 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to PGHammer
Re: Verizon Goes to Court to bring FIOS TV to Mont County MD said by PGHammer:Last, but certainly FAR from least, Douglas Duncan's campaign for governor of Maryland is deader than the political career of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend... ummmm... wasn't that cbrain  's point? |
|
| reply to PGHammer
said by PGHammer:In Howard County, Verizon is deploying FIOS TV throughout the county as it modernizes the existing copper plant; Here in HoCo, FIOS TV is the best thing to happen since Voom satellite (RIP) started a few years ago. It's incredible, and I would never consider going back to Comcast.
Hopefully you guys in Montgomery County will get things worked out eventually!
-John |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | said by jgantert:said by PGHammer:Hopefully you guys in Montgomery County will get things worked out eventually! -John Only if we can elect schook kids age K-3 into office --
---Barney |
|
lmccaguePremium
join:2005-03-24
Silver Spring, MD | reply to TheOtherPete
Verizon's problems with Montgomery County has virtually stopped all fiber depolyment in the county. The fight is over providing Fios TV, but there are parts of the county that can't get the internet service because of the stopped deployment. I live in one of those areas. I think my problem is that the CO I am connected to is in Prince George's County. Here's hoping that they are still moving forward in that county so at least my CO might get converted which would give me hope to at least get the internet service. But I have to say that my current services are coming from RCN and I have been nothing but happy with them. Thier Cable and Internet service have been top notch. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by lmccague:Verizon's problems with Montgomery County has virtually stopped all fiber depolyment in the county. The fight is over providing Fios TV, but there are parts of the county that can't get the internet service because of the stopped deployment. I live in one of those areas. I think my problem is that the CO I am connected to is in Prince George's County. Here's hoping that they are still moving forward in that county so at least my CO might get converted which would give me hope to at least get the internet service. But I have to say that my current services are coming from RCN and I have been nothing but happy with them. Thier Cable and Internet service have been top notch. How cleanly did VZ stop fios buildout in Montgomery county? Muletape and fiber coils hanging untouched for a year or 2 now? |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to TheOtherPete
Verizon posted the official filing on their website:
»www22.verizon.com/about/communit···ling.pdf
It ends with a prayer for relief. Shall we all bow our heads and recite it together? |
|
 hambone42Peace, through superior firepowerPremium
join:2002-02-02
Manassas, VA | reply to jgantert
said by jgantert:said by PGHammer:In Howard County, Verizon is deploying FIOS TV throughout the county as it modernizes the existing copper plant; Here in HoCo, FIOS TV is the best thing to happen since Voom satellite (RIP) started a few years ago. It's incredible, and I would never consider going back to Comcast. Hopefully you guys in Montgomery County will get things worked out eventually! -John Sure, life's good here in HoCo *if* you live in one of the VZ "anointed" areas. I'm over in Long Reach and have been patiently waiting for a year, ever since I saw the mainline fibers get laid on Snowden River.
I'm going to get my FiOS by moving to Laurel next week. When I asked the property manager about the cones in the front yard of the new house, he said "that's the Verizon fiber that just got put in last month." Buh-bye Comcast...
...and for you poor folks over in MC, you might consider a small relocation clockwise around the beltway if the litigation gets stalled. 
--
Son, there's only one thing you need to know: HEMI |
|
|
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to TheOtherPete
eweek.com published some comments from county officials (as well as comments from VZ, but they echoed the comments from VZ previously posted in this topic so I didn't include them).
Why has the gazette.net been silent?
said by Wayne Rash, eweek.com, June 30 :
...
Officials in the Maryland county suggest that the real reasons for Verizon's lawsuit are more to do with the communications bill currently pending in Congress. "I think it really isn't about Montgomery County, it's about Verizon's attempt to influence federal legislation," Marilyn Praisner said in an interview with eWEEK. Praisner is vice president of the Montgomery County Council, and committee chair for the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, which includes cable television issues.
"Verizon just doesn't want to play by the same rules: They haven't submitted a franchise application," Praisner said, adding that when Verizon representatives appeared before her committee, she was told that the company would submit a franchise application, but so far that hasn't happened.
Praisner said that if Verizon didn't like the standard franchise agreement that other cable operators have signed, they could have red-lined the parts they didn't like, and submitted the changed version for negotiation, but she said the company hasn't done that, either.
"I don't think it's rocket science," Praisher said. "Verizon really doesn't want to play by those same rules. This is about a cable franchise; that's the arena in which they want to play."
Montgomery County's chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, said in a statement that the county's franchise process is in compliance with federal law, and that the county is committed to video competition in the county.
"The County intends to vigorously defend its lawful processes, which are designed to create fair and open competition for the benefit and protection of consumers while treating all cable providers equally," Romer said in the statement.
...
»www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1···5,00.asp
|
|
 PaulGo
join:2005-01-29
Gaithersburg, MD | From the Washington Post:
MARYLAND BRIEFING
Saturday, July 1, 2006; Page B04
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Cable TV Rules Defended
Montgomery County officials defended their system of regulating cable television providers yesterday and said that Verizon Communications, a telephone company now venturing into video, doesn't want to operate under rules that apply to others.
The comments came in response to a lawsuit filed Thursday in which Verizon alleges that Montgomery's regulatory system violates federal law and the First Amendment and prevents Montgomery's consumers from increased competition that would lower rates.
Montgomery Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Romer said that Verizon had not submitted a formal franchise application. "They are challenging a process which applies to their competitors but which they have not yet officially entered," he said in a statement.
Council member Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County), who chairs the committee that oversees cable franchises, said the lawsuit represents "Verizon's attempt to influence federal legislation. It is about eradicating the role of local government."
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···615.html |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:How cleanly did VZ stop fios buildout in Montgomery county? Muletape and fiber coils hanging untouched for a year or 2 now? one indication would be the location list verizon publishes where they are installing fiber. A few months ago (March? April?), the number of locations listed for Montgomery county dropped to less than a tenth of what it had been before. The last few months, Montgomery has barely had 10 or 15 streets listed; Howard, PG, etc. all have 100-200 streets listed.
My guess is verizon stopped the montgomery county buildout almost completely and is probably just finishing installs that are almost done. |
|
| reply to JTRockville
Thanks for posting this JT. There is a lot of information in it that legal complaints and newspaper articles typically don't have (85 pages). I will review it after the holiday. In view of the First Amendment allegations, I am surprised they don't have a prospective customer included as a Plaintiff. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:said by PGHammer:... because of the financial troubles plaguing RCN, Comcast naturally doesn't see them as a threat, despite their having a countywide franchise. Minor correction: RCN does *not* have a countywide franchise. RCN is restricted to their current footprint (parts of Silver Spring and Gaithersburg, as I recall). Should RCN ever want to expand, they'll have to renegotiate their franchise with the county. Don, my point was that I don't see RCN expanding outside the part of Montgomery County they currently serve *because* of their financial woes. Therefore, Comcast doesn't see them as a real competitive threat. Actually, I don't see Comcast expending much in the way of energy to fight against Verizon *anywhere* the two companies butt heads (not in either Maryland *or* Virginia, and certainly not in New England), which severely undercuts the *caught between two giants* argument Montgomery County's politicos tried to make in eWeek. Now CableVision is worried, and TWC to an extent is worried, but Comcast largely isn't.
Could it be that *Montgomery County* is worried about that bill going through Congress a lot more than either Comcast *or* Verizon? |
|
lmccaguePremium
join:2005-03-24
Silver Spring, MD | reply to JTRockville
I find the comments made by Praisner and the council a bit like they are scrambling saying Verizon doesn't want to play by the same rules. Verizon's point is they tried to work with the council but feel that those rules to begin with are against the law at least according to thier suit.
Thanks for the link JT... It was an easier read than I expected.
Montgomery County has a long sad history when it comes to cable, going back to the early 80's when it was just HBO over microwave.
I am curious how other jusridictions handle thier cable franchise agreements compared to MoCo. Is MoCo that far off the wall? |
|
| said by lmccague:I am curious how other jusridictions handle thier cable franchise agreements compared to MoCo. Is MoCo that far off the wall? Right - I would like to know that as well; how is it possible that VZ negotiated agreements with several neighboring counties but can't seem to come to an agreement with MoCo? Is what MoCo asking for that much out of the norm or what?
Even if this lawsuit is just posturing for the federal legislation it still hurts MoCo, nothing like being used as a pawn in the game. |
|
cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD Reviews:
 ·Future Nine Corp..
·Google Voice
·Verizon FiOS
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TheOtherPete
Has Verizon initiated litigation against any other jurisdiction? How does Montgomery County’s “system of regulating cable television providers” benefit cable users more than neighboring jurisdictions where Verizon has franchises?
Montgomery County has been administering a cable franchise over 20 years now. What are their major successes or accomplishments for users? What are the odds MC will settle this case before real discovery? |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
4 edits | MC was able to attract an overbuilder. If RCN/Pepco (aka Starpower) hadn't reneged, a pretty significant portion of the county (probably everyone but Rockville) would have two cable companies to choose from by now. The district (in part? or all of it?) has an overbuilder too, but I don't think any other jurisdiction in the area was able to sign a deal with an overbuilder.
Indeed, Starpower's attempt to enter PG county was as ugly as VZ's attempt to enter MC.
Three things caught my eye when I skimmed the filing:
• VZ says "state and federal law authorize Verizon to construct and upgrade it's fiber-optic telecommunications network in Montgomery County - an authorization identical to a permit or license - before making FiOS TV available to local customers". Does this mean Rockville's permit fees and extra franchise requirement are illegal? If so, I think Verizon should have sued Rockville too.
(pdf page 2, item 4)
• VZ says MC is trying to collect the franchise fee on everything - not just tv. As far as I know, MC collects the franchise fee on tv only from Starpower and Comcast. Would MC really expect VZ to pay fees on everything else?
(pdf page 5, item 7)
• On May 19 2005, Jane Lawton and Jerry Pasternak "told Verizon that it should not file such an application, but instead should wait until the County negotiators had approved the principle terms of a franchise agreement". This is one of the situations Verizon complained about in the testimony they gave to either the FCC or the Senate Commerce Committee (I can't remember which).
(pdf page 27, item 66) |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | JT,
I beleive there is some potential the petition filing will actually slow down any aproval process.....
But then again, it's taken well over a year already....
I'm hoping that Vz. is successful in all thier efforts with this petition since all the county residents may benefit in the long run.
--
---Barney |
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville:On May 19 2005, Jane Lawton and Jerry Pasternak "told Verizon that it should not file such an application, but instead should wait until the County negotiators had approved the principle terms of a franchise agreement". This is one of the situations Verizon complained about in the testimony they gave to either the FCC or the Senate Commerce Committee (I can't remember which). (pdf page 27, item 66) I find this whole thing confusing. Before you wrote this, it had been my understanding that the local franchise authority had to formally accept the application. ("Application Accepted for Filing" in this flowchart.) This holdup was briefly mentioned at a TAC meeting in February when the Cable Office said that it was the MC Executive that had not taken that step. (See 5rd paragraph of Negotiations Going From None To Worse.) |
|
JohnAPremium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville:• VZ says "state and federal law authorize Verizon to construct and upgrade it's fiber-optic telecommunications network in Montgomery County - an authorization identical to a permit or license - before making FiOS TV available to local customers". Does this mean Rockville's permit fees and extra franchise requirement are illegal? If so, I think Verizon should have sued Rockville too. They have sunk costs in MoCo, and the recovery of those costs involves acquiring the TV franchise. If no one from the county keeps that dialog going, who are they supposed to negotiate with. Verizon obviously had their negotiators in the area dealing with the other counties.
It's 4 or 5 months, since the deploy was cut back to no new COs, clean up what's started. If the county actually cared about competition, they'd have taken that as a signal, that they're not involved enough. Instead, they acted as if they had no idea that deployment was stopping.
They're are no sunk costs in Rockville. Rockville has backed off that 2nd franchise talk, couching it in other terminology. Whether the fees are out of line will show up down the road. I doubt that Verizon would have requested an 85% reduction in some of them, if they didn't feel that they were excessive. It's also been reported somewhere, that Rockville is twisting the guidelines of their oft quoted consultants report, which they claim set those fees.
said by JTRockville:• VZ says MC is trying to collect the franchise fee on everything - not just tv. As far as I know, MC collects the franchise fee on tv only from Starpower and Comcast. Would MC really expect VZ to pay fees on everything else? I don't think we can decifer any of this, as it all would have been during private negotiations.
said by JTRockville:• On May 19 2005, Jane Lawton and Jerry Pasternak "told Verizon that it should not file such an application, but instead should wait until the County negotiators had approved the principle terms of a franchise agreement". This is one of the situations Verizon complained about in the testimony they gave to either the FCC or the Senate Commerce Committee (I can't remember which). I thought that Verizon was saying that the county was using this position as a stalling tactic, to drag negotiations. It does seem from what we've seen elsewhere, that this is how it's done. From the first filing, public knowledge of the negotiations is available, and the incumbent can enter the discussions through the press and/or courts. These franchises seem to be set in stone when they're filed. It's a more mechanical process of filing, approving, voting and granting the franchise, all following in quick succession.
What's coming out of MoCo officials now, is certainly CYA doublespeak. |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by JohnA:It's 4 or 5 months, since the deploy was cut back to no new COs, clean up what's started. If the county actually cared about competition, they'd have taken that as a signal, that they're not involved enough. Instead, they acted as if they had no idea that deployment was stopping. To be honest, they act as if they have no idea that deployment actually started. When I point out that some people in the county already have FiOS (in other words, the upgrade has been completed), the reaction is invariably a puzzled look, an then an "Oh, you mean internet." |
|
