2 edits | New rulings don't apply to statewide franchise areas One thing I found interesting is that the new rules DO NOT apply to places where statewide franchising laws have been passed, like Texas, California, & NJ among others. What I take from that is that the FCC(at least the 3 Republicans) see the local franchise authorities as the biggest roadblock to telco video rollouts and most in need of FCC oversight.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···11A1.pdf
The Commission concluded that although the record allows it to determine generally what constitutes an “unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise” at the local level, the Commission does not have sufficient information to make such determinations with respect to franchising decisions made at the state level or in compliance with state statutory directives, such as statewide franchising decisions. As a result, the Order addresses only decisions made by county- or municipal-level franchising authorities. Link to story with comments by telco and cable representatives:
»news.tmcnet.com/news/it/-fcc-cab···8472.htm
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by fAcEtIOUs:... What I take from that is that the FCC(at least the 3 Republicans) see the local franchise authorities as the biggest roadblock to telco video rollouts and most in need of FCC oversight. You are certainly entitled to that take away.
However, I doubt the 3 republican commissioners see it that way at all - what they see is a big business with lots of lobbying clout that wants something done, so they did it. There doesn't appear to be anything more than anecdotal evidence about the "roadblocks" that local authorities are to the franchise process - an executive at Verizon was even quoted as saying this process wasn't slowing them down.
My take away is that the republican commissioners have a reflexive, knee jerk reaction to grant anything big business wants, without any regard to the wants or needs of consumers.
They must have really agonized about the cablecos opposition to this, but I am sure they consoled themselves with the thought that they are deregulating and all deregulation is good. |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Maybe, maybe not. You could read the 'not have sufficient information' as saying that the statewide franchise system(s) in place are so new that their impact is not known.
This is a really crappy decision by the FCC, not so much as what it says or does not say, but rather the FCC doesn't have this kind of authority to basically amend Title 47 of federal law. Like it or not, that's Congress' role.
As stated before, this is going to court. |
|
|
|
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude: an executive at Verizon was even quoted as saying this process wasn't slowing them down. The Verizon response today was a little different:
»news.tmcnet.com/news/it/-fcc-cab···8472.htm
Responding to the FCC ruling, Susanne Guyer, Verizon (News - Alert) senior vice president for federal regulatory affairs, issued the following statement:
“Today’s action will fast-forward the delivery of new choices, lower prices and better services to consumers. The FCC is standing up for consumers who are tired of skyrocketing cable bills and want greater choice in service providers and programming. Verizon has an aggressive schedule to deploy FiOS TV. This order will enable us to reach agreements with local franchise authorities more quickly so we can deliver the benefits of competition to consumers faster. The FCC has taken strong steps to increase consumer choice and spur investment in broadband and video deployment.”
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by fAcEtIOUs: The Verizon response today was a little different: The quote referenced from Verizon in September (linked in the post):
"Franchising is not holding us back," said Virginia Ruesterholz, president of Verizon Telecom. "I really don’t see that as a necessity, to have nationwide relief on that." ...and people wonder why folks like me don't believe anything coming from the telcos? |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by nasadude: an executive at Verizon was even quoted as saying this process wasn't slowing them down. The Verizon response today was a little different: » news.tmcnet.com/news/it/-fcc-cab···8472.htmResponding to the FCC ruling, Susanne Guyer, Verizon (News - Alert) senior vice president for federal regulatory affairs, issued the following statement:
“Today’s action will fast-forward the delivery of new choices, lower prices and better services to consumers. The FCC is standing up for consumers who are tired of skyrocketing cable bills and want greater choice in service providers and programming. Verizon has an aggressive schedule to deploy FiOS TV. This order will enable us to reach agreements with local franchise authorities more quickly so we can deliver the benefits of competition to consumers faster. The FCC has taken strong steps to increase consumer choice and spur investment in broadband and video deployment.” Sorry, Verizon never said that the current franchising wasn't slowing them down. They said it wasn't holding them back. |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by SD6: Sorry, Verizon never said that the current franchising wasn't slowing them down. They said it wasn't holding them back. Huh? Please explain the difference between 'slowing them down' and 'holding them back'. Also, why did she specifically say national franchising relief wasn't necessary? |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by jslik:said by SD6: Sorry, Verizon never said that the current franchising wasn't slowing them down. They said it wasn't holding them back. Huh? Please explain the difference between 'slowing them down' and 'holding them back'. Also, why did she specifically say national franchising relief wasn't necessary? Is it really so hard to grasp the concept that Verizon said they could do ok under the present rules, then said they could do even better now that the rules are more lenient? How hard was it in the first place to figure out that having to deal with thousands of municipalities is less efficient than dealing with 50 states or one national franchise, regardless of what Verizon was telling their investors? |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Then quite frankly, she is plain dumb to state so clearly that local franchising isn't a problem, regardless of the audience.
If they can 'do ok' under present law, and this keep local governments in control, how is that bad?
Why is Verizon's (and the other telcos) lack of planning in the 10 years since the '96 Act now local government's problem? |
|
| reply to RJ44
said by RJ44:said by jslik:said by SD6: Sorry, Verizon never said that the current franchising wasn't slowing them down. They said it wasn't holding them back. Huh? Please explain the difference between 'slowing them down' and 'holding them back'. Also, why did she specifically say national franchising relief wasn't necessary? Is it really so hard to grasp the concept that Verizon said they could do ok under the present rules, then said they could do even better now that the rules are more lenient? How hard was it in the first place to figure out that having to deal with thousands of municipalities is less efficient than dealing with 50 states or one national franchise, regardless of what Verizon was telling their investors? Yea, it really is not that hard to understand that Verizon said it was not going to hold back from deploying FIOS even if there is no national franchising law.Here is the link:
»telephonyonline.com/home/news/ve···_092706/
National franchising, of course, is different than FCC reforms of the local franchising process, and Verizon is not being inconsistent. Somehow the original quote of "not holding us back" and national franchising is "not a necessity" has been transformed to "Verizon has admitted Fios deployment has gone well under under the existing system" in this news item. |
|
