BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | reply to bean counter1
Re: Verizon Reaches Agreement with Montgomery County Thanks...
That made me yawn 
--
---Barney |
|
JohnAPremium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to bean counter1
said by bean counter1:The Council is expected to receive the franchise agreement in October and a public hearing is scheduled for October 31 at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Office Building on the 7th floor. Trick or Treat?????????????????????? |
|
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to bean counter1
said by bean counter1: said by George Leventhal :
The County has been in discussions with Verizon representatives for more than a year in the hopes of executing a cable franchise agreement; however, the company did not file a franchise agreement until late in the process. Once the franchise application was filed with the County, the Executive Branch worked expeditiously with Verizon representatives to negotiate a franchise agreement.
Statements like that make him look terribly out of touch. |
|
cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD Reviews:
 ·Future Nine Corp..
·Google Voice
·Verizon FiOS
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to bean counter1
said by bean counter1:... 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. Let me assure you that the County Council is committed to promoting competition among cable providers, but we are also committed to providing a level playing field for all service providers and maintaining our authority to regulate the County’s rights-of-way. ... The Council hopes to have a final franchise agreement with Verizon by the end of this year. The County has been in discussions with Verizon representatives for more than a year in the hopes of executing a cable franchise agreement; however, the company did not file a franchise agreement until late in the process. Once the franchise application was filed with the County, the Executive Branch worked expeditiously with Verizon representatives to negotiate a franchise agreement. ... 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. ... Sounds good if you don't know any of the facts.
How many find this statement truth full?
How does it stack up for truthiness? |
|
jaums
join:2005-10-04
Silver Spring, MD | They still don't get it. They still refuse to admit, other than in the LEGAL DOCUMENT MC SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, that they invoked the loop-hole to circumvent the 60 day limit on negotiating a franchise by, early on in the meetings, recommending that Vz delay the submission of their application.
And that never-ending 'level playing field' with its huge fees that have to be paid, ultimately, by the users, who are also the voters . . .
They are not convincing me. |
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to JTRockville
From "The Open Mike" - A Newsletter from Councilman Mike Knapp
»www.montgomerycountymd.gov/csltm···#verizon
I’m pleased to report that Montgomery County and Verizon have reached an agreement on the terms that would allow Verizon to offer cable service over its fiber optic (FIOS) lines in the Montgomery County region. The County Executive will transmit this agreement to the County Council for review this week, for full consideration -- and likely passage -- in November.
As part of its agreement with the county, Verizon has agreed to support the county’s public education and government channels, provide cable television to public buildings such as schools, fire stations and libraries, and pay the county 5 percent of its gross cable revenues as franchise fees.
I’m pleased Verizon decided to drop its lawsuit—it was the main issue prohibiting us from making headway on this matter. According to Verizon, under the terms of the agreement and its current infrastructure, Verizon is ready to offer cable to about half the homes in the county by the end of the year. The initial services area will include most of the northern part of the Upcounty region. I've asked Verizon to continue its efforts to provide FIOS service to all parts of the county, including the southwestern region and other parts of the Upcounty that presently have no cable options at all. So the lawsuit was the problem!?!?! That's a rather creative interpretation. |
|
cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD | I don't think the lawsuit was drooped. It is on hold but can be moved forward any time Verizon hits another real issue.
Clueless or creative honesty? |
|
| reply to DonLibes
According to Verizon, under the terms of the agreement and its current infrastructure, Verizon is ready to offer cable to about half the homes in the county by the end of the year.
I like this part. I hope that they will start offering service immediately after county approval. |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes: said by "The Open Mike" - A Newsletter from Councilman Mike Knapp
»www.montgomerycountymd.gov/csltm···#verizon :
[...]
I’m pleased Verizon decided to drop its lawsuit—it was the main issue prohibiting us from making headway on this matter.
[...]
So the lawsuit was the problem!?!?! That's a rather creative interpretation. Creative indeed. A lawsuit, that hadn't yet been filed, was "the main issue" from May 2005 through June 2006.
Is anyone buying this? |
|
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:From "The Open Mike" - A Newsletter from Councilman Mike Knapp » www.montgomerycountymd.gov/csltm···#verizonI’m pleased to report that Montgomery County and Verizon have reached an agreement on the terms that would allow Verizon to offer cable service over its fiber optic (FIOS) lines in the Montgomery County region. The County Executive will transmit this agreement to the County Council for review this week, for full consideration -- and likely passage -- in November.
As part of its agreement with the county, Verizon has agreed to support the county’s public education and government channels, provide cable television to public buildings such as schools, fire stations and libraries, and pay the county 5 percent of its gross cable revenues as franchise fees.
I’m pleased Verizon decided to drop its lawsuit—it was the main issue prohibiting us from making headway on this matter. According to Verizon, under the terms of the agreement and its current infrastructure, Verizon is ready to offer cable to about half the homes in the county by the end of the year. The initial services area will include most of the northern part of the Upcounty region. I've asked Verizon to continue its efforts to provide FIOS service to all parts of the county, including the southwestern region and other parts of the Upcounty that presently have no cable options at all. So the lawsuit was the problem!?!?! That's a rather creative interpretation. what do you say, when you can't admit...
_____________________
THE LAWSUIT WORKED!!! |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001
1 edit | reply to JTRockville
JT,
Sure I'm buying it.. almost as much as I beleive this isn't an election year!!
BTW.. I doubt we'll see any significant availability until 1Q07....
Now wouldn't it be nice if all the Vz. Fios subsrcibers switched to FIOS TV... then we can see what the other significant providers have to say as to if they are impacted!
--
---Barney |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to SD6
said by SD6:THE LAWSUIT WORKED!!! Will Verizon learn from this and sue Rockville sooner rather than later? |
|
jfoj
join:2005-05-06
Mclean, VA | reply to cbrain
I go back to Verizon sued MC which ended up getting a mediator assigned.
Now MC has to do what the mediator requests and MC can tell all their political buddies "sorry we had to do what the mediator required"!
MC can still tell Comcast "we did not really want to make it easy for Verizon", however, the mediator made us do it!!
jfoj |
|
ksparky
join:2002-02-28
Rockville, MD | Rockville Fees I received this from Scott Ullery, the Rockville city manager:
Thank you for your August 28, 2006 e-mail to Mayor Giammo regarding the issue of Verizon providing FiOS service in Rockville. The Mayor has asked me to respond on his behalf.
I assure you that I share the impatience and frustration you and others have expressed over the delay in this service being made available in Rockville.
The Verizon service promises more bandwidth, and at a price equal to or better, than current cable modem service. Another provider of cable television and broadband services could also introduce much needed competition into the local marketplace. Accordingly, we have diligently and in good faith worked to engage Verizon in negotiations over established fees for working in the public right of way.
There are several issues involved in this situation, and one of the key ones for the City is as follows: should a private company pay the legally established and cost-based permit fees currently in effect for doing construction and installation work in the City's public rights-of-way, or should that private company be subsidized by the taxpayers? As of now, the Mayor and Council of Rockville have answered that question saying the company should pay the established fees; however City staff has been directed to negotiate with Verizon to arrive at a fair agreement that recognizes the interests of all parties. At this point, unfortunately, the City and Verizon have not been able to come to an agreement. I intend, however, to redouble our efforts to break the current impasse. It is my hope, and I remain optimistic, that once the County and Verizon reach an agreement on the terms of a cable franchise, we will have the opportunity to make some progress in our own discussions with Verizon.
The City's position regarding the payment of right-of-way fees, arises from the following factors:
The permit fees were established by Mayor and Council resolution in 2000 based on a cost-of-services study conducted by an independent, expert firm, and updated in 2003. There is no provision in the resolution nor in the law for providing discounted fees, nor any criteria for determining if or when discounts would be appropriate. Unlike some other jurisdictions, the City of Rockville does not charge an additional annual fee for private companies to occupy the public rights-of-way.
The public rights of way are dedicated for public use, and the City government is responsible for regulating what is installed there, and how such work is performed. The public's interests are protected by utility permits because they enable the City to ensure that the work is done according to approved plans, and that the rights of way are restored to an acceptable standard after utility companies perform their work. The purpose of the fee is to recover the City's cost of reviewing plans, issuing permits and inspecting the construction. We require the pavement and other surfaces to be restored to our standards in order to prevent premature failures, which impose additional costs on our taxpayers. If the useful life of City our streets and sidewalks are significantly reduced, we'll need to repair, repave, or replace them more often than should be necessary, resulting in additional costs to all Rockville taxpayers.
The need to review work plans and to monitor and inspect the work--especially in relation to Verizon's fiber installation project--has been demonstrated in Montgomery County, other area jurisdictions, and other jurisdictions throughout the country by substantial damage, safety, and interruption problems resulting from the work done by Verizon and its contractors. These problems have added to the workload of local governments.
The fee structure is based on the premise that the companies that use public property to conduct their businesses should bear the full cost for the privilege, rather than be subsidized by City taxpayers.
You asked what other companies, specifically Comcast, have been charged to use Rockville's public rights of way. All utility companies, including Pepco, Washington Gas, Comcast, and Verizon have been and are charged the permit fees in place at the time the companies apply for permits. In addition, some of the fiber optic companies have provided free service or fiber optic cable to the City for the data and voice network that connects City government facilities.
In 1998, when Comcast and its predecessor company began the rebuild of their cable system, the City's fees were $0.60/linear foot for excavation/work in streets; $0.30/linear foot for excavation/work in sidewalks and "grassy areas"; and there was a minimum permit fee of $25. In December 1999, a firm hired by the City--DMG-Maximus, Inc.--conducted a user fee study, and one of its conclusions was that the City was recovering only 14% of its costs under the then-current utility/ROW fee structure. Based on that study, the Mayor and Council passed a resolution raising the fees effective April 3, 2000, to the following rates: $3.20/linear foot of excavation in streets; $1.65/linear foot of excavation in sidewalks and grass strips; and a $130 minimum. These fees were less than those recommended by DMG. Comcast continued to rebuild its system under this fee structure, and substantially completed the rebuild in July of 2002. On July 14, 2003, the Mayor and Council adopted a resolution increasing the fees effective that same date to the following rates: $4.35/linear foot for asphalt and concrete roadways; $2.20/linear foot for sidewalks and grass strips; $0.06 per linear foot for overhead wire; and a $185 minimum. These are the fees currently in effect and that are being charged to companies doing work in the city's ROW.
It is difficult to equate the circumstances faced by Comcast rebuilding its system and by Verizon constructing an entirely new system. Comcast's rebuild was confined almost entirely to its system's "backbone," and did not involve reconstructing the connections to each user. Verizon, however, is faced with constructing an entirely new system, which will likely involve disturbing substantially more of the public right of way than did Comcast's rebuild.
In addition to the permit fees required of the companies mentioned above, Comcast--as a cable television company, but not as a provider of cable modem service--also has paid and continues to pay the City annual franchise fees (est. $368,000 FY 07), plus annual operating (est. $61,500 FY 07) and capital grants (est. $24,000 FY 07) for the City's cable television channel, plus Comcast provided and installed at no cost to the City fiber optic cable connecting City Hall and other City government buildings to allow for high-speed/high-capacity data and voice communications between facilities. This also has resulted in more efficient service to the public, such as registering for recreation programs.
I hope this information responds satisfactorily to your email. I assure you that the City of Rockville remains committed to maintaining a local regulatory environment that promotes fair competition among cable and telecommunications companies, and protects the interests of our taxpayers. To that end, we continue to remain open to negotiating an agreement with Verizon, and we sincerely hope that Verizon will adopt a similar position.
Thank you for you interest in the very important and complex issue.
Sincerely yours,
Scott Ullery, City Manager
City of Rockville
111 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850-2364
240-314-8102
FAX: 240-314-8130 |
|
cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·Google Voice
·Verizon FiOS
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to cbrain
VERIZON'S CABLE FRANCHISE APPLICATION Documents posted on county web site.
»www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtm···izon.asp
Our county officials are protecting us by posting a redacted version. If they did such a good job of getting additional consumer protection, I wonder why they find it necessary to conceal? |
|
