calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Tough one
To get areas upgraded, competition without the inhibitions of local franchises would be a better incentive. The only reason Comcast/ATT had to be leveraged into upgrades is that they felt relatively "safe" from competition because of their franchise agreements.
As for the wiring of school or muni buildings, the franchise agreement just serves as a back-door tax increase. These are worthy expenses, but they should be paid for through traditional means, not hidden costs buried in cable rates.
I remain convinced that franchise agreements serve only local political greed and to limit competition.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to heathcpe
If you want to get technical, it currently appears that Verizon is NOT going to do TV over IP. I know that you didn't say that this was, but I just wanted to make that distinction. Another branch of this thread started to compare VoIP and digital phone service that some cable companies provide...that too is different in the same way to what TV over IP is to Verizon's planned "cable" TV.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to calvoiper
Again though, you're blaming the politicians for the failure of the agreements....
When Comcast had to go around forging new franchise agreements with each AT&T Broadband market, many towns used the leverage to get areas upgraded, schools and municipal buildings wired, etc......
Some just used it for a money-grab. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to cdru
Those so called "public access channels" are just so much fluff to buy support for the cable company. Every little whiny interest group gets to produce its own cable show, and often the local cable company runs some "local newsmakers" show which just produces puff pieces about local politicos. It's just free publicity and fawning media about those politicians and interest groups with the pull to get on the show.
Here in Marin County, they pre-empt the last 5 minutes of each half hour of Headline News with a local blurb about this or that local politico. The @$$-kissing is so extreme that you can hardly hear the conversation for the smooching.
Local franchises don't benefit consumers--they keep out competition and increase the costs of distributing video services. They do help the local power structure, and since the cable companies get to pass along the costs and have fewer competitors, they play along.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
leveltelcomlaws2005
@optonline.net
| reply to icp1
Lets make a deal, unburden Verizon from the fcc and other taxes and surcharges on voice lines that switch over to fiber, so they can compete with voip service in exchange for a 3-level community standards: ie liberal, centrist, and conservative bases on the geographic/political regions standards and states have no veto power with one small caveat: QOS standards
Right now verizon is stuck between two firewalls for triple play: fcc taxes/surcharges on POTS over fiber, and cable content providers with their eyes on all that former MA-Bell revenue from years past (a mighty war chest if you ask me)
Once these two hurdles are overcome verizon can compete on a semi-level playing field.
Verizon should be given some regulatory relief from the obligatory taxes/surcharges for services delivered over fiber. I can't see paying $70-90 for a converted POTS copper line that only runs when you power it the same way you power a cordless phone. In my eyes, thats what you pay all those taxes and fees for (most of it anyways-- some are manditory such as 911, usf, etc) Its a trade-off some customers will not want to switch without some incentive... and holding a bundle discount hostage is not an incentive (if they actually would do that- I'll have to check on that one)
For verizon to compete with services delivered over fiber, the prices have to compete, and the only one that can blow away the competition right now is broadband, that's all folks, and until something changes, verizon will be relegated to AOL status in the hoopla dialup days in 1995... so I hope this is not where they end up.. they need to be able to compete with lowest pried of triple play packages from cablevision and not the highest cost cable provider such as time warner, cox or comcast.. |
|
ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dcurrey
Bravo dcurrey,
I think you nailed that one !!
The FCC and govt agencies are willing to approve mega mergers within the industry, but are not willing to improve competition between the behomeths within the voice, video and data markets?? Go figure.
|
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to griff1013
said by griff1013  :Cable companies also have to pay local taxes which sat does not. Which local resources does satellite companies use? Roads? Right of ways? Telephone poles? Satellite companies don't use them, so they shouldn't have to pay for them.
Likewise, Verizon already is paying for them, so should they have to pay AGAIN to use the exact thing that they are already using? It adds no extra infrastructure burden to add CATV to the FIOS service...it's not like it will require another cable other then the one already being provided for telephone service.
Cable runs all the city council meetings and such. I am sure they would love to dump all those local channels and save the dbandwidth. Hopefully they don't RUN the city council meetings, rather they just provide the televising of the meeting. I'm sure they would ditch it if they could, but it's part of their franchise agreement.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. |
|
griff1013
join:2002-01-10
Virginia Beach, VA | reply to cdru
Cable companies also have to pay local taxes which sat does not. Cable runs all the city council meetings and such. I am sure they would love to dump all those local channels and save the dbandwidth. |
|
Kommie
join:2003-05-13
East Haven, CT | reply to JTRockville
Digital Phone and they just recently launched Digital Voice. |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. Most people have heard of the words 'voice' and 'over', but what the hell is IP? Does it have anything to do with watersports? I hope not. Digital Phone sounds better for most people.
Usually the cable companies has complete control over the equipment from the customer's premises to the POTS interface with their version of VoIP service. Vonage and the 10,000 other providers usually depend on Sprint, AT&T, Level(3), UU Net and whatever else is in between the customer and the POTS interface.
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to Karl Bode
But this is a great point for discussion.
In theory since IPTV is a data service, it would be regulated in a similar fashion to VOIP.
If it's not a cable service (as traditional Comcast offerings are), then it's product is not subject to franchise fees anyway. I know our franchises here only generate revenues on "cable tv services" and not data services (such as VOIP or internet services). IPTV would be excluded by its very nature of transport.
In addition, VOIP services don't pay local telecommunications taxes either. In our area, the local govs can impose up to a 6% telco tax on traditional phone landline and cellular phone services. But offerings such as Vonage are exempt because of their "data service" classification by the FCC. Which also brings up another problem - they also don't pay into 911 funding.
If I was Comcast, SBC, or Verizon I'd be shooting for the triple play via ip just because I could avoid all of the franchise requirement payments and telco taxes, except for maybe pole attachment fees.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI | reply to icp1
Cool. I learned the difference between Digital Telephone and VOIP in this thread! Thanks! |
|
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| reply to yock
Digital phone is what most of us have from the telcos. The call travels up the loop to a point that it is converted to digital and is routed to its destination via fiber trunks or copper T1s. The phone switch is all digital now and can pass the four streams of ATM. It can even port an analog signal but that just takes up lot of bandwidth that you can route other things with it. The next step in telco world is to only allocate the bandwidth for your phone line when you pick up the line right now that bandwidth is allocated all of the time. That is one of the gains with the packet based network that Verizon and others are deploying. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to heathcpe
TV over IP isn't even deployed. |
|
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Not necessarily a fair equation, because VoIP isn't regulated yet. In that sense, is TV over IP regulated??? |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| reply to yock
said by yock :How exactly is Digital Phone *NOT* VOIP? It's 2 different technologies. They are not the same. Someone above posted what the differences are:
VOIP uses data packets going through your ISP.
TW's digital phone uses reserved bandwidth on their cable facilities for a seperate avenue for phone service. In other words, if you have RoadRunner service with time warner and digital phone service, they are totally seperate. |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| reply to yock
I can assure you that neither the RCN "digital phone" I have, or the Comcast digital phone I had is "voice over IP". It modulates a digital signal over the coax and is terminated at the CMTS, where it is carried onto the phone network. Also the cable companies have direct CO connects for 911 service etc, and you have to pay similar line charges and fees to the ones verizon charge.
Where Verizons claims really fall down is this - although they have a "phone franchise agreement", they could notionally offer TV+Internet+VOIP over FIOS, and not be collecting any revenue for the franchise agreement they have.
noz
|
|
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
2 edits | reply to dcurrey
No, Cable companies had to get CLEC approval in every state they offer phone service in.
Right now cable companies are locked in a fight over the rule that says a cable company is excluded from the rule that says a Telco with a network has to upon request offer their network and elements of to other telcos at TSLRIC rates.
The rule was over turned by the US Federal courts and now in the US Supreme Court. If the ruling is upheld by the US Supreme Court the the next logical step would be that a Telco entering into what is called a cable broadcast setup then the would have to follow the rules for a cable company.
This is going to be a big mess that the FCC created by saying a cable company can get CLEC approval but does not have to offer any network elements to other telcos. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84 :It is fair, some cable companies have offered digital telephone service for a while, which is not VoIP. How exactly is Digital Phone *NOT* VOIP?
--
Search first, ask questions later. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to Karl Bode
It is fair, some cable companies have offered digital telephone service for a while, which is not VoIP. |
|
