Milwaukee Sues AT&T For Ignoring Franchising Process > Maybe people need to look at areas outside the major cities

Maybe people need to look at areas outside the major cities

How are rules that unquestionably inhibit competition protecting the city against "monopolistic tyrants"? In effect the opposite is true, with cities protecting monopolies.

Many cities (like Minneapolis) have used franchising in a way that would make the Mafia blush- they demand a percentage of revenues plus free equipment and services in exchange for the right to do business and to be protected against competition.

It baffles me how anyone on this forum could think that franchise "agreements" (read: extortion) are good for the consumer. Higher prices and fewer choices among providers do not strike me as being somehow favorable to end users. Competition is a good thing, people.

Oh, and anyone who thinks that the revenue the city gets is paid by the providing company- think again. It's the subscribers that pay the bills; businesses don't pay taxes and fees, they collect them from their customers.

Nobody is above the law PERIOD, anything after that is irrelevant.

reply to dynodb
I agree with you.. and I know the franchise AGREEMENT*S* very well in this 7 county metro.

However, I will stand by the agreements and what they stand for if it means that phone can simply enter and redline, cheery pick, and serve what they want.

If cable must serve all, so must the phone.

What's phone scared of? If they can't come in and play on a level playing field, the phone should stick to serving phone and their other current interests. Hell, they can't even get DSL to their entire footprint.. maybe they should work on that.

What I'm getting at is that you're right in the fact that franchise authorities are mafia like. I will NOT disagree. But, to be fair on the business end of it.. they have certain rights too and I support FAIR and EQUAL rights for the business side too.

Remove the franchise agreements, and people WILL be left out. Cable will refuse to wire smaller areas and phone already wouldn't have to.

Serve all, or get out.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one.

reply to Michieru2
But what is "the law"?

The problem is that what's legal and what's not is often ambiguous until it goes to court, especially with Federal laws and regulations often overlapping local and state statutes.

As others have pointed out, the courts ruled that cable companies providing VoIP aren't subject to the same FCC and PUC regulations that the telcos are regulated under since they were ruled an "information service" and not a telecommunications service.

It could easily be argued that IPTV is also exempt from the same local regulations that cable companies are.

In a sense there would be a fairness about that- cable companies are competing with telcos for POTS service without being subject to the same regulations the telcos are- perhaps the shoe should be put on the other foot with telcos being able to compete with cable companies for video services without being subject to agreements that cable providers must live by.

reply to dynodb

If it were the case that franchise agreements served the purpose of reimbursing taxpayers for the use of right of way, a simple fee would suffice.

Demanding a percentage of revenues, free programming and facilities and other kickbacks (err, "fees") along with content restrictions, deployment requirements and the like are independant of right of way usage.

It might bring extra revenue to the municipality, but that revenue comes from the pockets of those with cable service... and shouldn't the editorial position of this website represent that which benefits broadband users instead of local government budgets? It is "broadband reports" and not "local government reports" after all.

I find it both amusing and disheartening that people on this forum blame the provider when they find that things like franchise fees appear on their bill. Of course the cost will be borne by the customer, itemized or not.

Right of way is simply the means by which the municipality is able to extort money and demands from providers.

reply to dynodb
I understand most of what you are saying but what I am trying to say, even if those laws which are questionable are in place. They are still laws and must be obeyed whether it is correct or not.

In most cases people will fight the law because they want to have things there way. We live in a society where we must accept different set of rules where ever we go.

If AT&T believes they could just walk in and deploy without asking, they are not obeying the law. Even if what they are doing might benefit, they still need to clear some hurdles and get it approved.

I can understand where you are coming from, but if you plan to disobey laws you are not setting a good example for anyone as some laws should be obeyed and people eventually think that way and break any law they wish thinking they would get away it.

reply to MrMaster
The FCC says that various practices of the local extortionists -- err, franchising authorities) -- constitutes a barrier to entry to the subscription television service market. The FCC has taken action to remedy this.

If you want to take the side of the government, you'll have to choose which governmental agency.

»www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5440
_______________________________________________

FCC Clears Way for Phone Companies to Offer TV

Telcos such as AT&T and Verizon heard rejoicing

The Federal Communications Commission voted by a 3-2 margin to speed the entry of new competitors into the cable television market by streamlining the local franchising process through which companies gain approvals to offer subscription television services.

Commission concluded that the current operation of the franchising process constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the cable competition and broadband deployment.

The order by the FCC addresses several ways by which local franchising authorities are unreasonably refusing to allow the entry of competitive franchises. These include drawn-out local negotiations with no time limits; unreasonable build-out requirements; unreasonable requests for “in-kind” payments that attempt to subvert the five percent cap on franchise fees; and unreasonable demands with respect to public, educational and government access.

To eliminate the unreasonable barriers to entry into the cable market, and to encourage investment in broadband facilities, the FCC will limit the time of negotiation to no more than 90 days and eliminate many of the deterrents that new entrants are forced to face. Companies breaking into the market will no longer have to abide by any build-out requirements, such as providing service to every part of town.

“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,” said Susanne Guyer, Verizon senior vice president for federal regulatory affairs. “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.”