how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| reply to bmn
Re: TV isTV 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 | | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Actually, the individual does not control the right-of-way. The township, village, city, county or state controls the right-of-way. On paper it may appear that you have control, but these entities have complete control of what goes on in the right-of-way.
The franchise agreements without a doubt do not block AT&T or Verizon from placing cable or equipment. The cables and equipment they are placing are for a telecommunications service and is something they are required by law to build in their assigned areas. Now with that being said, these cables will also provide additional services. The real question is "can the franchise agreements block them from offering TV or IPTV"? Lets not forget, the franchise was setup to control how these CATV companies operated in the right-of-way. One of AT&T's arguements is that they don't need to be controled in the right-of-way under the franchise agreements. They are already fully controled by each states Public Utilities Commissions. The Public Utilities Commisions have no control of the CATV companies, hence why the franchise agreements were needed.
| |
|
