PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to cypherstream
Re: Just wire up all of PA
That would no more happen than Comcast itself wiring all of Pennsylvania. While Comcast (or Verizon) is indeed capable of tackling the entire state, video franchising is decided at the county (or, in cases like Philly, muni) level. As long as franchising is handled piecemeal, networks will continue to be built/rebuilt piecemeal. (By the way, how much of Berks County has video franchising agreementsw in place?) |
|
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs:
2 edits | I heard that Muhelenburg Township (Northern Reading border) offered them the same franchise agreement Comcast has. The big sticking point is coverage area. the township wants 100% availability within 3 years to keep them from cherry picking the best neighborhoods but Verizon would not commit to a time table.
When I contacted my township (Lower Alsace) they said that their Comcast franchise is up in 2010 (IIRC) and they are in a joint agreement with about 10 other townships, but assured me I am welcome at any meetings to express concern. They seemed to welcome the idea of allowing Verizon to come in and provide some competition, but Verizon needs to show initiative. VZ has 7mbit DSL in the area and I drive by the local switching facility almost every day.
Additionally I don't know if VZ could technically or legally offer Fios in Douglassville, Birdsboro, Morgantown or any of the area's serviced by D&E Communications. I've seen D&E run fiber, but they appear to only offer 10mbps DSL. I'm not sure what all of that D&E fiber is for... who know's maybe they have a similar project on their drawing boards. 10mbps is good for DSL though. Maybe the fiber is just run closer to the neighborhood. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by cypherstream  :I heard that Muhelenburg Township (Northern Reading border) offered them the same franchise agreement Comcast has. The big sticking point is coverage area. the township wants 100% availability within 3 years to keep them from cherry picking the best neighborhoods but Verizon would not commit to a time table. So in otherwords the town said "all or nothing" and Verizon said "Ok nothing". Real smart town leaders there.
Something > nothing. Last time I checked. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by BF69 :So in otherwords the town said "all or nothing" and Verizon said "Ok nothing". Real smart town leaders there. Something > nothing. Last time I checked. That's why I have always blamed government for the lack of broadband deployment in this country. Like it or not, there will be some places which are simply unprofitable for some companies to wire up. It isn't fair to everyone else that all other potential customers be deprived of expanded broadband deployments because government places unreasonable demands on ISPs.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs:
| Yeah especially when there's another incumbent provider already servicing the area. However the local government could give perks or special deals if they comply with certain guidelines. Like if they wire up 100% of the area within 3 years, they could be granted a tax and regulation free presence for 3 years. Verizon can choose to comply - or not. It's up to Verizon if they would want to take them up on that offer.
So let Verizon build, but grant them perks if they comply with the local franchise. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to pnh102
That's how we ended up with the debacle that is the USF in telecom. Once someone decided that telephone service is a right, the government got involved in "spreading the wealth around" and there you have it. We now have ubiquitous telephone service, along with corruptions and billions of dollars wasted. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to cypherstream
said by cypherstream :So let Verizon build, but grant them perks if they comply with the local franchise. I like that approach. As long as things like tax incentives and other perks are given after people can actually sign up for the service than I am all for it.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by BF69 :So in otherwords the town said "all or nothing" and Verizon said "Ok nothing". Real smart town leaders there. Something > nothing. Last time I checked. That's why I have always blamed government for the lack of broadband deployment in this country. Like it or not, there will be some places which are simply unprofitable for some companies to wire up. It isn't fair to everyone else that all other potential customers be deprived of expanded broadband deployments because government places unreasonable demands on ISPs. I was having a discussion about this just the other day. All these small municipalities demanding "100% coverage" are really only hurting the consumer. It appears that Verizon, just like ATT, will simply pass over those communities that put their socialistic principals above the good of the majority of their citizens. I will state my premise on this again, "more choices for some people is better than no choices for all people". I suppose the local government would rather see the entire town/county/etc suffer instead of letting a portion of their residents get better service. 'SHRUG' I sure as heck didnt vote for them, and I suggest the people who live there remember this next time elections come around.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by BF69 :So in otherwords the town said "all or nothing" and Verizon said "Ok nothing". Real smart town leaders there. Something > nothing. Last time I checked. That's why I have always blamed government for the lack of broadband deployment in this country. Like it or not, there will be some places which are simply unprofitable for some companies to wire up. It isn't fair to everyone else that all other potential customers be deprived of expanded broadband deployments because government places unreasonable demands on ISPs. These absurd local build out requirements will do nothing but slow down broadband deployment in this country.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to cypherstream
said by cypherstream :I heard that Muhelenburg Township (Northern Reading border) offered them the same franchise agreement Comcast has. The big sticking point is coverage area. the township wants 100% availability within 3 years to keep them from cherry picking the best neighborhoods but Verizon would not commit to a time table. By federal law, they are required to offer them the same franchise agreement as Comcast. If they gave Verizon a different agreement, Comcast can come back and sue them under due process and would easily win.
I would assume the Comcast agreement has a clause that if Comcast's market share or penetration drop below a certain number, they are no longer held to buildout requirements. That same clause would apply to Verizon. If that clause is missing, they can insert it in 2010 (that section would not be voidable in negotiations), and then Verizon would be exempted.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez :These absurd local build out requirements will do nothing but slow down broadband deployment in this country. Quick point on that... buildout requirements only apply to video distribution.
They do not apply to internet access, even if the internet access is carried over the same fiber as the video distribution. Verizon can run FIOS all they want without even a franchise agreement. They cannot run FIOS TV without a franchise agreement and buildout requirements.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
GeekGirl1
The Medium IS the Message
Premium
join:2007-01-28
Morrisville, PA | I wonder if anyone in the Comcast building in Center City will subscribe?  |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds :said by cypherstream :I heard that Muhelenburg Township (Northern Reading border) offered them the same franchise agreement Comcast has. The big sticking point is coverage area. the township wants 100% availability within 3 years to keep them from cherry picking the best neighborhoods but Verizon would not commit to a time table. By federal law, they are required to offer them the same franchise agreement as Comcast. If they gave Verizon a different agreement, Comcast can come back and sue them under due process and would easily win. I would assume the Comcast agreement has a clause that if Comcast's market share or penetration drop below a certain number, they are no longer held to buildout requirements. That same clause would apply to Verizon. If that clause is missing, they can insert it in 2010 (that section would not be voidable in negotiations), and then Verizon would be exempted. Not at all. They have to be eguivalent; not the same. None of Verizon's franchise agreements are the same as the incumbents and none have been voided. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Yes, by "same" I meant equivalent. Obviously they cannot have identical wordings, but they must have the same functional clauses. If the incumbent franchise requires an i-net, then the overbuilder must have a clause for i-net support. If the incumbent franchise calls for up to 12 PEG channels, then the overbuilder franchise must call for minimum number of PEGs provided. If the incumbent must provide interconnects and fiber ties in for a specific fee, then the overbuilder must provide equivalent interconnects and fiber ties ins for a fee with the same cost-share.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| said by marigolds :Yes, by "same" I meant equivalent. Obviously they cannot have identical wordings, but they must have the same functional clauses. If the incumbent franchise requires an i-net, then the overbuilder must have a clause for i-net support. If the incumbent franchise calls for up to 12 PEG channels, then the overbuilder franchise must call for minimum number of PEGs provided. If the incumbent must provide interconnects and fiber ties in for a specific fee, then the overbuilder must provide equivalent interconnects and fiber ties ins for a fee with the same cost-share. No, that is not true either. In our FIOS franchise agreement, we took cost-eguivalent payments in lieu of actual (redundant) connections. It is also not true that the buildout reguirements have to be the same. Not a single FIOS franchise agreement has been rejected or even legally challenged anywhere in PA (or NY) for the reasons you are mentioning. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| You just said you took cost equivalent payments in lieu of connections, which is exactly what I said in my paragraph (except I called it i-net support, same thing... the overbuild pays money to offset what the incumbent already spent).
We had the opposite experience in Iowa, McLeod and AT&T brought a series of suits when franchises were issued with non-equivalent terms. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to SD6
Okay, here's the simple explanation:
47USC546(c)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(D) require existing material terms of a franchise to be consistent with the present and future assessed community needs for the area served by the franchising authority.
This is consistent with the community needs assessment process initiated under 47USC546(a)(1)(A) for the renewal of a franchise.
These terms must also be consistent with 47USC544 on the regulation of services, equipment, and facilities (which really sets only very broad outlines of what terms are inconsistent).
In order to issue a subsequent franchise consistent with the terms of a renewed franchise (and nearly every incumbent out there currently has a 546(h) or 546(a-g) renewed franchise), it must also conform to the community needs assessment use to establish compliance with 546(c)(1). If the franchise does not conform to the community needs assessment, then the franchise can be challenged by the incumbent under 47USC555(a) which allows the challenging of a newly issued franchise (under 541(a)(1)) if it adversely affects the incumbent.
While there is no specific prohibition against providing a 541(a)(1) franchise (which is what Verizon is pursing) without conforming to a community needs assessment, the incumbent can obtain injunctive relief against such a franchise if the incumbent is materially harmed and such a franchise would have to conform to assessed community needs once it comes up for renewal under 47USC546.
(Though I suspect Verizon will try to do something about 47USC546 before their franchises come up for renewal.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
