TheOtherPete
join:2001-06-28
Boyds, MD
| Verizon Goes to Court to bring FIOS TV to Mont County MD
»www.amtdrt.inlumen.com/bin/story···WCdy5mJu
Verizon Goes to Court to Break Impasse and Bring Cable Choice, Lower Prices to Montgomery County, Maryland
PR Newswire - June 29, 2006 17:31
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- In an effort to bring video choice and competition to citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland, Verizon today filed a federal lawsuit against the county for its unreasonable and illegal cable-franchising process and demands.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, asks the court to declare that Montgomery County's cable franchise process and requirements violate federal communications and antitrust law, as well as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Verizon is asking the court for a preliminary injunction invalidating Montgomery County's current cable franchising law and directing the county to negotiate a franchise with Verizon on lawful terms within 60 days. At the same time -- in an effort to help speed the negotiations to resolution -- Verizon is asking the court to invalidate the numerous unlawful requirements the county is attempting to impose on the company.
"Verizon regrets having to take this step, but the county's unlawful demands leave us no other choice," said John P. Frantz, Verizon vice president and associate general counsel, who is leading the company's legal team on the case. "We would prefer to reach agreement on a franchise that would offer Montgomery County consumers more choice for their cable services, but after a year of essentially fruitless negotiations, we are at an impasse."
Montgomery County's Demands Hurt Consumers, Protect Incumbent
Over the year that Verizon has been negotiating to obtain a franchise to offer its FiOS TV in Montgomery County, county officials have made numerous unlawful demands that have stymied the negotiations. For example:
* The county asserts the right to collect fees on, and otherwise regulate,
Verizon's telephone and broadband Internet service, in clear violation
of federal law. In addition, the county claims authority to regulate
the engineering, construction, placement and maintenance of Verizon's
entire fiber-optic network once the company starts offering video
service, again in clear violation of federal law.
* The county is demanding that Verizon set aside roughly 65 channels of
digital capacity for public, educational and governmental programming,
even though the county currently has programming for only 11 channels.
Verizon wants to use the channels the county is insisting the company
set aside to deliver programming that county residents want to see.
* The county is demanding that Verizon pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars to cover the fees that the county owes to its own private
consultants and attorneys; federal law forbids such demands.
* The county is demanding additional cash and free services as a condition
for granting a franchise; it has no right to demand such terms under
established federal law.
"We're frustrated at the lack of progress in these negotiations, because the inordinate delay benefits only the monopoly cable incumbent," said Frantz. "Meanwhile, Montgomery County residents continue to suffer, held hostage to Comcast's ever-rising cable rates."
Comcast has increased Montgomery County cable rates more than three times the inflation rate since 2000. In Montgomery County, the stalled franchise negotiations are costing county households more than $725,000 a month in possible savings.
"Competition will bring lower prices, more innovation and better quality," said Frantz. "It's past time for Montgomery County residents to join their neighbors in Howard County and Northern Virginia who are reaping the benefits of cable competition and choice."
Montgomery County is the only place in the Washington metropolitan area where Verizon has sought a franchise and has not been able to obtain one. In Maryland, Howard County, Bowie and Laurel have all granted Verizon a franchise; Anne Arundel County is poised to do so July 5; and Verizon's negotiations with Prince George's County are on track for an agreement by late summer. In northern Virginia, Verizon has obtained franchises from Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties; the City of Fairfax, Dumfries, Herndon, Falls Church and Leesburg; and the Marine Corps Base at Quantico.
Montgomery County Neighbors Enjoy Cable Choice, Competition
In other markets where Verizon has introduced FiOS TV -- including neighboring Howard County -- cable incumbents have responded with lower prices, more innovative bundled offerings of phone, broadband and video service, and increased broadband speeds.
Verizon's standard FiOS TV package, FiOS TV Premier, offers 180 digital video and music channels, two dozen high-definition channels and access to an extensive on-demand library for $39.95 a month. Comcast's most comparable cable package costs $68.60 in Montgomery County.
A family that switched to Verizon's video offering would save more than $300 a year and get more for its money. Verizon currently offers numerous other channels not provided by Comcast, including the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which broadcasts Washington Nationals baseball games.
The competitive response to Verizon's entry to the video market is swift and dramatic. In communities where Verizon already is offering FiOS TV, incumbents initially responded by slashing prices by 28-42 percent.
"Verizon's interest in this is simple," said Frantz. "We want the ability to bring choice and competition to Montgomery County consumers as quickly as possible, and we want Montgomery County officials to do the right thing by their constituents to make that happen."
... |
|
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA
|
Thanks for finding that, Pete. Picked it up earlier on yahoo's stock page, but I wasn't subscribing to the WSJ to get the info, since I expected it to be Montgomery. The Verizon Newscenter release just came out. It is the portion of the story in Pete's post. The link is a longer story. |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD
| reply to TheOtherPete
said by TheOtherPete  :» www.amtdrt.inlumen.com/bin/story···WCdy5mJu Anne Arundel County is poised to do so July 5; and Verizon's negotiations with Prince George's County are on track for an agreement by late summer. ... Sounds good to me. Can't wait to dump Comcrap for internet and Directv for TV.
FIOS can't come fast enough. |
|
Flojomojo
join:2000-11-06
Silver Spring, MD | Agreed ... the only thing I like about Comcast is that with analog cable, I don't need to have a converter box to split the signal. I'd love to pay less to get more. I can't believe I'm cheering for the big old phone company, but
GO VERIZON GO! |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD
| reply to TheOtherPete
Comcrap is in bed with Montgomery County to stall the progress of FIOS.
Good on Verizon's part to take them to court.
I would really hope that Verizon would try to get a statewide franchise for Maryland which would knock Comcast out of the water. |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26 | reply to JohnA
thanks for posting this. who was it on this forum always asking for an example of a jurisdiction that was sued for not granting a video franchise...?
WELL, HERE YOU GO!!! |
|
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA
| said by SD6 :thanks for posting this. who was it on this forum always asking for an example of a jurisdiction that was sued for not granting a video franchise...? WELL, HERE YOU GO!!! I assume you can pull a quote. Let's have it.
In either case, this is the first time Verizon has sued over a video franchise. But go ahead and pull up the quote. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to SD6
said by SD6 :thanks for posting this. who was it on this forum always asking for an example of a jurisdiction that was sued for not granting a video franchise...? WELL, HERE YOU GO!!! You may have been thinking of me, SD6 . I have never asked for an example of a community that was sued for not granting a video franchise, but I have asked (on several occasions) for an example of a community who successfully denied a franchise renewal application. |
|
jfoj
join:2005-05-06
Mclean, VA
| reply to TheOtherPete
JT Rockville where are you!!
Love to hear your response to this.
Lived in Rockville and Gaithersburg for some time myself and I understand how the foolish Montgomery County Council operates.
I bet if you looked at the campaign contributions by Comcast to Montgomery County officials, this might shed some light on the situation!
Living in Fairfax and have been enjoying FIOS TV for some time now, I do not know why anyone would delay competition if they are clean and honest. Geeeze if Fairfax reached an agreement with Verizon, then almost any local government should be able to come to a working agreement without too much bloodshed.
Now I guess Fairfax may have been a bit colored by Cox Cables delayed and poorly executed "digital upgrade"!
jfoj |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to TheOtherPete
said by TheOtherPete :... Comcast has increased Montgomery County cable rates more than three times the inflation rate since 2000. In Montgomery County, the stalled franchise negotiations are costing county households more than $725,000 a month in possible savings. ... A family that switched to Verizon's video offering would save more than $300 a year and get more for its money. Verizon currently offers numerous other channels not provided by Comcast, including the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which broadcasts Washington Nationals baseball games. ... $300 per year? Hell, I'd save more that that per month on internet alone. I wonder if they factored my savings into the county-wide $725,000 figure. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to jfoj
said by jfoj :Love to hear your response to this. I hang my head in shame, because my local yokels are the best example of why federal intervention is needed. |
|
DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| reply to jfoj
said by jfoj :I bet if you looked at the campaign contributions by Comcast to Montgomery County officials, this might shed some light on the situation! I don't think it's campaign contributions per se but there is quid pro quo.
In addition, the Verizon complaint makes the point that the county would see a significant decrease in tax revenues because of the drop in rates due to competition. In other words, the county is actively dragging its feet to avoid competition.
Pretty outrageous if true. |
|
wmcbrine
Touched by His Noodly Appendage
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
| reply to TheOtherPete
Well, we've heard Verizon's side of it. I'd like to hear the county's. Or at least, something objective...
Some of the demands that Verizon is claiming are illegal (under what laws?), like lawyers' fees and additional services, seem to be routine elements of other franchise agreements, even Verizon's. (They paid the lawyers' fees in Laurel, I believe.)
I can't imagine what the county would want with 65 channels. But, I'm skeptical of the accuracy of that claim. I mean, why "roughly" 65? Could it be that the county actually asked for its existing 11 channels to be carried in analog -- as they should be, as part of the lifeline package -- and Verizon is choosing to translate that to "roughly 65 channels of digital capacity" for rhetorical value? |
|
DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| said by wmcbrine :Some of the demands that Verizon is claiming are illegal (under what laws?), like lawyers' fees and additional services, seem to be routine elements of other franchise agreements, even Verizon's. (They paid the lawyers' fees in Laurel, I believe.) As for lawyers' fees, it's a matter of interpretation. The FCC rules spell out what the franchise cost requirements are and, although somewhat vague, I think it's safe to say that excessive lawyer's fees are not permitted. MC could, of course, make the argument that they've been forced to burn so many lawyer-hours due to Verizon's own demands, but I suspect this is undercut by Verizon's observation that they're signing franchises everywhere but MC.
said by wmcbrine :I can't imagine what the county would want with 65 channels. But, I'm skeptical of the accuracy of that claim. I mean, why "roughly" 65? Could it be that the county actually asked for its existing 11 channels to be carried in analog -- as they should be, as part of the lifeline package -- and Verizon is choosing to translate that to "roughly 65 channels of digital capacity" for rhetorical value? Your interpretation may be correct in which case we'd need to hear more. I presume that Verizon delivers all channels digitally and that it would be willing to provide all subscribers (even basic service subs) with boxes. That's what Comcast has talked about doing when the day comes that they totally phase out analog service. So if the county is really requesting 11 *analog* channels, I'd have to say that's rather strange because the county understands the idea of supplying basic subscribers with digital boxes. |
|
wmcbrine
Touched by His Noodly Appendage
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
2 edits | said by DonLibes :I presume that Verizon delivers all channels digitally and that it would be willing to provide all subscribers (even basic service subs) with boxes. Yes and no. They provide an analog feed of the sub-50 channels, for compatibility with analog TVs, without a set top box. They also provide digital versions of the same channels, which digital receivers will map to the same channel numbers (known as ADS, analog/digital simulcast). And I'm sure they would be willing to provide set top boxes to any account... for the standard price of $4 per box per month. Which isn't really an acceptable precondition for channels in a lifeline package.
Me, I'd be happy to see them devote zero bandwidth to analogs, and just either convert in the ONT, or provide free standard-def set top boxes. But that's not the way they've chosen to do things. So, it matters what gets into the analog tier. It seems like there'd still be room in 2-49 for all broadcast locals plus all 11 PEGs, but maybe I'm missing something.
P.S. As I think about it, "convert in the ONT" -- while it would be nice -- is probably impractical. That just leaves set top boxes... and even free boxes might not meet the desired standard for lifeline service, since they effectively disable built-in tuners -- so, for example, no taping something while watching something else, unless the VCR and TV each had its own box; and many VCRs couldn't control the box for scheduled recordings.
I don't know if this is how the county is thinking, and I don't give a fig about analog service myself; but I can see why they would. |
|
SteveLV702
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Henderson, NV | reply to TheOtherPete
Well they need to hurry and come out with FiOS TV and Internet in Virginia Beach, VA dammit  |
|
jaums
join:2005-10-04
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to TheOtherPete
Will Mongomery County finally say something now? Maybe I don't know where to look, but all I have been able to find is silence from the county, which makes me wonder if they feel they have something to hide. Hide from me - I was born here and lived here all my life, paying taxes all the while. I think I have a right to know how they are representing me. |
|
TheOtherPete
join:2001-06-28
Boyds, MD
| I agree - could someone post the email address of the "right" people we should contact and express our displeasure?
I sent an email off in April to:
'amy.wilson@montgomerycountymd.gov'
'jane.lawton@montgomerycountymd.gov'
'douglas.duncan@montgomerycountymd.gov'
'county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov'
based on the other thread about the Verizon meetings and the slow progress of bringing FIOS TV to the county and got a fluffy reposnse from the county council (George Leventhal) that basically said it was the executives job to negotiate the contract, nothing else from the other parties the email was sent to. Very disappointing. |
|
cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD
·VoicePulse for Bus..
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VoiceStick
·Packet8
| reply to TheOtherPete
I am confident our expensive county cable bureaucracy has acted in the best interests of our citizens and that Duncan has handled the negotiations as efficiently as his campaign for governor. The facts should come out of this litigation and we can all judge how well our public servants performed and the value of our cable office. I’m sure the neighboring jurisdictions that rolled over for Verizon will now see the additional value achieved from holding out and litigating. |
|
achilleX4
join:2006-06-29
Damascus, MD
| reply to jammmin
great idea...especially now w/ elections in Nov. I'm sure Gov Ehrlich would love to hear our concerns and even better yet get this bug in the ear of Martin O'Malley, Baltimore's mayor and who is running against Ehrlich.
All of us who wants VZ FIOS TV for ALL of MD should write to both these men.
»www.governor.maryland.gov/contact.html
»www.martinomalley.com/ |
|
