 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
Re: Yes, this was a total con Coverage requirements only apply to the first provider in an area or the dominant (40%+ market share) provider(s) in an area.
They do not apply to overbuilders entering a market. |
|
| said by marigolds:Coverage requirements only apply to the first provider in an area or the dominant (40%+ market share) provider(s) in an area. They do not apply to overbuilders entering a market. I know you are informed, but I do not understand this comment. The LFA decides what coverage an overbuilder has to provide in the franchise area. Or are you talking about a state or federal regulation? |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.
Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
|
|
| said by marigolds:The FCC decides now. The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s. Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders. Thanks for your reply. Are you referring to the 2007 revision of the regulations? Which part or Rule? |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | It was before 2007. I stopped serving on the commission I was on in 2005, about the time we wrapped up the last franchise.
And I am pretty sure the rule was in place when I started in 2002.
I think it was actually part of the 1996 telecom act, but I would have to do some research to be certain. |
|
| Thanks, I'll look it up. Why isn't FIOS considered an overbuilder? |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | It is considered an overbuilder, and is treated that way for franchise purposes. This is part of the reason Verizon had little issue with getting local franchises. FIOS actually is much closer to a overbuilder business plan than an incumbent business plan.
AT&T, on the other hand, has a business plan built on being a separate market from cable tv. Their business plan depends significantly on price point competition through reduced regulation relative to competing products.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
| said by marigolds:It is considered an overbuilder, and is treated that way for franchise purposes. This is part of the reason Verizon had little issue with getting local franchises. FIOS actually is much closer to a overbuilder business plan than an incumbent business plan. AT&T, on the other hand, has a business plan built on being a separate market from cable tv. Their business plan depends significantly on price point competition through reduced regulation relative to competing products. I did a Verizon franchise in NY last year and they were NOT treated as an overbuilder; nor were they in any other jurisdiction in NY that I know of (and I know dozens). So where is the disconnect? Perhaps you are thinking of a state rule? Or perhaps there is an exception so that FIOS was not considered an overbuilder? |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:The FCC decides now. The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s. Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders. Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed). I am not so sure about that. If you recall last year there was a huge issue regarding ATT deploying UVerse in some small towns in Illinois. The local governments told ATT they needed to deploy to the entire geographic area, or they couldnt do it at all. ATT then basically told them to take a hike and passed over that municipality. Perhaps the buildout requirements still held for them because they are an ILEC, however its just an example of how the rules have been (recently) dictated on a local level.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:The FCC decides now. The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s. Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders. Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed). Lets look at another example, FIOS deployment in NYC. The city government (not the FCC) dictated that Verizon had to cover the majority of the city within specific time frames. In fact, they have been told them must universally offer the service within the next 5 years or so. This decision had nothing to do with the FCC, so perhaps there are exceptions to the rule. Verizon could have simply thumbed their nose at the NYC government and moved along to a more amicable municipality.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to SD6
said by SD6:I did a Verizon franchise in NY last year and they were NOT treated as an overbuilder; nor were they in any other jurisdiction in NY that I know of (and I know dozens). So where is the disconnect? Perhaps you are thinking of a state rule? Or perhaps there is an exception so that FIOS was not considered an overbuilder? That seems bizarre. Does Verizon provide landline phone services in those areas? That's the only way I could think of for them not to be consider an overbuilder.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:I am not so sure about that. If you recall last year there was a huge issue regarding ATT deploying UVerse in some small towns in Illinois. The local governments told ATT they needed to deploy to the entire geographic area, or they couldnt do it at all. ATT then basically told them to take a hike and passed over that municipality. Perhaps the buildout requirements still held for them because they are an ILEC, however its just an example of how the rules have been (recently) dictated on a local level. I watched the Illinois issue closely. They were not required to build out the entire geographic area, just those which passed existing density requirements.
Similarly for New York City, I doubt there is any residential area of the city that does not pass the minimum density requirements already.
Based on what SD6 said though, I wonder if the ILEC issue comes into play when determining if they are an overbuilder.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by marigolds:said by wifi4milez:I am not so sure about that. If you recall last year there was a huge issue regarding ATT deploying UVerse in some small towns in Illinois. The local governments told ATT they needed to deploy to the entire geographic area, or they couldnt do it at all. ATT then basically told them to take a hike and passed over that municipality. Perhaps the buildout requirements still held for them because they are an ILEC, however its just an example of how the rules have been (recently) dictated on a local level. I watched the Illinois issue closely. They were not required to build out the entire geographic area, just those which passed existing density requirements. Similarly for New York City, I doubt there is any residential area of the city that does not pass the minimum density requirements already. Based on what SD6 said though, I wonder if the ILEC issue comes into play when determining if they are an overbuilder. As far as I know the only federal requirements on carriers (FCC et al.) is regarding local phone service deployment. I think everything else falls under the state/local government.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | What I mean is, I wonder if since ATT/Verizon are deploying using their phone infrastructure, if they are considered to have high enough penetration to not be overbuilders. In other words, FIOS and U-Verse are viewed as advanced service deployments and not basic service deployments. (Buildout requirements are applied to advanced services as well.) |
|
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:That seems bizarre. Does Verizon provide landline phone services in those areas? That's the only way I could think of for them not to be consider an overbuilder. Yes, they do. Verizon provides landline phone service practically everywhere they have rolled out FIOS. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:What I mean is, I wonder if since ATT/Verizon are deploying using their phone infrastructure, if they are considered to have high enough penetration to not be overbuilders. In other words, FIOS and U-Verse are viewed as advanced service deployments and not basic service deployments. (Buildout requirements are applied to advanced services as well.) Uverse is nothing more than DSL, so it shouldnt apply there. FIOS is not using the telephone infrastructure at all, so it shouldnt apply to them either.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to SD6
said by SD6:said by marigolds:That seems bizarre. Does Verizon provide landline phone services in those areas? That's the only way I could think of for them not to be consider an overbuilder. Yes, they do. Verizon provides landline phone service practically everywhere they have rolled out FIOS. I think Verizon provides phone service in 100% of the areas they have rolled out FIOS. They only offer FIOS in areas they already serve, and if they serve an area they are required to offer phone service there.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:Uverse is nothing more than DSL, so it shouldnt apply there. FIOS is not using the telephone infrastructure at all, so it shouldnt apply to them either. Are you sure? I don't mean going over the phone wires, I mean using the conduits, pedastals, etc.
U-Verse is not purely DSL. Some U-Verse deployments are IPTV over fiber (I would guess only in locations where AT&T has a statewide franchise agreement, as opposed to other areas where AT&T is deploying with on franchise agreement at all).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by marigolds:said by wifi4milez:Uverse is nothing more than DSL, so it shouldnt apply there. FIOS is not using the telephone infrastructure at all, so it shouldnt apply to them either. Are you sure? I don't mean going over the phone wires, I mean using the conduits, pedastals, etc. It depends. In most cases they (and all other providers) use the same public ROW to access the end users.
said by marigolds:U-Verse is not purely DSL. Some U-Verse deployments are IPTV over fiber (I would guess only in locations where AT&T has a statewide franchise agreement, as opposed to other areas where AT&T is deploying with on franchise agreement at all). While U-Verse isnt all DSL, its probably upwards of 95% copper based. The very few instances they did deploy fiber were not done due to any statewide franchise, rather they did it for use in greenfield locations. Keep in mind Qwest also has a few thousand customers (out of what is likely millions) fed by fiber, however they also use DSL technology.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:said by marigolds:What I mean is, I wonder if since ATT/Verizon are deploying using their phone infrastructure, if they are considered to have high enough penetration to not be overbuilders. In other words, FIOS and U-Verse are viewed as advanced service deployments and not basic service deployments. (Buildout requirements are applied to advanced services as well.) Uverse is nothing more than DSL, so it shouldnt apply there. FIOS is not using the telephone infrastructure at all, so it shouldnt apply to them either. Actually, in New York, FIOS is considered to be an upgrade of the telephone infrastructure.
And FCC has a lot of authority over carriers for other than voice service, CATV franchising for one.
And Uverse is more than DSL. |
|
