said by JTRockville :

It just doesn't seem that out of the ordinary. I listened to some of the testimony given before the senate commerce committee last year, and there were tons of things communities tried to negotiate for that weren't allowable under existing federal law.

It seems to me that Verizon tried to pick this fight (at the expense of our community) rather than negotiate in good faith. Of course, the county executive played games too, but I don't see it as a one-sided event.

said by JTRockville :

But CableCo's proceeded with deployment in the meantime.

said by jammmin :

Montgomery County construction schedule looks pathetic as usual. I am sure it will not get any better until the Montgomery City Council actually votes to grants Verizon a franchise.
...

said by JTRockville :

Verizon was hoping for a ruling in their favor when they sued us, but they got sent back to the bargaining table.

said by JTRockville :

The desire for a precedent?

said by SD6 :

I hope you will contribute the benefit of your experience to future discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of letting a local jurisdiction have complete control of their residents' ability to receive competitive CATV service.

said by cbrain :

Forces of nature? Natural disaster. Technological challenges?

said by madrhino :

This has been an extremely entertaining thread.

said by JTRockville :

Maybe my comments stand out because I'm the only one who hasn't (yet) concluded that our legislators are out to get us.

said by guppy_fish :

I'm surprised, you have been the most vocal proponent of MC in this 30 page thread

said by JTRockville :

No, I didn't read it in it's entirety. I thought this dispute was about network services.

It's good to know the mediator sided with Verizon on at least one issue.

said by JTRockville :

The county doesn't charge Comcast or RCN FF on anything but video, and I can't imagine they'd even bother trying to charge Verizon since they know they can't. I'm not sure the mediator had to do anything to "get MC in-line with other counties", since this is already their practice.

said by PaulGo :

But did Verizon cave in and give into all of MC's demands?

said by meb :

...
Unless they explain what happened and can justify some gain, I will vote against every incumbent.

said by ppeyser :

The two sides have reached an agreement and Fios TV will be offerred in Montgomery County in 3-4 Months.

said by JTRockville :

I think my councilmember lives in a black hole. No fantasy, but no action. :hmm:

said by JTRockville :

Interesting footnote in Praisner's testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (November 2005). While I agree with most of what she said (in theory, anyway), I could take issue with quite a few of her assertions - particularly in regards "ensuring compliance" since our local process is geared toward documenting non-compliance, not enforcing compliance.

But in regards to this topic....

Could it be (as Don wondered in his blog) that she was not aware that our negotiators asked Verizon not to file an application, causing a delay of ~1.5 years?

»www.natoa.org/public/articles/Na···mony.pdf

said by JTRockville :

Did you get that info from the court? Can you post the link again (I searched, but this topic is just too big!).

said by JTRockville :

It's a shame it took litigation for Verizon to take that first step, but it certainly is good news.

said by cbrain 's letter from Verizon :

Verizon has filed its formal application for a cable franchise with the county. Both sides now will work through the issues with the mediator. We will work hard to resolve the core legal issues and bring real cable competition to the county.

said by TheOtherPete :

...
(1) He is doesn't know the truth
or
(2) He doesn't mind spreading misinformation
...

said by JohnA :

Same old we're 100% right attitude, as I read it.

said by cbrain :

Can anyone let us know where even 1 candidate stands on this issue?

As always, thanks for your message. There has been quite a bit of misinformation making the rounds on this issue, so I appreciate knowing of your concerns about what you’re hearing.

First, let me make one thing absolutely clear: I want the competition that would be provided by Verizon and other cable service providers. I firmly believe that competition improves services across the county, and experience has proven that competition is an effective way to reduce price and increase customer service. That’s been my position since I started in this job, and it continues to be my position today.

A bit of background may be necessary. Within the last two years, Verizon conducted a massive construction effort across our county to lay down the infrastructure that would provide Verizon’s Fiber Optic Service (FIOS). The sheer scope of this project created disruptions in communities across our county – such as extended power outages, torn lawns, and closed roads – but working with Verizon we eventually resolved most of those problems.

Simultaneously with Verizon’s build-out, the company was in discussions with the County about applying for a franchise agreement to offer cable service to county residents. However, Montgomery County isn’t the only county with which Verizon does business; presently, Verizon is hoping to make its services available in hundreds of counties and communities, each of which requires Verizon to submit a franchise application.

I understand and appreciate the time and effort Verizon must invest in applying for these franchise agreements; yet, counties and communities – including ours – have these franchise processes in place for a reason, and present carriers have had to navigate these paths as well. Frankly, I was concerned that once Verizon deployed its FIOS infrastructure, it might push to circumvent the county’s franchise process, or push the county for legal changes that would provide Verizon with a more advantageous relationship with the county than is available for other cable providers. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what has happened.

Verizon has repeatedly stated that it wants to provide competition, yet it has not applied for a franchise in Montgomery County. Instead, it has mounted a concerted legal and lobbying effort in an attempt to influence revisions in local, state, and federal law. In some jurisdictions, Verizon has already managed to leverage changes in local laws and regulations to ensure a better franchising deal for itself. Verizon is also lobbying for similar legislation at the state and federal level, which would override both state and local law and create an environment more favorable to its programs, but may not be as good for the consumer.

Advocating for legislative and regulatory change is certainly Verizon’s prerogative; unfortunately, it is using Montgomery County as leverage in its lobbying effort. Rather than inform the county that it would not be submitting a franchise application, Verizon instead sued Montgomery County, claiming the county’s franchising process violates federal law – the first lawsuit of its kind in the nation.

I would like nothing more than to sit down with Verizon and discuss ways the county might accommodate Verizon within the parameters of our existing laws and franchising process. At the moment, however, the only conversations taking place are occurring in the courts. I don’t think that’s in the best interest of the county, Verizon, or the consumer.

I will continue to advocate for increased competition and a level playing field for all cable providers – and there are a number of ways, apart from lawsuits, to assure that cable customer get the best product at the best price. We need to have the policy discussions to advocate for change at the appropriate level – state, local or federal level – rather than working to circumvent the process at increasingly higher levels of government. I’m not sure, for example, that a blanket of federal legislation would necessarily be the way the go – but I’m also not sure that it’s good business to require a vendor that has already made a multi-billion dollar infrastructure investment negotiate thousands of separate franchise agreements.

I believe we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement that benefits all three interested parties – the county, Verizon, and you. But that can’t happen until we get past the legal wrangling that is preventing such a conversation from ever happening in the first place. It is my hope that Verizon will drop its lawsuit against the county, file a franchise application, and get back to work trying to bring you more and better options for cable and internet services.

Thanks again for your message.

Warmest regards,
Mike

said by jaums :

The jury is sequestered? Neither side has released any official information about how things are going?

said by JTRockville :

... Either way, $400,000 is astronomical. I hope neither of 'em have to pay it.

said by Liz :

I understand Verizon must pay an application fee over $400,000. What will this fee be for a smaller company like Cavalier?

said by Liz :

Nothing on Verizons's or Montgomery County's site about settlement.

said by ppeyser :

The service will be offered in 3-4 months and the same is true with Cavalier.

said by pstauff :

I believe you are correct.

said by PaulGo :

Settled could mean their is a framework set up by the judge that will allow Verizon and Montgomery County to come to a resolution of the issues within 3 to 4 months.

said by PaulGo :

an interesting article an the municipalities versus the telecoms

said by ppeyser :

:)The two sides have reached an agreement and Fios TV will be offerred in Montgomery County in 3-4 Months. Also Cavalier will offer internet TV at about the same time.

said by ppeyser :

:)The two sides have reached an agreement and Fios TV will be offerred in Montgomery County in 3-4 Months. Also Cavalier will offer internet TV at about the same time.

said by cbrain :

I'd like to get comment from each incumbent on past complaint levels and trends and what they expect to get from Verizon over a Fairfax like franchise that justifies the delay.

said by jaums :

...
The County is currently in negotiations with Verizon on a cable franchise agreement. The County Council is committed to promoting competition among cable providers; however, the Executive Branch is responsible for the negotiations with Verizon. Once an agreement is reached, the Council will review the agreement as soon as possible.

As President of the Council, I appreciate hearing your concerns. Your views are important to Councilmembers and help us in our deliberations on matters that affect the residents of Montgomery County.
...

said by JTRockville :

Didn't the NY case already settle that issue? I guess VZ will need a similar ruling in every state of their footprint in order to upgrade their facilities.
:mad:

said by Liz :

Isn't this PEG issue kind of an asterisk thing? I don't know if I've ever watched one, but if it is really only $.12/month I don't mind paying.

said by JTRockville :

Have you ever heard customers complain about the high price of PEGs? I've heard plenty of complaints about Comcast cable in this area, but I have never heard anyone cite the price of PEGs as the reason they'd like to cancel service. Nor have I heard anyone who complains about the price of cable service attribute their complaint to the price of PEGs.

I think the overwhelming majority of our citizens think PEGs are a community benefit. At 12 cents per channel, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a better bargain.

said by cbrain :

Bye the way, why isn't your situation a form of redlining. I'm sure a majority of the county gets adequate internet service from Comcast. At one of the hearings, the women from the Bethesda Chamber testified she had a personal Comcast rep. Did she pay more than you? It has been over 4 years since you ask for county assistance with Comcast. What did they accomplish for you? Did you get a personal Comcast rep? How much extra has your alternative cost?

said by cbrain :

PEG's are only one of the many costs. I think Verizon's application fee is over $400,000.

said by TheOtherPete :

I don't think pass-thru taxes are revenue neutral for the cable company although the subscriber losses they cause may be difficult to quantify.

said by JTRockville :

...
PEGs do not have any affect whatsoever on a cable company's bottom line. These are costs are passed through.

Why should a cable company make decisions about something that they don't fund, and doesn't affect their bottom line?

I think PEG decisions should be made by the community. If you don't like the decision, at least you have some recourse.

said by TheOtherPete :

I don't think pass-thru taxes are revenue neutral for the cable company although the subscriber losses they cause may be difficult to quantify.

said by JTRockville :

PEGs do not have any affect whatsoever on a cable company's bottom line. These are costs are passed through.

Why should a cable company make decisions about something that they don't fund, and doesn't affect their bottom line?

I think PEG decisions should be made by the community. If you don't like the decision, at least you have some recourse.

said by JTRockville :

PEGs do not have any affect whatsoever on a cable company's bottom line. These are costs are passed through.

said by JohnA :

They're just beginning to understand that their local government imposing hidden taxes on them through the cable companies, are just as responsible for the constant rate increases as the cable company itself.

said by JohnA :

MoCo may win some awards, but that in no way justifies running 11 channels county wide.

said by cbrain :

Did RCN agree to the terms Verizon is fighting? Could these extra costs have contributed to their financial inability to complete the network and provide service to more residents?

said by JTRockville :

It seems to me the audience has already decided.

said by JTRockville :

The citizens of MC (through elected officials) decide what our PEG channels should be, and how much funding is allocated to them.

said by JTRockville :

Does Comcast represent your interests accurately?

said by JTRockville :

It seems to me the audience has already decided.

The citizens of MC (through elected officials) decide what our PEG channels should be, and how much funding is allocated to them. If you don't like these decisions, write to the council, not the cable or telephone company.

said by JTRockville :

I'm not against efficiency, but it shouldn't be dictated by a cable or telephone company.

said by JTRockville :

...I don't know the metrics used to judge their success, but I do know that many of our PEG channels have won awards.

said by meb :

Can everyone list anything the county did to help us.

said by JohnA :

Seems Verizon's initial claims were correct. MC is seeking a new telecommunications franchise for Verizon to put the fiber in it's right of way, payment of past and future compensation from that franchise in the amount of 5% of gross revenues of telecommunication services provisioned under that franchise.

said by guppy_fish :

...
I read thru all the posted material that was filed on MC behalf, the Judge is going to hand VZ everything they want AND there will be a flurry of orders striking down a bunch of MC's local "laws"

Verizon was 100% in the right on this deal ..

said by jaums :

So, how do they think they can get away with it, especially now that it's in court documents available on the Internet?

said by JTRockville :

The only burning question I have now is:

Where will VZ put the FiOS lounge?

said by JohnA :

This suit was apparently inevitable from the start of the fiber deploy in MC. Give credit where credit is due; MC is responsible for the deployment of fiber coming to a halt.

If this was MC's contention, they should have issued a work stoppage order until this was resolved, not waited till half the county was fibered, and try and trigger this from inside of TV franchise discussions, which they initiated.

said by JTRockville :

That's a great question to pose in a letter to the gazette or the post. Do you plan to write?

said by cbrain :

I'd like to see the county detail why either of these agreements is not acceptable, and who the years delay benefited.

said by PaulGo :

Verizon has never competed on price. They are offering a lower price to get market share. ...

said by PaulGo :

Verizon has never competed on price.

said by JTRockville :

Maybe we could all write letters to Gazette.net and WashingtonPost.com in support of granting Verizon a franchise (if we like the terms). A letter to Romer would probably be good pro-forma too, even if he'll ignore it.

said by Brittany :

Montgomery County seems to like to keep citizens in the dark, but Verizon may post it and it will probably be available at the court.

said by jaums :

And what is the statistic quoted by Consumer Reports about how much cable prices have dropped in areas with real competition? Is it 15%? We have the chance for some good old fashioned competition - the American way - with 3 cable providers plus 2 satellite companies . . . .. The competition will help with both prices and customer service.

said by meb :

But as prices drop, the counties 5% drops and it puts pressure on the other perks. Under the current system, the interests of the parties negotiating the new franchise can be very different from the customer.

said by JTRockville :

Will the application be made public once it's filed?

said by pstauff :

LOL. This is one of the most one-sided spins I have ever seen. I think Romer is spinning to save his political hide.

said by MC website :

»www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/···rID=2334

A federal judge today ruled against Verizon, denying its request to strike down portions of Montgomery County’s cable television law and instead assigned a mediator to work with the two sides in an attempt to resolve a legal matter that threatens to strip County residents of consumer safeguards currently in place.

“This is an important victory for consumers in Montgomery County,” said Bruce Romer, Chief Administrative Officer. “

said by JTRockville :

...
I know the MC market is attractive as Don points out, but VZ could have (theoretically) decided to skip over MC, except the judge ordered them not to. I still think it's rather curious, if not outright bizarre.

said by jaums :

So, on a practical level, what can we expect?

said by bbarrett :

Note that the judge explicitly stated in his order that VZ's filing of an application in no way restricted their rights or committed them to anything (except good faith negotiation toward a franchise).

said by JTRockville :

So if Verizon decided MC wasn't worth the bother (given their 25 accusations), and decided not to file, they'd be violating a judge's order.

That doesn't seem right.

said by bbarrett :

I'm pleased, because just weeks ago it seemed like video service was years away. Now it looks like there should be a franchise in place in a matter of a few months.

said by JTRockville :

Does it seem bizarre to anyone but me that Garbis ordered Verizon to file an application?

Verizon shall file an application for a cable franchise
in Montgomery County, which shall not constitute an
admission or waiver by Verizon and shall be without
prejudice to any legal argument Verizon may raise in
these proceedings, and shall not negatively impact the
timely resolution of this case. The County's
consideration of the application shall be conducted in
parallel with judicial proceedings and shall not delay
the prompt resolution of this case.

said by jaums :

It seems to me Vz is in a hurry because they have the fiber in place in a good chunk of the county, but without being able to provide TV service, it's not possible to begin to recoup the expenses of the installation.

said by jaums :

So, on a practical level, what can we expect? Any info on when the mediator will be appointed and everyone will sit down? Will any information be forthcoming during negotiations? Will there be any opportunity for input from the public?

said by jaums :

Or a national franchise law could override the county's authority if one is signed into law before MC & Vz reach an agreement?

said by jaums :

Is it too soon to start looking at new HD TVs?

said by PaulGo :

He just wanted to cut through all the BS and get the process moving. Of course Verizon should have done this a long time ago, but why should a big company like Verizon have to worry about such a small detail.

said by cbrain :

Judge Garbis order on yesterdays hearing.

said by JTRockville :

I can't believe you'd take MY fiber! THIEF!

* proceeds to Glen Burnie in a big truck, and directs some neighborhood kids to begin digging a trench from RKVLMDMR to Randolph Hills *
:p

said by meb :

How is Comcast customer service? Does the county track complaints?

said by JTRockville :

* peeks out the window iso a big roll of corning fiber optic cable *

said by moonpuppy :

Realize that AA County (in the North) already has 2 competing cable systems (Comcast and Millenium) and prices are lower than what I was paying in Howard County a year ago.

said by cbrain :

I would love to see a comparison of Montgomery, Fairfax, Herndon, Howard, Laurel, Bowie and AA showing complaints, customer satisfaction and safety violations. We could then make a decision on who best to negotiate our agreement. ;)

said by BarneyBadAss :

...
So.. as Sonny n' Cher would said.. "It ain't me babe"... :D

said by JTRockville :

Competition will surely improve service, but I don't think MC should throw away due compensation.

I was wondering how a citizen could become the arbitrator.

said by PaulGo :

It is a starting point for negotiation. But reading the complete response by Montgomery County along with the attachments by experts (hired by Montgomery County) I would say Montgomery County at a minimum can make a case for its franchise agreement with RCN and Comcast. …

said by BarneyBadAss :

Could it be that Verizon already had it filled out and submitted before the folks at court got back to their MC offices today? :p

said by BarneyBadAss :

JT, perhaps Vz. will take on Rockville too :)

said by PaulGo :

I think the mediator will look at the current franchise agreements within Montgomery County as a starting point since it will be presumed it was done at arms length and represents the best interest of the people of Montgomery County. ...

said by JTRockville :

Any predictions on when Verizon will file an application?

said by guppy_fish :

I differ on the end result will be. Me thinks Verizon will get what 100's of other city's/towns have agreed to, MC will NOT get anything more and further, have now lost all ability to control the outcome. Their only leverage was to not approve, that's gone now as the courts trump them on any demands beyond what is customary or legal

said by cbrain :

And our Montgomery County legislators will then claim credit for bringing competition to citizens without making a single tough choice. They really are ...

said by cbrain :

Montgomerymess :D
--
---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16671286 Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:40:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670966 guppy_fish :

said by cbrain :

And our Montgomery County legislators will then claim credit for bringing competition to citizens without making a single tough choice. They really are ...

Well then they don't have to explain to the local cable thief's who stuffed there back pockets why they couldn't stop Verizon. They will just say the big bad fed's ( courts ) made then accept it ... smiling all the way to the bank with the re-election funds they received :p ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670966 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:33:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670927 cbrain :

said by guppy_fish :

... Me thinks Verizon will get what 100's of other city's/towns have agreed to, MC will NOT get anything more and further, have now lost all ability to control the outcome. Their only leverage was to not approve, that's gone now as the courts trump them on any demands beyond what is customary or legal

And our Montgomery County legislators will then claim credit for bringing competition to citizens without making a single tough choice. They really are ... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670927 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:26:45 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670774 guppy_fish : This is what Verizon wanted all along. There was Zero chance of an injunction, Verizon lawyers knew this but got what they really wanted, which was a court supervised mediation. ( there would be no other way to force MC into mediation )

What this means is MC can't do any more sneaky tricks or ask for what is not lawful as the mediator will flags such attempts. Verizon will probably offer what the surrounding county's agreed to and then put all the pressure on MC. If MC try's to play the same old games with the court ordered mediation, they will quickly find out that Federal Judges have close to unlimited powers, and with a single order strike down any law or ordinance MC had previous passed.

This is actually the most progress MC residents have had yet and it IS a defined process with dead lines implemented by the courts and will result in FIOS TV ... Verizon was smart to take this path.

I differ on the end result will be. Me thinks Verizon will get what 100's of other city's/towns have agreed to, MC will NOT get anything more and further, have now lost all ability to control the outcome. Their only leverage was to not approve, that's gone now as the courts trump them on any demands beyond what is customary or legal]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670774 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:01:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670736 cbrain :

said by JTRockville :

... at the end of end of the process the two parties will have reached an agreement that is identical to the two agreements we already have in place.

So we take a great new 21st century product and subjugate it to archaic rules and a broken system, all to be fair to an under performing competitor, and, because it took so much effort, we label it a great success.

Progress?

Gridlock is a good word for what we accomplished with traffic. Let's come up with a word for this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670736 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:53:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670648 JTRockville :

said by BarneyBadAss :

So.. does anyone beleive the "mediation" will lead to anything "significant"?

Yes. I believe this marks the end of the beginning of a process that could take up to 5 more years, where at the end of end of the process the two parties will have reached an agreement that is identical to the two agreements we already have in place.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670648 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:31:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670317 jfoj : Let me reflect.

I lived in Montgomery County from approximately 1987-2000 and the names Doug Duncan and Bruce Romer were very familiar then as I recall. Romer has been around in the City of Rockville before going to MC Government.

We are now in 2006.

Maybe time for some governmental change in MC, as it sure seems that Verizon has played well with almost all the other DC Metro area governments.

Not saying that Verizon is totally clean here, however, I would bet they are much cleaner than the local government folks.

If Verizon did listen to what the local MC guys said about holding off on submitting a franchise agreement, shame on Verizon for being foolish. They took the bait; hook, line and sinker!

Gee, I wonder how many kickbacks, how much campaign money and how much Comcast stock MC Government folks have in their freezers??

I was really surprised when Fairfax moved as quick at they did with Verizon. Maybe it had something to do with how badly Cox performed during their "digital" upgrade with all the delays, outages and unhappy county residents!

I am happy that I have more choice here in Fairfax now. Cox is hemorrhaging customers to Verizon, but Cox really only has themselves to blame for the desertion of their customer base.

Good luck MC, I hope something works out for you so you have other choices soon. Both for communications and political options.

Google Doug Duncan!

Gotta love this web link!!

»www.dougduncan.com/

Who knows, it could possible get worse before it gets better for MC and MD?

Competion RIP!

jfoj]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670317 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:37:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670241 cbrain : The judge denied the injunction. This was step 2.

"While Garbis sent the parties to mediation, he retained control of the lawsuit in the event that they are unable to agree even with the assistance of a magistrate."

The case is not over yet.

Time to get voters motivated.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670241 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:25:51 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670192 JohnA :
I would expect an appeal. As I see it that's an improper ruling. Verizon contended that there are violations of law in the franchise language in MoCo. You can't send someone off to mediation without ruling on the violations of existing law first, IMHO.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670192 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:19:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670188 PaulGo : I hope Verizon now gets serious, instead of using Montgomery County for enacting national legislation. I think with the help a a mediator they can come to an agreement they can both live with.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670188 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:19:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670139 cbrain :

said by PaulGo :

...
County chief administrative officer Bruce Romer said Tuesday's bench ruling rejecting Verizon's injunction request is a victory for consumers, as it denies Verizon's "attempt to enter the market by striking down our consumer safeguards."
...

Am I to understand this "victory" leaves citizens with the same old Comcast-county system?

Sure doesn't feel like a consumer victory to me. :huh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670139 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:11:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670024 BarneyBadAss :

said by PaulGo :

quote:

---

Court Denies Verizon’s Md. Injunction Request
By Linda Haugsted 8/8/2006 7:05:00 PM

---

While Garbis sent the parties to mediation, he retained control of the lawsuit in the event that they are unable to agree even with the assistance of a magistrate.

So.. does anyone beleive the "mediation" will lead to anything "significant"?

Oh n' Paul, thanks for the post!
--

---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16670024 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:55:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16669848 PaulGo : Court Denies Verizon’s Md. Injunction Request
By Linda Haugsted 8/8/2006 7:05:00 PM

A federal court judge rejected a request by Verizon Communications' Maryland division for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of franchising rules for Montgomery County, Md.

Judge Marvin Garbis also directed Verizon to work with a mediator to resolve issues arising out of the county's attempts to issue a franchise with terms comparable to incumbent video competitors.

Verizon filed a lawsuit June 29 in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that the county's cable-franchising rules constitute prior restraint and delegate "untrammeled authority" to local officials to deny franchise requests at will.

County officials countered that they have service standards and other local rules that must apply to all video providers. County officials are also promoting build-out requirements for the local franchise. The county also noted that while Verizon initiated negotiations with the county in March 2005, the company has yet to actually file a county franchise application.

County chief administrative officer Bruce Romer said Tuesday’s bench ruling rejecting Verizon's injunction request is a victory for consumers, as it denies Verizon's "attempt to enter the market by striking down our consumer safeguards."

While Garbis sent the parties to mediation, he retained control of the lawsuit in the event that they are unable to agree even with the assistance of a magistrate.

»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6···ing+News]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16669848 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:29:31 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16669344 BarneyBadAss : Did anyone go to the hearing?? or was it closed???
--
---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16669344 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:04:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16666712 JTRockville : I'd like to think Verizon is pressing the state, but this past spring our cable administrator (who was a state delegate for a while) said there wasn't any talk of a state-wide video franchise while she was there.

So maybe Verizon didn't bother with MD because they wanted this suit to go forward. Or maybe the people making state decisions like things the way they are.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16666712 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:32:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16665927 Brittany :

said by JTRockville :

Why hasn't VZ pressed for a state-wide franchise in MD?

Is the State easier to work with than the county?

Verizon is surely pressing the state. The law suit might indicate how easy the state is. Or the states interest in offering competition to its citizens.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16665927 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:49:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16665872 BarneyBadAss :

said by DonLibes :

I'm willing to drive. I've got space for 6 passengers plus a keg.

Google says it's 56 minutes from my house so I'll probably leave around 8:30am (assuming I don't wise up by tomorrow morning and find something more useful to do).

Drat... it looks like I missed the bus!!! :D
--
---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16665872 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:31:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16664438 BarneyBadAss :

said by guppy_fish :

It's litigation 101

Oh isn't this delightful... :uhh:

said by guppy_fish :

MC will simply ask the judge for more time to prepare for trial. Its the most basic stall tactic there is. It could easily be more than a year before there is an actual trial

Vunderful... like the county can really afford to throw tons of our tax $$$ at this.... ain't it grand? :huh:

said by guppy_fish :

MC has made it very clear they see no reason to "cave" into Verizon's "Demands" ..

I don't like how you throw the baseball so I'm going to take my stuff and go home! storms off in a cloud of dust... :p

said by guppy_fish :

not a chance anything will be ruled on tomorrow

your likely correct... more tax $$$ wasted... wasted... wasted...

For goodness sake.. can't they just get on with it and get it done? Gezzzzz
--
---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16664438 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:30:46 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16664211 guppy_fish :

said by JTRockville :

According to guppy_fish , it's the county's duty to secure a delay, not the judge's.
:p

Who knows though, there's probably nothing stopping the judge from adding even more delays.

It's litigation 101,

MC will simply ask the judge for more time to prepare for trial. Its the most basic stall tactic there is. It could easily be more than a year before there is an actual trial

MC has made it very clear they see no reason to "cave" into Verizon's "Demands" ..

not a chance anything will be ruled on tomorrow]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16664211 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:01:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663992 JTRockville : There is already a (federal) limit on the number of days a community has to grant (or deny) a franchise once the application has been filed. I can't remember how many days it is though.

It's odd that VZ never mentioned the cable office instructions not to file the application publicly - particularly during the hearings when Praisner begged VZ to file the application.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663992 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:28:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663905 pstauff : I could see the judge imposing a 60-90 day deadline on MoCo, with certain key issues decided before hand. They might tell MoCo to cut down some of its fees so that it falls under the 5% cap and to process the application. Approve it or disapprove it in a timely manner.

Or the court could say, "Well Verizon, you haven't submitted a formal written agreement. Therefore your suit is dismissed." I doubt it MoCo will deny they told Verizon not to submit formally though.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663905 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:16:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663830 JTRockville : According to guppy_fish , it's the county's duty to secure a delay, not the judge's.
:p

Who knows though, there's probably nothing stopping the judge from adding even more delays.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663830 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:04:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663786 BarneyBadAss : pstauff & JT,

what about ordering a "non-binding" arbitration phase 1st for say 60-90 days kind of a cooling off period if you will??
--
---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663786 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:59:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663758 JTRockville :

said by pstauff :

I have very little legal background, but I will take a wild guess on each count.

...

So I have Verizon winning all but 3 counts.

Ditto on the lack of legal background. I have VZ losing all but 3 counts. Here are my predictions wild guesses:

• counts 12, 19, 20 will be decided in VZ's favor,
• counts 8 and 9 could go either way, and
• counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 will be decided in favor of MC

Is it possible the judge will order VZ to file an application before any rulings are made?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663758 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:54:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663727 BarneyBadAss : I guess the real question that needs to be asked is, when the court sees a gang (or gangs) of people all entering the court from MoCO for this proceeding will they kick us all out when the judgment comes down in Vz.'s favor???

Should anyone plan on throwing a party in court room?? :D

Perhaps we should make T-shirts we can wear under button down shirts we can open up saying:

"Yo, You Da-Judge... Two Points for you!" :D

While I make jokes and poke humor at all this, it is afterall very serious....
--

---Barney]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663727 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:49:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663211 DonLibes : I'm willing to drive. I've got space for 6 passengers plus a keg.

Google says it's 56 minutes from my house so I'll probably leave around 8:30am (assuming I don't wise up by tomorrow morning and find something more useful to do).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16663211 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:35:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662970 guppy_fish : Verizon will push for a summary judgement and enforcement of the injunction it seeks

The county will seek the maximum delay possible, using the shill we need more time to prepare for a trial

They will get 6 month delay and then

A) finally do some real work to get reelected
B) hire more attorneys that are related to the consul-members so that all citizens of the county will be "properly" represented :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662970 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:05:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662943 cbrain : I just figured out why I feel so positively about this litigation. I was never a Verizon fan. I did experience Comcast Montgomery for about 6 years and the Montgomery County cable system for 5 years. I attended many hearings, watched the quarterly reviews, spoke before the council and meet with Comcast, council members and many cable activists. I did finally get good video and internet, but never acceptable customer service, and left Comcast. I'm now very happy with my current services. My conclusions about the cable-video-internet franchise system in Montgomery County were made long before Verizon arrived. I feel Montgomery County is a dysfunctional system where the paying customer is only a consideration because of the revenue and perks generated for the county. Their only real concern for consumer protection or customer service is to keep the complaint stats manageable and publicity favorable. I'm not surprised Verizon ended up in court. This is perhaps the best opportunity to change a broken system our elected officials don't have the will to fix.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662943 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:02:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662852 jaums : Can anyone explain the possible outcomes of today's proceeding? Or is this all too new - never happened before so no precedents?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662852 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:48:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662810 cbrain : So Montgomery County can be found guilty in an injunction proceeding? It feels right, I just didn't know it was a possibility. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662810 Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:43:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16662776 pstauff : I have very little legal background, but I will take a wild guess on each count.

said by JTRockville :

said by pstauff :

Anyone want to place bets?

Here's the list of counts. Maybe rather than bet, we could all give preditions by count:

• COUNT ONE: Facial Challenge under the First Amendment to the Ordinance's Franchise Application and Acceptance Scheme

Not Guilty.

• COUNT TWO: Facial Challenge under the First Amendment to Ordinance Section 8A-14(d)

Not Guilty.

• COUNT THREE: Facial Challenge to the Ordinance's Requirement that Cable Operators Pay a 5% Franchise Fee on Gross Revenues Derived from Telecommunications and Broadband Internet Services, under 47 U.S.C. sections 542, 541(b)(3)(B), 253(a) and 544(b)(1)

Guilty.

• COUNT FOUR: Facial Challenge to the Ordinance's Regulation of Telecommunications Services, under 47 U.S.C. sections 541(b)(3)(B), (D) and 253(a)

Guilty.

• COUNT FIVE: Facial Challenge to the Ordinance's Provisions Respecting the County's Acquisition of a Mixed-Use Network, under 47 U.S.C. sections 541(b)(3)(B), (C), and 253(a)

Guilty.

• COUNT SIX: Facial Challenge to Ordinance Provisions Subjecting Title II Facilities to Construction and Technical Regulation, under 47 U.S.C. sections 522(7), 541(b)(3)(B), (D) and 253(a)

Guilty.

• COUNT SEVEN: Facial Challenge to Ordinance Sections 8A-25's Binding Arbitration Provision

Guilty.

• COUNT EIGHT: Facial Challenge to the Ordinance and Regulation Giverning Broadband Internet Access Services, under 47 U.S.C. sections 544 and 541(b)(3)(D)

Guilty.

• COUNT NINE: Facial Challenge under Maryland Law to the Ordinance and Cable Model Regulations

Guilty.

• COUNT TEN: Montgomery County's Delay in Granting a Franchise Violates Verizon's First Amendment Rights

Not guilty.

• COUNT ELEVEN: The County's Demands for Fees In-Kind Contributions, and Regulatory Authority Violate Verizon's First Amendment Rights

On the fence on this issue. I will go with guilty.

• COUNT TWELVE: The County's Requirement that Verizon Forfeit a $2 Million Bond and Exit the Entire D.C. Market Before Refraining From Speaking Violates the First Amendment

Guilty.

• COUNT THIRTEEN: As-applied Challenge to PEG Channel Capacity Requirements under 47 U.S.C. section 541(a)(4)(B)

Too much requested. Guilty.

• COUNT FOURTEEN: As-applied Challenge to PEG Programming Funding Requirements, under 47 U.S.C. sections 531, 541(a)(4)(B), and 542

Not allowed by cable act. Guilty.

• COUNT FIFTEEN: As-applied Challenge to I-Net Funding Requirements, under 47 U.S.C. sections 531 and 542

Gulity.

• COUNT SIXTEEN: As-applied Challenge to Requirement that Verizon Pay a "Franchise Acceptance Fee," under 47 U.S.C. section 542

Not sure about this. If it goes beyond the 5% franchise fee, then guilty.

• COUNT SEVENTEEN: As-applied Challenge to Requirement that Verizon Provide Free Cable Service, under 47 U.S.C. sections 542, 543, and 544

If goest beyond 5% cap, Guilty.

• COUNT EIGHTEEN: As-applied Challenge to Requirement that Verizon Provide 100 Wireless "Hot Spots" or Pay the Cash Equivalent, under 47 U.S.C. sections 541(b)(3)(D), 542, and 544

Guilty, 5% cap.

• COUNT NINETEEN: As-applied Challenge to Requirement that Verizon Pay a 5% Franchise Fee on Gross Revenues Derived from Broadband Internet Services, under 47 U.S.C. section 542

Easy, guilty.

• COUNT TWENTY: As-applied Challenge to Requirement that Verizon Waive Its Statutory Rights to Challenge Adverse Decisions

Guilty.

• COUNT TWENTY-ONE: As-applied Challenge to Requirement that Verizon Submit its Title II Facilities to Regulation, under 47 U.S.C. sections 522(7), 541(b)(3)(B), (D), and 253(a)

Guilty.

• COUNT TWENTY-TWO: As-Applied Challenge under Maryland Law to Require that Verizon Submit its Telecommunications Facilities to Regulation

Guilty.

• COUNT TWENTY-THREE: As-applied Challenge to the County's Refusal to Award a Franchise, under 47 U.S.C. section 541(a)(1)

Guilty.

• COUNT TWENTY-FOUR: Challenge to the County's Contract in Restraint of Trade under 15 U.S.C. section 1

Guilty.

• COUNT TWENTY-FIVE: Challenge to the Conspiracy to Monopolize, under 15 U.S.C. section 2

Not guilty.

said by pstauff :

Anyone want to place bets?

said by BarneyBadAss :

Because I'm so consiencious about our environment, if enough folks indicate they can and want to attend; do you have a bus that you can drive us all there... Oh.. BTW.. it would be nice if the trip were "Catered" :D

Can we make "special Requests" for food and beverage now!! ;)

said by Liz :

How do you explain so many signed Verizon franchises and only one law suit? :huh:

said by BarneyBadAss :

...
Can we make "special Requests" for food and beverage now!! ;)

said by cbrain :

Is anyone interested in attending the hearing tomorrow?

said by JTRockville :

My comments are based on Romer's letter in this Gazette article:

... snip ...

Under Verizon’s anti-consumer approach, significant portions of the county would be excluded from the Verizon’s services without any firm indication when those communities would receive cable service. For example, Rockville, Takoma Park, Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg and parts of Bethesda and Silver Spring would not be included.

... snip ...
-Bruce Romer
»www.gazette.net/stories/071906/m···39.shtml

If VZ committed to upgrading their entire footprint in NJ within 6 years, why are they balking at a committment to upgrading their footprint here?

Montgomery county has awarded 2 video franchises, which is double what the vast majority of country has awarded.

Liz , would you be happy if your legislators overlooked your interests by allowing VZ to leave your neighborhood unserved? Despite the fact that VZ has made such a committment everywhere else?

I know I won't be happy if such a franchise is awarded. And I'd give unlimited odds towards the chances of VZ trying to block a muni effort, should such an effort surface in areas where VZ won't commit.

said by cbrain :

Is anyone interested in attending the hearing tomorrow?

said by JTRockville :

If VZ committed to upgrading their entire footprint in NJ within 6 years, why are they balking at a committment to upgrading their footprint here?

said by Liz :

What do you base that comment on?

I understood fiber is lower maintenance and Verizon intends to convert their entire system eventually. Verizon has over 100 video agreements so far. How many does Montgomery County have? I maintain an open mind but the numbers don't make my county look very good, and ongoing Comcast performance make them look very bad.

said by JTRockville :

... • Verizon will not commit to upgrading everyone in MC under any circumstances.

said by JTRockville :

If I read this correctly, VZ just agreed to upgrade their entire footprint in the state of NJ within 6 years, regardless of density.
»www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills···4_I1.HTM

So why is VZ putting up such a fuss in MC about density? Why not agree to upgrade the entire footprint, like they did in NJ?

said by I wish I knew who I :



Could it be the population of Nj. is a lot more than the entire state of Md.?

 
State        Population     Square Miles
New Jersey    8143412          7419
Maryland      5171634          9775
=========================================

said by meb :

Where has Verizon stated or implied it wants to install FiOS selectively except for density? Comcast has similar density requirements.

...

said by JTRockville :

Anything interesting happen at today's quarterly review (I wasn't able catch it)?

said by JTRockville :

I didn't see a link for the live broadcast. Do you know if the hearing is available on-line?

said by BarneyBadAss :

...Oh I don't know about that... I have Vz. FIOS and those around me that still have Comcast HSI aren't seeing any drop in prices for the HSI. ...

said by MC resident :

once Verizon has TV service in the county it is inevitable that Comcast will lower rates for ALL of their customers.

said by PaulGo :

I feel RCN has helped keep rates down in Montgomery County causing Comcast to offer the VIP package.

said by TheOtherPete :

I'd put my money on Comcast; MoCo officials are too apathetic to bother writing such a detailed response

said by JohnA :

So, Pete, do you think he works for MoCo or Comcast? I'm guessing MoCo, since he has all of their answers down pat.

said by TheOtherPete :

You have repeatedly failed to show that VZ is determining where to offer service based on income. When called on it last time you switched from income to unit density which is something completely different. Again, where is the proof that VZ's rollout is income discriminatory?

said by PaulGo :

From the response to the Verizon lawsuit by Montgomery County:

Indeed, under the Verizon proposal, the County may not even be able to satisfy interests it is obligated to satisfy under federal law, much less ensure that needs and interests of the community are adequately protected as provided by the Cable Act. For example, the County has an affirmative obligation under federal law to “assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.” 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3).

The County also has the right to establish build-out requirements. 47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2).

Verizon acknowledges that it has not completed construction of the FTTP network in the County – it currently only passes 40% of homes in the County, and the company has stated that it plans to pass no more than 52% of homes by the end of 2006. Verizon has said little or nothing about its plans beyond that time frame.

It is also not clear that Verizon has developed an effective technical solution for serving apartment buildings.

Lawton Decl. at 23. Verizon has sought an exception for such buildings, even though that could bear on the issue of compliance with the federal law. October Draft, §3.1.1. The County will be harmed if Verizon begins to offer cable service without respecting the County’s statutory rights, or if the County is left open to a claim under the Cable Act that it has failed to ensure access to residents of the unserved areas on the basis of their income.

The County has the right and duty to address these issues under federal law and it is simply wrong to claim that the County’s authority will not be affected if Verizon is given the right to provide service, or permitted to avoid a franchise process that would allow the County to address these issues.

said by Brittany :

It seems many others are able to work with Verizon.

said by PaulGo :

...Verizon only wants to install it in profitable areas excluding many county residences that are either in areas which less than x number of houses per square mile or that they deem not profitable. To me this is not a level playing field since Comcast has under a county agreement wired these areas.

said by PaulGo :

... In order to ensure fair competition Verizon needs to be on a level playing field with the cable companies. This can only happen if they all play by the same rules. Verizon need to provide coverage to everyone not just the rich areas. If Verizon is permitted to select only the "profitable" areas for cable it would put cable at a disadvantage and discriminate against the not so wealthy customers.

said by jaums :

And what is the purpose of this hearing? How does this work?

said by JTRockville :

...
Has a date for the hearing been set?
...

said by DonLibes :

PS: Did you get a council packet?

said by JTRockville :

Anything interesting happen at today's quarterly review (I wasn't able catch it)?

And the Executive branch is not alone in its poor communication skills. The County Council home page has long advertised that citizens can sign up for council agendas and packets. And I have signed up - several times! But I've never received one. I finally called up this week and spoke to a council staffer who said that she wondered if any of the hundreds of people who had subscribed would ever complain. Evidentally, it was well-known internally that there was no automated mechanism to provide what the council has been advertising!

said by JTRockville :

No, I don't. I think Rockville (and surrounding areas) will be among the last in the country to get fiber.

For that reason, I decided to sit out this petition. I'll let those who actually stand to lose/gain something battle it out. For now, I give up. I don't care if they take forever to work it out. Who needs broadband deployment anyway?
:huh:

said by JohnA :

They're wiring MDUs in most areas with fiber now. Had they gotten their franchise, they could quite possibly be doing your's now.

said by e_identity :

I never felt that deployment by Verizon in my CO (downtown Silver Spring) was imminent–too many MDUs.

said by cbrain :

Silver Spring is an unincorporated area with no local government. Your system however sounds very nice. Let the county know your feelings.

said by e_identity :

I have been following the deployment of FTTP in Montgomery County, MD via this forum for a few years now. ...

Since Verizon seems unlikely to provide fiber based broadband to downtown Silver Spring anytime soon, could a Silver Spring governmental entity provide it? To me, there would be value in using an ISP that will be “net neutral,” and I like the idea of MuniFiber. ...

said by cbrain :

Do we rate our lawmakers on the quantity of laws passed or the effectiveness of their administration of existing law and franchise authority? ;)

said by SD6 :

Yes, theory and speculation. I don't know, a lot of politicos live in DC and Fairfax too.

One thing that is not theory is that Montgomery is a county with some of the most extensive local laws (not regulations or guidelines of a cable commission, but LAWS that cannot be easily changed) on the books with respect to cable franchises. If another county has local laws that are more extensive, I haven't seen them.

said by cbrain :

That is an interesting theory. If true, Verizon won't settle. We may get a chance to see everything that went on between Verizon and the county. It may almost make it worth the wait.
We may see a lot more of the below.

said by PaulGo :

From the column in the Gazette written by telecom lawyer Bruce Henoch (link provided by Don Libes)
»www.gazette.net/stories/072106/b···22.shtml

Which brings us to our lawsuit. It surely is no accident that Verizon chose our county for its test case. Montgomery, with its fine air and pleasant flowery aromas, is home to many members of Congress and other policymakers. What better place to make a statement than at the curb of the very people you are trying to persuade?

said by pstauff :

Wow, I found this gem on page 33 of the lawsuit:

"In addition, Lawton and Alisoun Moore (the Chief Information Officer in the County's Department of Technology Services) stated repeatedly that the County Council had told the County Executive not to propose any legislative changes to the Ordinance or the Cable Modem Regulations until after the November 2006 elections when the incumbent Council Members face re-election."

They have no serious plans to resolve this mess until after the elections.

Time to contact Doug Duncan and the County Council.

said by jaums :

Would the national franchise bill make all of these issues in MC moot?

said by PaulGo :

I for one do not think Verizon should be coming into Montgomery County as an 800 pound gorilla. Verizon is a very big company used to getting its way. I am enjoying seeing them squirm a bit. I also thing the Montgomery regulations on cable is beneficial. I do want to see Verizon in Montgomery County but I think they are wrong in their approach which will just delay things even more. They have a national political agenda they are trying to push.

said by jaums :

Would the national franchise bill make all of these issues in MC moot?

said by BarneyBadAss :

Don,

I agree the referendum is a long tedious task... but the question is how long has this been going on already, and what kind of result do we have to show for it?

As for the individual municipalities in MoCo inking their own deals.... while this may prove fruitful for some municipalities that chose to do this; it doesn't seem to be a financially sound way to generally do business... at least from my way of thinking. All I can see is lots of added expense to consumers. After all, a lot of business expense are just passed along to the consumer... so no one wins...

I can only see more and more Rockville scenarios should each municipality start inking deals individually. :uhh:

said by DonLibes :

You mean a referendum. Alas, I doubt a referendum would speed things up.

said by DonLibes :

I think a simpler approach would be for some of the existing municipalities in MC to ink a deal on their own, thereby demonstrating that agreements are possible in MC. Traditionally, the municipalities have let the county negotiate for them but there is nothing forcing them to wait for the county here. Clearly, Gaithersburg would be the most obvious one to go first since they have negotiated their own franchises already. However, I have heard that other municipalities are looking into the possibility as well. (Don't ask me which - all I can tell you is that Rockville wasn't one of them. Sorry!)

I don't live in a municipality myself but if you do, contact your local government and broach the subject.

PS: Could you chill the frequent references to 3rd graders? I don't think that kind of trash talking is constructive here.

said by cbrain :

I find it both amusing and sad that councilmember's are attempting to spin this as a customer service issue. That they are somehow helping us by confronting Verizon. They seem to want us to believe the only way to good customer service is through them and their legislation, when the Comcast situation has so obviously failed. I've watched many of them at the quarterly reviews, often complaining about Comcast. Have any of our politicians attempted to explain how so many neighboring jurisdictions have come to agreement with Verizon? Why not?

said by DonLibes :

Is this Verizon-sponsored petition worth filling out?

»ga3.org/campaign/montgomery

said by BarneyBadAss :

I propose this as an alternative to Vz.'s Petition...

Preferably, someone with a legal background could assist in creating something that could be put onto an election ballot so the people of MoCo could vote on it and take it out of the MoCo's hands.

said by JTRockville :

It cuts both ways: if Verizon plans to serve those areas, why have they refused to commit to it? Just to be contrary?

said by JTRockville :

I'm not at all interested in Verizon's wish list. I'm concerned with what they'll commit to - which apparently isn't much.

It makes me wonder why Verizon voiced such an objection to negotiating small footprints.

said by JTRockville :

As I mentioned before, according to Bruce Romer (Montgomery County chief administrative officer) Verizon doesn't intend to deploy fiber in Rockville, Takoma Park, Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg and parts of Bethesda and Silver Spring.

said by BarneyBadAss :

doesn't a company have the right to refuse service to anyone?

said by BarneyBadAss :

Doesn't Comcast have a requirement to answer some percentage of the calls in some period of time?

said by JTRockville :

... In fact, I prefer it because I still hold out hope for a muni. ...

said by cbrain :

What if a qualified provider or well financed local co-op wanted to build a similar fiber network but serve the Damascus/Poolsville upper county? OH... and Randolph Hills.

Or if the Bill Gates group proposed to deliver fiber to all low rent MDU's and study the impact.

Would that be treated differently?

said by JTRockville :

I don't think anyone would argue in favor of keeping the *cough* "customer service" *cough* regulations in place if Verizon's deal hinged on it. To quote my councilmember: "competition is the best guarantor of good service".

But it doesn't work out so well if there's only partial coverage. For example: RCN customers are generally a happy bunch, but since RCN's footprint is so tiny, it had no effect on Comcast customer service.

said by JTRockville :

...
Why should the rest of us wait decades for something you've had for a year?
...

said by PaulGo :

If a company decides to "redline" (pick only the most profitable customers) they benefit since providing services to the other areas is less profitable per mile of fiber laid and it is a disservice to the poorer areas that spend less on cable. Why should a company say I will only provide service to the rich and not to the poor.

said by JTRockville :

Absolutely it hurts the other 75% if VZ serves only 25%. I'm not sure how Verizon picked the 25%, but however they picked 'em, you can be sure they were the most cost effective 25%. Who's going to serve the other 75% if Verizon decides they don't want to continue the deployment because the shareholders got the jitters?

Why should the rest of us wait decades for something you've had for a year? Verizon's partial deployment has removed any possibility that another provider will enter our market, or even the possibility that we'll ever get a muni network. So I, for one, would like a contractual obligation, even if the "Rockville situation" ultimately prevents me from seeing the light.

On the other hand, if Verizon negotiated town-by-town, I'd have no objection to partial coverage. But Verizon has already complained about the prospect of negotiating at that level.

said by cbrain :

Why do our regulators assume customer service starts with regulation? I got terrible customer service from an over regulated Comcast with county help. I helped add to that regulation, but it didn't get better. I quit Comcast and now get good service from unregulated companies without county intervention. Doesn't having additional providers change the need for some franchise rules? Does it make sense to require something costly and unneeded from Verizon just because it was required from Comcast originally many years ago? Can't Comcast and MC agree to alter their agreement? Couldn't the county apportion freebies based on market penetration?

said by cbrain :

Why must every franchise serve every resident? If a provider only offers service to 25% of the county, does it hurt the other 75%? Doesn't Comcast actually benefit if Verizon decided to not compete in every area? Wouldn't this be especially true in low density areas? Is a contractual obligation the only reason Verizon would continue to expand their network if it is profitable? Did the contract ensure RCN complete the originally agreed build out?

said by cbrain :

Can you tell us one thing? Did Virginia "roll over" for Verizon?

said by SD6 :

I was an Advisor to the Virginia General Assembly Joint Commission on Technology and Science. MD politicians (and Montgomery county politicians) generally have a (deserved in many opinions)poor reputation in terms of representing the best interests of their constitutents. They are truly politicians.

Anyway, I attach Montgomery County's response. Sorry, JTRockville and others - I cannot comment on the suit directly (it could cost me work).

said by pstauff :

After reading the County response, I am thinking settlement is out of the question. Both sides are totally polarized.

said by cbrain :

You wouldn't want Verizon skipping out in the middle of the night leaving Montgomery County without assets to attach. ;)

said by JTRockville :

...
MC's $2 million bond requirement is certainly in excess of HoCo's $90 thousand bond. ...

said by cbrain :

JT on one hand seems to say even the council doesn’t know what transpired then implies MC didn’t ask anything more than our neighbors. We don’t know that yet.

said by cbrain :

Does anyone really think Verizon, after expending millions on construction, arbitrarily chose Montgomery County to play hardball with?

said by JTRockville :

...
Sure MC's PEG needs are more demanding than some, but that's what negotiations are for. Verizon's system is going to be capable of broadcasting a thousand channels, isn't it? 65 is a pittance, and VZ's boo-hooing about it makes their claim of a "superior system" laughable. Verizon should embrace this requirement. ...

said by TheOtherPete :

Another VZ Press Release Yesterday

Montgomery County, Maryland, Continues to Block Competition, Making Unlawful Cable Franchise Demands
PR Newswire - July 20, 2006 18:43
County's Stalled Process Costs Households More Than $725,000 per Month in Lost Savings by Preventing Verizon From Offering Cable Choice

WASHINGTON, July 20, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Montgomery County, Maryland, today filed court papers in an effort to maintain the status quo that protects the local cable television monopoly from competition and prevents Verizon from offering its FiOS TV to county residents. Verizon, which currently is offering the fiber-optic-powered FiOS TV to consumers in Howard County and much of Northern Virginia, filed a federal lawsuit on June 29 against Montgomery County. Verizon asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to require the county to negotiate a lawful franchise with the company. The following statement should be attributed to John P. Frantz, Verizon vice president and associate general counsel, who is leading the company's legal team on the case.

Montgomery County today made it clear it will fight to maintain the unlawful rules that protect the local cable monopoly from much-needed competition. The losers are Montgomery County citizens, who will continue to lose more than $725,000 a month in savings as a result of the county's intransigent position.

"Meanwhile, consumers in neighboring Howard County and much of Northern Virginia already are benefiting from their elected officials' consumer-focused actions. Verizon has struck franchise agreements with more than 100 jurisdictions across the country -- 14 in the Washington metropolitan area alone.

"The county's claims that Verizon has not filed for a formal franchise application belie the fact that county officials -- when informed by Verizon negotiators on May 19, 2005, that the company had begun preparing a formal franchise application -- asked Verizon to wait until they had approved the principal terms of a franchise agreement before we did so.

"In addition, no one on Verizon's negotiating team ever heard Montgomery County suggest the company accept a franchise offer 'substantially similar' to one reached with Fairfax County, Virginia. And the offer never was made in writing to Verizon.

"In fact, the proposed agreement Verizon submitted to Montgomery County was based on our Fairfax County agreement. Montgomery County rejected it.

"The public is solidly behind our effort to bring choice and competition to Montgomery County. We have received dozens of e-mails and letters of support from county residents who support our efforts and want choice. In addition, online commentators overwhelmingly are calling for increased competition and action by the county to allow Verizon to provide that competition."

said by JTRockville :

Maybe MC collects more than our fair share, but we don't collect more than our neighbors.

said by JTRockville :

The flipside of that question is:

Why should we allow a private company to profit from the use of public property, without providing any compensation for use of that property?

said by JTRockville :

The flipside of that question is:

Why should we allow a private company to profit from the use of public property, without providing any compensation for use of that property? ...

said by JTRockville :

...
Look around to neighboring jurisdictions, and see all the "goodies" they got from their franchise agreement with Verizon. What would you be saying if our county signed an agreement without getting any of these extras? ...

said by cbrain :

And how well did that turn out?

said by cbrain :

It seems obvious these issues are slowing, and possibly preventing competition that would benefit cable customers. You may well be costing cable subscriber dollars to save the county dimes.

said by JTRockville :

... RCN readily accepted the requirement in MC.

said by JTRockville :

I believe all providers serve all buildings. So if there are two providers, each building will have two connections.
...

said by JTRockville :

...Howard County has a pretty extensive list of facilities where a free internet connection is to be provided (see Exhibit C), including some non-profit healthcare facilities. Why would Verizon agree to this provision in Howard County but not Montgomery County?

said by JTRockville

It's pretty standard stuff. The few legitimate gripes Verizon had should have been easily ironed out in a few hours of negotiation.
[/BQUOTE :

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531920 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:24:20 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531821 JTRockville : Not sure about legal fees, but here's what Howard County required for insurance and indemnification:

said by Howard County's television franchise agreement with Verizon :

---

...

10.2.1.1.1 For bodily injury, including death, $500,000 for any one person and $2,000,000 for any one accident;

10.2.1.1.2 For property damage, $3,000,000; and 10.2.1.1.3 For damages resulting from any liability of any nature that may arise from or be occasioned by operation of the Cable System, including any communication over the Cable System, excepting programming on PEG Channels, $2,500,000.

...

---

It's pretty standard stuff. The few legitimate gripes Verizon had should have been easily ironed out in a few hours of negotiation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531821 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:09:07 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531621 pstauff : Data Ho... you bring up some good points. Did Howard County require Verizon to put up 2 mill and pay legal fees without limits? Those are two other good points. I am not so sure the freedom of speech tact is going to get Verizon anywhere.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531621 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:37:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531518 JTRockville : The hotspots (or the other option of a T1) are in lieu of the INet requirement. IF this case ever gets heard, I'd be interested to see how the judge ruled on this. I could make a decent argument either way on this issue.

Howard County has a pretty extensive list of facilities where a free internet connection is to be provided (see Exhibit C), including some non-profit healthcare facilities. Why would Verizon agree to this provision in Howard County but not Montgomery County?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531518 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:22:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531505 pstauff : Ever since Montgomery County Executive Regulation 26-03, I have received worse service from Comcast. Prior to the regulation, I would be able to get a service appointment the same or next day from my call. Now Comcast seems to pad all their appointments to the outer fringe of 36 hours, as minimally required by the regulation. I was told by Comcast customer service to set an appointment and then call back the following day to see if I could move it up, if they didn't fill up their schedule. Isn't that crazy?

said by cbrain :

Where is the credibility? Romer speaks of "consumer protections similar to those that are part of the Comcast and RCN agreements." I've experienced both Comcast and the county for 5 years. I quit and now get great service without any county help. I've watched the county cable system since the early 80's. Read the BBR Comcast forum and compare the complaints to any other area. The system is dysfunctional. I see some comments from Verizon that don't compute but I think the county is an obstacle to my getting the service I want and could get in neighboring jurisdictions.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531505 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:20:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531383 cbrain : There should be a name for what the county is doing. What would they call it if Tony Soprano did this?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531383 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:04:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531339 pstauff : But did the other jurisdictions request 100 wifi hot spots, free service to nonprofit orgs, and a 2 million dollar penalty for backing out? I am not sure if those were true requests or not, but they are listed in the court filing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531339 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:58:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531256 JTRockville : It is quite sad to see the county take that stance. I know I'd be happier if they took a "what can we do to speed up this process" attitude. But frankly, I think the county sees this as a way to lose revenue, and so they're not very interested.

On the other hand, Verizon seems to have trumped up most of their objections, since they had no qualm with the same requirements in neighboring counties.

Everyone but Comcast is the loser here.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531256 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531043 cbrain : Verizon is prepared to put a high tech fiber system costing well over $100 million in our dirt. They are technically qualified and have the resources. Our county says:

Verizon will get no preferential treatment!

Is that how a well run county would answer Intel if they proposed to open a local research facility employing 300. Fairfax would have a quick counter offer for Intel.

Where is the credibility? Romer speaks of "consumer protections similar to those that are part of the Comcast and RCN agreements." I've experienced both Comcast and the county for 5 years. I quit and now get great service without any county help. I've watched the county cable system since the early 80's. Read the BBR Comcast forum and compare the complaints to any other area. The system is dysfunctional. I see some comments from Verizon that don't compute but I think the county is an obstacle to my getting the service I want and could get in neighboring jurisdictions.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16531043 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:13:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530850 JTRockville : Romer noted VZ's objection to compliance with consumer protections. Howard County's agreement and Fairfax County's agreement both require compliance.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530850 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:33:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530742 PaulGo : Also from the Gazette:
Romer: Verizon will get no preferential treatment
Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Verizon’s letter (‘‘Verizon president: Lawsuit is only way to stop county from blocking TV competition,” July 12) prompts me to set the record straight with respect to the county’s efforts to ensure that consumers not only have competition in the cable television marketplace, but are protected against corporations that won’t play by the rules and instead seek preferential treatment.

Readers should know that Verizon has not even applied for a cable franchise in the county. Its lawsuit is nothing more than a tool in its public relations campaign to gain congressional approval of a national franchise.

Ever since the Federal Communications Commission limited local regulation of cable television, rates have soared and service has deteriorated. Verizon seeks to further erode the few remaining local protections, and it seeks to create a playing field where it gains advantages over its competitors.

One needs to look no further than electricity deregulation to see the impact to consumers of the lack of adequate regulation in a market lacking real competition.

The county began discussions with Verizon more than one year ago, and we repeatedly suggested that Verizon enter into a franchise agreement on terms substantially similar to the agreements we have with Comcast and RCN, but Verizon refused to do so. We also suggested that Verizon enter into a franchise agreement substantially similar to the one the company signed with Fairfax County. Verizon refused that offer as well.

Verizon demanded that it be given special exemptions from lawful requirements that Comcast and RCN must meet. Verizon also demanded that it not be required to comply with consumer protections similar to those that are part of the Comcast and RCN agreements and demanded to include provisions in a franchise agreement that violate the law.

In the end it is Verizon’s choice whether it wants to provide cable service here. We hope Verizon chooses to do so; however, they will get no preferential treatment and will have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Bruce Romer, Rockville

The writer is Montgomery County chief administrative officer.

»www.gazette.net/stories/071906/m···42.shtml

and a longer version:

»www.gazette.net/stories/071906/m···39.shtml]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530742 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:10:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530673 cbrain :

said by pstauff :

... I told him that the Verizon video franchise agreement was important to me. He agreed competition was a good for Montgomery County, but didn't say much beyond that. ...

He really put it on the line with that opinion. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530673 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:55:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530528 pstauff : He was campaigning door-to-door a few weeks ago. I told him that the Verizon video franchise agreement was important to me. He agreed competition was a good for Montgomery County, but didn't say much beyond that. He is quite pleasant to talk to.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16530528 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:22:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16529240 DonLibes :

said by pstauff :

Good find. Romer is so full of it. He says that Verizon did not apply for a franchise agreement. According to the lawsuit, Verizon was told not to submit anything. I just sent him an email.

So far I've spoken in person to Phil Andrews...

In the past, Andrews has been very much on the side of the citizen and he's always participated in cable franchise issues. So what did he have to say when you spoke to him?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16529240 Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:34:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16528985 pstauff : Good find. Romer is so full of it. He says that Verizon did not apply for a franchise agreement. According to the lawsuit, Verizon was told not to submit anything. I just sent him an email.

So far I've spoken in person to Phil Andrews, emailed Duncan, and the County Council. I got this back from the Council:

---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your letter regarding cable competition in the County. Your letter was made available to all Councilmembers at the time it was received.
Montgomery County has franchise agreements with two cable providers--Comcast and RCN. These franchise agreements have customer service standards that are measured on a quarterly basis. Comcast provides cable and Internet service to most County consumers because RCN’s infrastructure has not expanded to reach a majority of residents.

The County is currently in negotiations with Verizon on a cable franchise agreement. The County Council is committed to promoting competition among cable providers; however, the Executive Branch is responsible for the negotiations with Verizon. Once an agreement is reached, the Council will review the agreement as soon as possible.

As President of the Council, I appreciate hearing your concerns. Your views are important to Councilmembers and help us in our deliberations on matters that affect the residents of Montgomery County.



Sincerely,

George L. Leventhal
Council President]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16528985 Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:47:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16528846 JTRockville :

said by pstauff :

Time to contact Doug Duncan and the County Council.

Bruce Romer seems to be speaking for Duncan's office. You might direct your correspondence to him instead.

Here's a letter to the editor of Gazette.net written by William Roberts, president of Verizon Maryland:
»www.gazette.net/stories/071206/m···67.shtml

And a response by Bruce Romer, Montgomery County Chief Administrative Officer:
»www.gazette.net/stories/071906/m···39.shtml

Lots of fanfare, but so far I haven't seen a date for the hearing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16528846 Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:25:31 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16526292 JTRockville :

said by cbrain :

Are any of the provisions Verizon is contesting in the lawsuit addressed in Verizon franchises signed with other jurisdictions?

I compared the complaints reported by