Topic 'Re: TV isTV' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758468 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:14:14 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:14:14 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18909785 said by AlfredEN:

The one regulation that's being applied to CATV that I'm not sure is being voluntarily applied by at & t, is the emergency alert. That's when you get an emergency alert on all stations periodically, usually just a test. Sometimes it's an actual emergency. Amber Alerts are generally broadcast over this feature. Generally the tests are done after 1AM local time. That emergency broadcast system is a joke. When we were under attack on 9/11 they remained silent. Just one example of government regulation that costs money and produces nothing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18909785 Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:06:51 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18908088
Since CATV is not regulated by PUC, THEN another agency was FORMED to make those MSO's play by the rules. To support said agency, francise fees are collected.

Now, how is the PUC funded? Is it not funded by fees paid by those they regulate? I've never really researched this aspect, myself, but, reading my phone bill, I seem to recall different fees for this that n the other, and I think one of them says something about PUC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18908088 Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:17:46 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18908000
I'm not sure if at & t is using any regulated frequencies. If at & t is not using any FCC regulated frequencies, then FCC is not the entity to regulate them.

If at & t IS using regulated frequencies, then, FCC does have some say in how at & t uses them.

Otherwise, as I already stated, if at & t is not using regulated frequencies, then FCC has no jurisdiction. Which would then mean that if at & t's service was to be further regulated than it already is, those new regulations should go through PUC.

BTW, you should thank your lucky stars that the FCC HAS regulated the cable companies as to how they use the frequencies that they do.

One thing that I cannot help thinking about, is that as technologies advance, CATV and telco will become more and more similar. AKA the end services will become more and more alike, but, the delivery will still be different.

One other thing..... Something to think about..... Just how IS it that CATV VoIP is travelling across the country? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18908000 Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:01:02 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18907911
CATV Franchises were traditionally petitioned for, and / or granted since CATV has traditionally been a purely luxury service.

Now, Here's a rub. For YEARS telco has been seeking to provide video services to their customers. You folks do know this, right? Since ooooooo what was it 1990 or so? the telco companies have been exploring different ways to present video services to residential locations.

Yeah, the technologies they've been trying have bombed, and bombed again. Until Uverse. Now that telco has a viable delivery, people are wanting to either slow down the launch / deployment, or otherwise halt this form of competition. OR they are wanting some of the kickbacks and perks that the CATV companies have been handing out to be allowed to run their service through the cities / counties / etc. Some of the perks that have been granted by cable companies are: fibreoptic runs solely for the use of a particular city, proprietary data over cable services (aka cable modem type service). One city that I know of, as part of a franchise agreement, had the cable company run a fibre optic bundle from their city hall / police department to their corporate vehicle yard just to be able to link a single remote video camera per fibre, so that they could pursue video surveilence of their corporate yard w/o paying the phone company for a data line. The irony of this is that a single fibre was being used per video camera, where one fibre could have been used to link over 50 cameras.

Why do CATV companies have to be regulated? Well, for one they use some of the same frequencies as a couple of trivial (heh) services..... Air Traffic Control, Aeronautical Distress, FAA Crash Alert, Police bands, Fire Response Bands, ummmm.... the list of "trivial" services that they co-habitate with is quite long. It'd be kinda tragically amusing to be getting CATV CH14 on the aircraft radio of an aircraft that was in distress, no? Hey, they'd be getting the cable channel service for free, right? So what if they didn't want it.........

Now, here's an interesting fact that many people are conveniently overlooking. Uverse IS regulated. What?? How is it regulated?? It's not regulated under cable TV franchising and FCC!!!! Well, no, you're right, its not regulated under either of those aspects. It IS regulated under Public Utilities Commissions. The correct venue to pursue regulation of this service, is through the PUC's. Which, I suspect, it's already regulated to some degree by the PUC's.

Alot of the FCC rules and regs that MUST be applied to CATV system plant simply do not apply to video over IP. Yeah, now that CATV systems are USING different aspects of their bandwidth, its now imperative upon them to maintain their systems for their own purposes.

The one regulation that's being applied to CATV that I'm not sure is being voluntarily applied by at & t, is the emergency alert. That's when you get an emergency alert on all stations periodically, usually just a test. Sometimes it's an actual emergency. Amber Alerts are generally broadcast over this feature. Generally the tests are done after 1AM local time.

Personally, by attempting to push Uverse under a franchising license / agreement, its more likely to stall / halt deployment of this service, than to ensure quality. I know of several small communities that were left w/o CATV service because it was not economically viable to install the system plant. I've seen locations that are within 3000 feet in 3 directions of CATV plant, that have such a low house per mile count, that its highly unlikely that they will see CATV service until the local CATV company is just looking to throw $$$$ at some project, just to spend the $$$$ out of the budget.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18907911 Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:41:04 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18767896 said by batterup:

If TPC is going to work on a line they call the subscriber and put a whip on the line. Whip is work in progress for you wannabes. Just because you don't get a call does not mean 100% uptime.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18767896 Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:40:12 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18767194 said by bmn:

said by batterup:

My Verizon POST line doesn't have any 9s. It has a 100%.
I doubt you are awake 24/7/365 sitting there with your phone in use. Verizon, like most other LECS, does their maintenance very late at night/very early in the morning when people are least likely to be using their phone.

Five nines is around 5 minutes of downtime per YEAR.
If TPC is going to work on a line they call the subscriber and put a whip on the line. Whip is work in progress for you wannabes.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18767194 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:12:29 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18765128 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18765128 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:39:17 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18764970 said by batterup:

My Verizon POST line doesn't have any 9s. It has a 100%. I doubt you are awake 24/7/365 sitting there with your phone in use. Verizon, like most other LECS, does their maintenance very late at night/very early in the morning when people are least likely to be using their phone.

Five nines is around 5 minutes of downtime per YEAR.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18764970 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:09:26 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18764745 said by DaSneaky1D:

Wireline TV is Wireline TV. Satellite shouldn't be required to adhear to frachise agreements since easement and right of way are not involved.
Easements and right-of-way are not involved. The wires are up for POTS TPC is only using them for moving pictures.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18764745 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:23:07 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18764731 said by bmn:



While they don't have the five 9s requirement, at least in the case of Vonage and others, it makes sense they are exempt since some access providers can't can't provide five 9s availability for IP transport from the subs location.
My Verizon POST line doesn't have any 9s. It has a 100%. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18764731 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:21:11 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763448 --
Don't lose your mind trying to set it free...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763448 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:20:10 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763232 said by fiberguy:

Cable's VoIP and vonage, et all, should be classified as "Telephone Service"... Last it appeared, Vonage and Cable's VoIP were classified as telephone service since they are paying into the USF and all of the government taxes and fees. I know I'm paying them on my VoIP line (I don't even use POTS anymore).

While they don't have the five 9s requirement, at least in the case of Vonage and others, it makes sense they are exempt since some access providers can't can't provide five 9s availability for IP transport from the subs location.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763232 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:27:31 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18763223 said by Answer Guy:

All AT&T has to argue is that equipment is required to provide people with faster DSL, a service they already have the nod to provide to customers using their facilities. There is no way you can argue against that and prove their method of providing DSL is illegal.Than, technically, all they can do is provide voice and faster DSL based on what you've stated here. Video doesn't fall under that.

You are must not realize that AT&T already pays the permit fees based upon the cost of permitting, inspection, etc for all equipment they place. The governments do not pickup the tab on covering the costs. The government doesn't need franchise fees to pay for this cost.
Several government and cable company sites that explain what franchise fees are and what they pay for disagree... For example, from the Time Warner web site:

"Section 622 of the 1984 Cable Act permits a local franchising authority ("LFA") to impose a "franchise fee" of up to 5% of a cable operator's gross revenue. This franchise fee is intended to compensate a community for the cable operator's use of the local rights-of-way, and to offset any costs associated with administering the local cable franchise." (emphasis mine)

And from a locality website:

"Q. How much money is collected and where does it go?
Cobb County collects approximately $3.5 million dollars per year in franchise fees. These monies are deposited in the county’s general operations budget and are used along with other sources to support county government operations including Cobb’s Department of Transportation.

DOT is responsible for all work that is done in the rights-of-way around the county. Inspectors work with the county’s permitting office to monitor construction projects that involve digging and other types of construction in the rights-of-way. These projects include the underground delivery of natural gas, telephone, cable television, water and other fiber optics cable services.

Many underground utility lines run along county roads and require constant monitoring to prevent workers from damaging them. Cobb has been fortunate over the past couple of years and avoided major interruptions to utility services due to construction damage. Franchise fees are a part of the process that keeps all underground utility services undamaged and operational in the rights-of-way." (italics mine)

Additionally, the part of the fee that administers the franchise pays for the oversight that is required and the avenue open for customers to complain about quality issues, such as excessive outages, poor picture quality, etc.

That is another reason that ATT needs to be subject to franchise agreements... Franchise agreements provide a method to keep the local operator running at a minimum level of service. Without franchise agreements, customers have no meaningful avenue to complain about problems such as excessive outages, poor picture quality, property damage in the RoW, etc. This reason is even an even bigger reason that ATT should not be exempt than the fees. Consumer protection.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18763223 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:22:13 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763217
(My guess is you'd not care at that point)

The way to wire America is not to allow a company to choose who they will service with out oversight.

Cable services the areas they do because of the franchise agreements. I guarantee you that cable would be less likely to service some smaller areas if the franchise auth didn't make them.

So I agree.. as long as Verizon is FA free, no fiber for them for you.

Verizon of all people are NOT saints. I could care less about their fiber. They screwed the taxpayers of one state out of enough money to chose them all. They come in and wire up areas with fiber and cut the copper to that house so they can shut out the competition based on their non-regulated service. They are, however, keeping their ILEC status in that area. TOTALLY wrong. That Fiber is unregulated. The moment Verizon cuts homes off of the regulated service, that home now has no oversight or protection from the government to ensure quality and reliable phone service.

Is this what you want in the name of being able to have fiber lit up on your pole?

BAD idea.

What I'm glad to hear is the amount of money VZ has lost by hanging that fiber in the first place.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763217 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:20:04 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763210
It's time to look at products as what they are/do.

IPTV (um duh! ipTV?) What you see in the square is TV.

I also agree that cable's HSI should not be an "Information Service".. it's the internet.

Cable's VoIP and vonage, et all, should be classified as "Telephone Service"...

It is what it is. I could care less about the technology behind it.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763210 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:14:52 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763181 said by Answer Guy:

Hrmmm....it is interesting that you can offer a VOIP service with "5 nines" across a broadband service that is not guaranteed to be "5 nines".Digital telephone, not VoIP, can do that... I should have been more clear.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18763181 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:00:31 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18762223 not guaranteed to be "5 nines".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18762223 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:21:28 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18762165
You are must not realize that AT&T already pays the permit fees based upon the cost of permitting, inspection, etc for all equipment they place. The governments do not pickup the tab on covering the costs. The government doesn't need franchise fees to pay for this cost.

You are correct in that AT&T does force people to have the equipment in their yard, but it must be placed in the RoW. They put it in under the rules of telecommunications service for which they must provide by law. I have a lot of experience in this aspect and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them if they stick to a telecommunications reason. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18762165 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:12:57 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18761993
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.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18761993 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:47:57 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18761679 said by asdfdfdfdf :
Matthew, surely you aren't refusing to see the very profound difference between google and ATT, namely that ATT controls the wires and therefore is in a commanding position to leverage that control into control over all applications over those wires.


I thought the discussion was about franchise fees, and whether U-verse and it's IPTV service really fall under cable franchise rules or not. Google and at&t are very different companies, but offering similar services in this field.

said by asdfdfdfdf :
If ATT wants to voluntarily divest itself of its wireline assets and become just another applications provider competing with others over wires they don't control then I will be the first to stand with you and insist that such an ATT should not be subject to franchise rules, whether they seek to stream video or not.


Wow, back to divestiture? Dang, we Just got the band back together.

So then in your opinion is the inverse true? Should Google or any other application provider be forced to lay a last mile medium in order to be in the business of streaming video? I don't believe so, but your view of "fair" seems to suggest so.

Should Comcast be forced to divest its HSI division in order to provide a search engine? Bringing up divestiture here comes across as more anti-T sentiment clouding the discussion at hand.

This discussion is about franchise fees, and whether T should be forced to pay franchise fees over wires already existing in the already paid for ROW's or not.

I don't recall anybody asking for T to pay franchise fees when installing RT's so that the Google's of the world could stream their video to you and I. The two differences now are that the equipment is higher bandwidth, and T is reaching for a piece of the streaming video market that was already being watched on it's network.

Yes, T's service incorporates in a way that makes it easier for the average day to day user to watch on their monitors at home, but then Google's service is free to the end user.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18761679 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:58:07 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18761432 said by bmn:

And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case...
Yes there are. Here in the USA They are mostly green, printed on a paper and cloth mixture, and are used "buy" "valid arguments". :D


--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18761432 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:12:46 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18761285 said by bogey780:

Wrong. The DSL connection to give sufficient bandwidth requires it. there's nothing special in the field except higher bandwidth equipment. All of their upgrades for U-Verse are functionally indistinguishable from regular DSL service.Okay, I'll give you that. However, there still an increase in the equipment amount, meaning an increase of public right of way usage to service and maintain it. This means that there is government cost in maintaining the RoA and having all of the offices and support structure in place for the RoA's to work (permitting, inspection, etc.).

You do realize the telcos purchase their right of ways. It's a major consideration in the placement of equipment.
That depends on the locality... Seriously, RoA agreements vary from location to location. For example, where I grew up, the RoA property was owned by lot/home owner and the RoA only gave the utilities access to that area.

They don't force people to have the equipment in their yard.
Certainly sounds like they do from the stories that have been surfacing about T putting boxes in less than optimal locations.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18761285 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:45:37 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18761211
Wrong. The DSL connection to give sufficient bandwidth requires it. there's nothing special in the field except higher bandwidth equipment. All of their upgrades for U-Verse are functionally indistinguishable from regular DSL service.

'The video store doesn't have to put boxes on private property or access private property via public right of ways to maintain their business.'

You do realize the telcos purchase their right of ways. It's a major consideration in the placement of equipment. They don't force people to have the equipment in their yard.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18761211 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:31:47 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18761172 said by cdru:

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.
My township, unfortunately, is treating it just like a new cable TV service and trying to impose major build-out requirements for FiOS in addition to all kind of right-of-way/permitting fees. So VZ left the township relative to FiOS deployment, leaving the fiber on my poles dark.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18761172 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:26:56 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760747
If ATT wants to voluntarily divest itself of its wireline assets and become just another applications provider competing with others over wires they don't control then I will be the first to stand with you and insist that such an ATT should not be subject to franchise rules, whether they seek to stream video or not.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760747 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:23:48 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760827 said by bogey780:

Of course they weren't in the negotiations because they weren't trying to be ILEC's then. Since then they've gotten into the market and have demanded that they not be subject to any prior regulatory agreements. The cable companies don't need to consent for regulation to occur.Then the FCC needs to act. Lack of FCC action to regulate them isn't a reason that the rules should not apply to ATT's video service the same way as it does to Cox or Comcast's.

Sorry, ATT's video should be regulated the same way as a cable providers.

And since no one has asked what my thoughts are on phone service, only stated their side, I agree that cable should have the same rules as the telcos WRT telephone service.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760827 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:40:01 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760801 Also Uverse doesn't require any special right of ways any more than what they already have for data services.Wrong again. It requires the placement of VRADS, cable, use of pole space and access for telco employees and vehicles to right of ways.

By your logic video rental stores do require franchise permits as they use right of ways to deliver the content (public roads).
Actually, no. That is already paid for by gas taxes, sales taxes, etc. The video store doesn't have to put boxes on private property or access private property via public right of ways to maintain their business.

You're stretching with this right of way herring.
The only herring I've seen is the one presented by ATT. Why IP delivery of TV versus RF delivery of TV should affect them paying franchise fees or not is bogus.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760801 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:36:01 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760684 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760684 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:20:58 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760664
Also Uverse doesn't require any special right of ways any more than what they already have for data services.

By your logic video rental stores do require franchise permits as they use right of ways to deliver the content (public roads). By my logic they don't because the delivery method is what counts(ie- RF across coax versus IP across anything)

You're stretching with this right of way herring.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760664 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:18:08 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760396 said by bamabrad:

...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house!
Does DirecTV pay a franchise fee? I've never seen mention of it on my bill. They too provide TV service. What about online TV such as Vongo? The Telcos don't already have any sort of franchise agreements for their phone service since the service involves digging up the town to run their cables?

This franchise stuff really confuses the crap out of me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760396 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:44:15 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760353 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760353 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:37:46 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760223
Additionally, it does not require the extensive use of public right of ways AND public infrastructure that cable and telco TV services will require.

Additionally, if we continue along your line of slippery slope reasoning, then all video rental stores should be subject to franchise agreements because they provide video service... The problem is that they aren't using public infrastructure to deliver their service in the same manner as the TV providers. Any public infrastructure use is already covered in fuel taxes, etc. They don't use right of ways that require maintenance.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760223 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:17:23 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760138 said by skrupowies:

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. Already killed that line of reasoning... BTW, Cablecos do offer life line service.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760138 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:04:20 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760092 said by Matthew:

Is that what triggers the requirement for franchise fees?More often than not it is public right of way access that triggers franchise fees. Uverse, FiosTV, etc. all use public right of way access to deliver their video.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18760092 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:57:29 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760058
The Telcos agree to resellers being on their network to offer something they otherwise couldn't.

That of course doesn't mean that they should be exempt, but that is WHY they are exempt.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760058 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:51:46 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760053 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760053 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:50:50 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760024
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18760024 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:47:24 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759763 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759763 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:06:37 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759720
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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759720 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:59:59 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18759715
They don't have the same regulations. Never did.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18759715 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:59:20 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759466 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759466 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:23:23 EDT Re: TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759421 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-is-TV-18759421 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:15:31 EDT TV is TV? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/TV-is-TV-18759391 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/TV-is-TV-18759391 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:12:29 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18759324 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18759324 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:04:55 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18759051 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....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18759051 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:30:58 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758970
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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758970 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:19:18 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758934 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758934 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:15:33 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758862 --
Go Colts]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758862 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:07:24 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758836 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758836 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:04:13 EDT Re: TV isTV http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758739 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-TV-isTV-18758739 Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:52:36 EDT