Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
Re: Not a new age No, however the city/town/etc. can include provisions (such as NYC and Philly did) that say the provider must provide coverage to all areas within a geographic region. If these provisions are very limiting, and include many areas that the provider wont make a profit on, then the provider likely will simply pass over that given city/town/etc. Realistically however, the carriers (in this case Verizon) realized that the potential revenues from a very large city such as NYC or Philly would allow them to eventually serve most portions of the metro, even if some areas were a wash (or worse, a loss). That clarifies things, thanks. But my understanding of the new franchise rules indicates that State law trumps local jurisdiction in most markets...and that if AT&T signs a State wide franchise they no longer need to be concerned with negotiating with smaller municipalities....in many cases those municipalities not only lose negotiation rights, but they even lose eminent domain rights.... |
|
| said by Karl Bode:That clarifies things, thanks. But my understanding of the new franchise rules indicates that State law trumps local jurisdiction in most markets...and that if AT&T signs a State wide franchise they no longer need to be concerned with negotiating with smaller municipalities....in many cases those municipalities not only lose negotiation rights, but they even lose eminent domain rights.... The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. I did hear about the eminent domain issue in IL or WI - that's a rare bird that I am not familiar with. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. Do the State laws allow a town, in a state covered by a state-level franchise argeement, to force an ISP to deploy broadband service to an entire town? |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Karl Bode:The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. Do the State laws allow a town, in a state covered by a state-level franchise argeement, to force an ISP to deploy broadband service to an entire town? I think thats where it gets tricky. The state may have a franchise law that gives the provider the right to service any location. However, this doesnt (necessarily) mean the provider can decide to setup shop and service just part of a city. My understanding of it is that the provider still sometimes needs to negotiate with the city for ROW and things like that, which basically brings all parties to the negotiating table. At that point the city/town/etc. can impose additional restrictions that are not directly related to the franchise agreement, but are about deployment (timeframes, locations, etc). It might vary from state to state (I am sure the franchise laws are quite different), so there might be exceptions to the rule.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:The state law does trump much local jurisdiction, and does make it so that they don't have to be concerned with negotiating with small municipalities. But AFAIK none of them (other than possibly NJ) permits service to be denied to areas of low ROI. Do the State laws allow a town, in a state covered by a state-level franchise argeement, to force an ISP to deploy broadband service to an entire town? There is of course no authority to require Internet service. That is why the right of localities to require universal buildout of CATV is so important. So the Internet service piggybacks on the CATV service. Yes, it is backwards as Internet access is more important to a community than CATV, but that's the way it is. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez: However, this doesnt (necessarily) mean the provider can decide to setup shop and service just part of a city. My understanding of it is that the provider still sometimes needs to negotiate with the city for ROW and things like that, which basically brings all parties to the negotiating table. It seems to be all telcos get ROW through their POTS regulation. It winds up that all next gen network equipment is dual purpose, and only video specific infastructure is regulated, if its called video at all (ATT seems to have won lawsuits in many states saying Uverse is an internet product, and not a cable product, so legally Uverse=Xbox Video Marketplace, and only something affecting Xbox Video Marketplace can affect Uverse, otherwise Uverse is nothing more than a Remote Terminal for DSL internet service, which is not regulated by any govt entity).
VZ claims FIOS is dual use, so only video specific equipment can be regulated (head end mpeg equipment and cable boxes). So deploying FIOS without a franchise is fine since FIOS plant is installed under POTS regulations/what allows VZ to install a T3. Legally, FIOS would be as regulated as a fiber optic link to a remote terminal. But nowadays deploying FIOS plant without a franchise agreement is a big no no for VZ management, since FIOS Internet uptake on its own is not profitable (VZ assumed it would be profitable and all cable and DSL users would jump to it, they haven't, plus people are willing to pay more for video than internet, because of how high video charges are on cable, also VZ stopped building FIOS before and unless a franchise is in place for video). |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to SD6
said by SD6:There is of course no authority to require Internet service. That is why the right of localities to require universal buildout of CATV is so important. So the Internet service piggybacks on the CATV service. Yes, it is backwards as Internet access is more important to a community than CATV, but that's the way it is. Sneaky sneaky. |
|
