Locals Fight AT&T Franchise Push in Illinois > let's say they block IPTV

let's say they block IPTV

reply to batterup

quote:

---

The order would also make it harder for localities to impose "unreasonable" requirements. In one case, the FCC says, a video provider was asked to build a recreation center and swimming pool. In another, a video applicant was asked to fork over $1 million and fund a $50,000 scholarship with annual contributions.

---

reply to batterup
Do any of them compete directly with Cable or Satellite TV ?
I.e. do they connect directly (through a set top box) to your TV and is sold as programming similar to Cable/Satellite ?
While I don't believe in the 'build the mayor a swimming pool' style of buildout, I do think that if they're offering the same service as cable, using the same ROW as cable to deliver it, then they should pay the same franchise fees for it as cable, or have franchise fees abolished altogether.

1. Cable doesn't get to cherry pick neighborhoods as telco/IPTV is.
2. Cable has to pay franchise fees if they want to do business in that particular municipality wether they like it or not. Telco/IPTV currently does not.
Both are essentially the same product - digital tv.

I could personally care less about the franchise fees (that's why I have DirecTv). What does concern me is that telco will cherry pick neighborhoods within a community, and if I had cable, I'd be still paying franchise fees.

reply to batterup

reply to en102

reply to batterup
That 'example' is yet another urban legend. Notice the FCC could not/would not provide specific names or dates.

»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16256478/pr···1098/UTH

"In one speech, Martin claimed a community asked a new cable competitor for a new recreation center and swimming pool as part of the deal for a cable franchise. He provided no specifics, but it appears the example was pulled from a filing submitted by AT&T. The example involved Ameritech New Media, which was seeking a franchise in Parma, Ohio, in 1999.

Parma spokesman Powell W. Caesar III disputed the claim. “The only thing Parma asked of Ameritech was that they follow our franchise rules,” he said. “Pure and simple.”"

So you have the FCC taking comments directly from telcos with no verification or confirmation. What's the point of having a FCC if all they do is take industry's word on everything?

reply to cbrigante2

quote:

---

AT&T has launched a bill at the State House level to remove local franchise control from municipalities (a power Geneva currently holds) and instead give power over Geneva’s Rights of Way directly to the State of Illinois.

---

reply to jslik

I don't see how anybody's franchise rules would stipulate swimming pools. You would think that the incumbent provider would have complained long before AT&T showed up.

In any case, the point is that no confirmation of this story ever took place. Even if true, one seven year old example out of the thousands of localities hardly makes a justification to remove them out of the process.

I have less of an issue with statewide franchising than federal; there are better/worse statewide schemes out there, so we'll see when the dust settles.

I find it interesting that fellow conservatives are all for federalism up to the point where the telcos are involved.

"Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them. … Some will also say our states and local communities are not up to the challenge of a new and creative partnership. Well, that might have been true 20 years ago. … It's no longer true today. This Administration has faith in state and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers."

-Ronald Reagan

"...Government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable."

-George W. Bush

reply to batterup

reply to batterup
Unreasonable is a pool and scholarship fund.

Reasonable would be providing service to 95% of all residents within three years and 100% service within 5 years.

But. In my town Comcast provides cable access channels and produces the weekly selectmen's meetings and town meetings. They provide data service to the community and other things at no charge to the community for the rights to use our rights of way. Asking Verizon to do the same should not be unreasonable.

reply to batterup
if these are "telecommunication services", then they're subject to USF taxes and the like....and they certainly don't need to be pushing statewide franchising for "video services" if all they're offering is "telecommunications services".
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com

reply to batterup

reply to batterup