights-of-way" so twisted pair would be covered just as well as hybrid fiber-coax. It is the common carrier status of telephone companies that actually causes complications, not the manner in which they provided their video service, but when the video is retransmitted directly to video subscribers, I think Title II exemptions of the Cable Act may no longer apply.
--
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 | |
|
