 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to fiberguy
Re: Hmmmm..... 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 |
