bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | TV isTV
...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house! |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax.
Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS.
And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to bamabrad
I disagree.
Wireline TV is Wireline TV. Satellite shouldn't be required to adhear to frachise agreements since easement and right of way are not involved. That's the problem with wireline transmissions. If your premium TV provider only wanted to wire affluent areas because the money spent to aquire "right of way" would very likely be recooped, people would complain...and rightfully so.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| reply to bamabrad
So using your argument, a phone is a phone "doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house!"
That means "cable" companies and VoIP providers should start taxing you to death with 911, USF, "federal regulatory fee" recovery, local fees and taxes.
I say nonsense. |
|
PastTense5
join:2007-05-15 | reply to bmn
The fact of the matter is that virtually nowhere is new cable competition coming in against existing providers. The existing regulations (build-out, etc) are a significant part of this problem. |
|
TheOtherPete
join:2001-06-28
Boyds, MD | Huh, what do think VZ/FIOS is doing? |
|
davl
join:2006-01-28
Furlong, PA
| reply to bamabrad
said by bamabrad  :...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house! Yes it does matter HOW. That is the issue here. Are you saying that over-the-air and satellite services should require a franchise fee? How about watching that episode of LOST that you missed but were able to watch on your computer through the internet? Is that TV? Or is the criteria that it must be real time?
Suppose for the sake of argument that an IP provider would offer a service that would store TV programs that you list on a menu (TIVO style)and that you would play back later from the internet. Is that TV? Are we going to have the "TV franchise police" checking the internet to see if you are watching a TV show through the internet and are not paying a franchise fee?
IPTV is as different from regular cable TV service as VOIP is from regular dial-up phone service. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to TheOtherPete
Not to get technical, but they are replacing existing lines with fiber...which just happens to also be able to handle CATV. While it is a new roll out, it's not exactly in the same realm of a new CATV upstart going into an established area with completely new lines.
--
Go Colts |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax. Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS. Just playing devils advocate here...
What makes a CATV provider a CATV provider and not a data provider? If any type of television programming is transmitted, shouldn't satellite providers also be bound by franchise agreements? If it's because the CATV lines run through the city's right aways, isn't the city double dipping on those same wires for both phone and catv franchise fees? If the data is coming across as IPTV, why wouldn't YouTube also be subject to the same requirements? It's just as much streaming video as IPTV. We're all for net neutrality and treating a byte as a byte regardless of where it comes from. If we are going to tax one byte coming from an IPTV video provider, shouldn't we tax all bytes from video providers?
That being said, heck yeah U-Verse should be subject to a franchise. They are a cable company no matter how they get their data. It doesn't matter though because ultimately they are going to pass on the franchise fee and any other costs to the consumer. Now that the deathstar is back and bigger then ever, that whole issue of limiting competition doesn't matter much.
--
Go Colts |
|
dmconwa
join:2007-04-19
Albuquerque, NM
| reply to bmn
You want a valid argument? I would say that MSO's have been able to go into the telephone market without the regulations that the ILEC's have.
Why should it be any different when the ILEC's want to go into the MSO's business?
The justification has always been that the incumbent provider takes on the regulations. In this case the MSO's are the incumbent providers of pay TV services.
The ILEC's should be able to have the opportunity to build their business and if they take a large enough share to negate an MSO's status as the incumbent provider then they should be regulated accordingly. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax. Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS. And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case... Now if we can get some regulation on the Cable Cos on their telephone service, all would be equal.... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to dmconwa
said by dmconwa :You want a valid argument? I would say that MSO's have been able to go into the telephone market without the regulations that the ILEC's have. Sorry, they have the same regulations... Five nines, 911, etc.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID |  reply to bmn
TV is TV?
I stream google videos to my TV at home, should they also be negotiating franchise agreements? |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | said by Matthew :I stream google videos to my TV at home, should they also be negotiating franchise agreements? Google video isn't designed for televisions, nor is Google video attempting to roll out a service like UVerse or FIOS TV. Google video is made product designed for consumption on a computer... Because your laptop is attached to your TV does not make Google TV a television service provider.
Nice angle, but it doesn't hold up...
edit:spelng korecshun!
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | reply to Matthew
dose google offer an end less stream? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to bmn
Re: TV isTV
How many internet connections did Cox have to resell to Covad? Smoke Signal? Okay... well then certainly if I live in their territory and want service they'll run a line to my house even if their nearest tap is 2 miles away and I won't have to pay for it, right?
They don't have the same regulations. Never did. |
|
Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID
| reply to bmn
Re: TV is TV?
As much as I would like one, I do not yet have a lap top. My desktop monitor also happens to be my TV monitor. At 37" it is an Ok sized TV monitor, and an awesome computer monitor. It has VGA in as well as coax HDMI, etc.
Both services stream video content to enjoy on a monitor. The difference between T's and Google's approach is that we install OSP and remote servers, to better deliver that content.
T's service has also been modeled more like the familiar MSO model than Google's, complete with a subscription fee where as Google makes their money other ways. Is it the seeking of subscription fees that leads to a need for franchise agreements in your opinion?
Both services require a computer on the client side, so that the content can be viewed on a monitor. The computer used on U-verse comes with a remote control, and is modeled after a traditional set top box. Is that what triggers the requirement for franchise fees?
I personally am not against Google providing Video service, I also agree that they shouldn't be pursued for franchise fees- but I am not sold that we should be either in U-verse's current inception. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to bmn
What about Amazon's Unbox service? It's designed to act almost exactly as a VOD service for Tivo boxes using IP/TCP as a delivery method. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to cdru
Re: TV isTV
If it needs right-of-way, there needs to be an agreement with the individual who's property controls the right-of-way. The only way to bypass the individual is an agreement with that individual's government that will force him to give it up, or just go on public land and get right of way there. I think whether it is coaxial cable or fiber is irrelevant.
The primary question here is whether existing franchise agreements with cable operators block ATT or not... I'd say they do, a cable is any physical wire as far as I'm concerned. If you can recieve video broadcasts on it the its a television cable. The secondary question is, how are ATT and Verizon going to get right-of-way if they can get around the franchise agreement.
I think franchise agreements as they exist are stupid, the people they effect get little input on them. If they had a shorter renewal term it would be better, then politicians could campaign on promises to change the agreements when companies were flaking on them. |
|
skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case...
Unfortunately dmconwa, bogey780 and TheGhost all beat me to it but the very valid argument is that if AT&T has to play by CATV rules then CATV should have to play by AT&T rules. Maybe they have the same performance standards (5 nines and 911) but they do NOT have to resell their lines to ANYONE, they do NOT have to allow any other ISP to use their internet lines, they do NOT have to run coax to everyone that wants it for no charge to get it there, they do NOT have to provide discounted service to low income families.
Until CATV has to abide by all those rules and a whole herd of others AT&T should have free reign to provide television service. |
|
