 AlakarFacts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI | reply to decin2002
The Real Problem The reason why there is no common sense is that this has very little to do with the boxes or their placement. These municipalities want cable franchises so they can collect their money. AT&T doesn't want to pay those franchises because it's a huge cost and they don't fall under the 1986 Cable Act, they fall under the 1996 Telecom Act.
When cable started offering phone service, the courts and FCC ruled that VOIP service didn't fall under the 1996 Telecom Act because it's a cable service, so all of the rules that apply to telecom (line sharing, CLEC co-location, USF, etc.) don't apply to the cable companies. Cable companies however, under the 1986 Cable Act, are subject to franchise agreements that the local municipality can mandate. Those usually include requiring the cable company to build out to everyone in the area, regardless of whether or not the local residents can afford the service, and usually a big, fat cash payment to the municipality.
AT&T is a telecom company and falls under the 1996 Telecom Act. They are not required to make franchise agreements. This isn't small money either. Here in Milwaukee the city is suing AT&T, trying to force a franchise agreement. The city wants to decide where the service gets rolled out first and wants a nice fat $4 million a year just to be able to offer the service. It's all about the money.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger |
