Depends on if it pure IPTV or not -

Author	All Replies
squid7 Premium join:2006-09-02	Depends on if it pure IPTV or not I'm not totally familiar with how U-Verse works but it's it's really IPTV they shouldn't pay otherwise it opens the door for gov't to regulate and charge for all kinds of crap running over IP. If IPTV is subject to this how long before VOIP or other services are.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 15:04:00 ·
bogey780 join:2004-03-19 Here kudos:1	Bingo!!!! A VRAD is the same as any DSLAM. It's multiplexes DSL lines for the transport of IP services. If it's a "cable" service then AT&T has it in every city in America already. The placement of a VRAD is entirely dependent upon existing right of way laws. To say it's illegal is like saying it's legal to place a skyscraper butillegal to build tall buildings. It's nonsense.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 15:17:26 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1	said by bogey780: Bingo!!!! A VRAD is the same as any DSLAM. It's multiplexes DSL lines for the transport of IP services. If it's a "cable" service then AT&T has it in every city in America already. The placement of a VRAD is entirely dependent upon existing right of way laws. To say it's illegal is like saying it's legal to place a skyscraper butillegal to build tall buildings. It's nonsense. That actually sinks AT&T right there. DSL is subject to common carrier rules which would disqualify IPTV from being an information service and exempt from cable franchise laws. It would actually be like having a law that says it is legal to have a skyscraper, but illegal to place external signs more than 30 foot tall on the skyscraper because the skyscraper classifies as residential/commerical building instead of commercial building. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 18:37:29 ·
bogey780 join:2004-03-19 Here kudos:1	ahem... »www.techlawjournal.com/topstorie···805a.asp
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 20:38:17 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1	said by bogey780: ahem... »www.techlawjournal.com/topstorie···805a.asp Well, I'm behind on that then The order still does not clear the way completely though because it classifies DSL as an information service functionally integrated with a telecommunications component. They stripped the DSL part out separately from everything else carried over the same wires. That would mean that some parts of the Uverse service are definitely within the bounds of the FCC order (namely the broadband internet) while other parts are definitely still telecommunications services (the voice service). Uverse is clearly in a hazing realm since it does not use the same bandwidth as DSL, uses a separate network from the DSL traffic, and most importantly does not travel through public IP traffic. The narrow writing of the PRM though seems to only apply to the Internet data service components of DSL traffic, so it appears to put Uverse video in exactly the same realm as cable television that travels over the same line as an information service. But this is what court decisions are for. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 21:31:12 ·
bogey780 join:2004-03-19 Here kudos:1	'Uverse is clearly in a hazing realm since it does not use the same bandwidth as DSL, uses a separate network from the DSL traffic, and most importantly does not travel through public IP traffic.' It uses the same bandwidth. Traffic shaping is used to limit the amount used for surfing and a seperate authentication is done into the IPTV server. Cable doesn't use IP or TCP to get from headend to sub. DSL is a medium. A physical layer.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 21:48:24 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1	said by bogey780: 'Uverse is clearly in a hazing realm since it does not use the same bandwidth as DSL, uses a separate network from the DSL traffic, and most importantly does not travel through public IP traffic.' It uses the same bandwidth. Traffic shaping is used to limit the amount used for surfing and a seperate authentication is done into the IPTV server. Cable doesn't use IP or TCP to get from headend to sub. DSL is a medium. A physical layer. From what I have read, the data stream and the video stream are completely separate. i.e. There is 25 mb of total bandwidth and 19mb is always reserved for video and 6 mb is always reserved for data. Your available bandwidth for data does not increase if you are not using the video portion and your video bandwidth does not increase if you are not using the data portion. If the video portion went out over public tcp/ip backbones (including AT&T's own internet backbones) it could count as an information service, but uverse routes the video to a separate private network rather than the internet backbone. It is true that cable doesn't use IP or TCP for its video (it does for its data services), but it also is subject to franchise regulation. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 22:06:12 ·
bogey780 join:2004-03-19 Here kudos:1	'There is 25 mb of total bandwidth and 19mb is always reserved for video and 6 mb is always reserved for data. ' ...across the same medium. That's the point. The video traffic is the same as the internet traffic. It's all IP based. Cable is RF based. It's the physical medium used that is important. Franchising was created to regulate the physical medium that cable presented. It's silly to extend it to other physical mediums that provide video services already under regulation by the state or federal gov't.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 22:43:29 ·
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1	said by bogey780: It's the physical medium used that is important. Franchising was created to regulate the physical medium that cable presented. It's silly to extend it to other physical mediums that provide video services already under regulation by the state or federal gov't. Franchising is physical medium independent. It has already been applied to mediums other than RF, and the relevant definitions in title 47 are medium independent as well as the relevant fcc rules. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 22:55:04 ·
bogey780 join:2004-03-19 Here kudos:1	And I siad it is silly to extend it to a medium already regulated on the state and federal level.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-12-21 23:09:13 ·

Milwaukee Sues AT&T For Ignoring Franchising Process > Depends on if it pure IPTV or not

Depends on if it pure IPTV or not