xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Franchise agreements protect customers
»www.techdirt.com/articles/200601···_F.shtml
Franchise payments are basically rent for public rights of way (unless you want them to dig in your yard or put poles in whenever they want with no oversight at all).
Franchise agreements also insure that the city is serviced fairly (not just affluent areas).
Franchise agreements create government,educational and public cable channels for local areas.
They also set up a customer advocate locally to take care of local problems (imagine calling some federal franchise authority to get a cable in your yard buried).
Bottom line, franchise agreements are cables "business license and rent for rights of way). Telcos think they can cost on their federal regulations that were put in place in I think 1918, while forcing cable companies to deal with local franchises thus creating an unfair playing ground for competetion. |
|
AnonUser2
@motive.com
| This is the positive side. The dark side is that its a squeeze play for the city to get voice/data/video services for employees, city bldgs and departments, etc. I know this from personal experience. The city of San Jose remained locked in a battle with TCI/ATT Broadband over high-speed Internet. The city of San Jose lagged literally years behind others in deployment, stuck on issues such as free access for the city. |
|
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | reply to xerxes3642
That's the intent, but definitely not the "bottom line". They're also used by some cities as a way to extort for freebies and perks. I remember ready of one town that demanded that an applicant to provide free phone service for all city employees. What the heck does that have to do with any tax or returns on right-of-way?
--
Myspace |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | reply to AnonUser2
aye aye aye! yes, y'all have invested thousands of hours of research on this subject and know, for a fact, that all municipalities in this country are greedy and corrupt and demand such things. (rolls eyes) |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to xerxes3642
said by xerxes3642  :Franchise payments are basically rent for public rights of way (unless you want them to dig in your yard or put poles in whenever they want with no oversight at all). If a company already has an agreement in place for one kind of service, e.g., telephone, then whey should the company's customers have to pay twice if the company wants to run cable or broadband lines in the same spot as the phone lines?
said by xerxes3642 :Franchise agreements also insure that the city is serviced fairly (not just affluent areas). This is the only goal that franchising seems to be good at. In this case, the franchise process has ensured that everyone gets zero service, so it is perfectly equal throughout all parts of the jurisdiction.
said by xerxes3642 :Franchise agreements create government,educational and public cable channels for local areas. Stuff that no one watches anyway. I'd love to save an extra buck or two if it meant eliminating these channels.
said by xerxes3642 :They also set up a customer advocate locally to take care of local problems (imagine calling some federal franchise authority to get a cable in your yard buried). Considering how bad of an image cable TV service has in this country, it is hard to see how effective local franchise authorities are at this particular sport.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26 | reply to garagerock
Research? Yes
There has been research done, and the problem is quite common. The FCC will be releasing their findings soon. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to garagerock
Re: Franchise agreements protect customers
said by garagerock :... all municipalities in this country are greedy and corrupt and demand such things. This is government we're talking about. Prejudging it to be be corrupt and greedy is perfectly reasonable.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to pnh102
Actually, according to nielson in local areas, the government/edu/public channels have more of a market share than hgtv, hallmark channel, oln and several other nich channels.
You can't get rid of regulation because "government is corrupt and will use the power for evil" if you use that excuse then we can't let government do anything.
The cable companies have expensive lawyers that negotiate these deals and usually (I worked for a franchise office) can get out of these weird requests on the basis of "not needed to provide franchise oversite" and judges usually agree.
Not to say that everyone is perfect however, the cable/telco regulation needs overhauling immediatly.
The problem boils down to the FCC NOT MAKING ANY DECISIONS REGARDING THE CABLE ACT OF 96'S CHANGES THAT ARE DRASTICALY NEEDED!! The private sector is outpacing the regulators at astronomical rates. The FCC needs to make quicker decisions instead of partisin bickering all the time. Whether they decide to make federal franchise or local, they need to say something one way or the other or we'll just keep seeing lawsuits. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to AnonUser2
said by AnonUser2 :
This is the positive side. The dark side is that its a squeeze play for the city to get voice/data/video services for employees, city bldgs and departments, etc. On difference in this case is that Cavalier Telephone is essentially an overbuilder. What that means is that they only have to agree to terms equal to the terms of the incumbent cable company. The negotiations are probably over buildout requirements (which are different for overbuilders), information requirements (i.e. turning over their customer and payment details), and a start date for the licenses and fees involved (as well as possibly the length of the franchise). The "extras" have to be in line with whatever the incumbent already has to do. The city cannot require more than the incumbent provides and is not allowed to give a break for less than the incumbent provides. If the incumbent is already providing free services, than Cavalier has to provide similar free services or provide appropriate contributions to that service (i.e. payments).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
