SD6
join:2005-03-26
| NY Statewide CATV Franchising
The bills have been introduced. They are A1423/S744. Highlights:
Deployment: 7,100 persons/sqmi population density within 3 yrs, and 501 persons/sqmi within 6 yrs (the latter being more rigorous than any other state franchise bill). Discrimination and redlining prohibited.
Localities: keep 5% franchise fees, requires 6MHz set aside for PEG channels, requires free service to most public facilities, and preserves local oversight of some aspects of franchise
Governance: PSC has franchise authority, must conduct public hearings, frnachise oversight, and must provide online system for receiving complaints.
Net neutrality: Prohibits discrimination against websites or classes of applications.
Overall, it seems (now) to be a decent law. There is localities' inolvement and rights (and state system is voluntary anyway) so as not to be a huge power grab by state, it avoids the prospect of broadband black holes likely from NJ law, and minimal net neutrality is a fair tradeoff for state franchise. Taking Verizon for example, the concern is that they will eventually attempt to restrict 3rd party VoIP services. |
|
UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
1 edit | And the status of the bill in the assembly and senate (not moving fast, but what else is new in Albany):
STATUS:
A1423 Brodsky
Public Service Law
TITLE....Establishes statewide cable franchises for the purposes of competitive cable service
01/09/07 referred to corporations, authorities and commissions
STATUS:
S744 WRIGHT
Public Service Law
TITLE....Establishes statewide cable franchises for the purposes of competitive cable service
01/08/07 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
For those wanting to read the text of each bill go here:
»public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi
Enter the A1423 for the Assembly version and S744 for Senate version.
Edit:
Quick summary of the bills:
SUMMARY:
S744 WRIGHT
WRIGHT, LARKIN
Add Art 11-A SS231 - 246, Pub Serv L
Establishes statewide cable franchises for the purposes of competitive cable service; requires individuals to file applications if they wish to provide cable services; enumerates the public service commission's responsibilities with respect to the franchising; provides that a franchise shall exist for five years; relates to the broadcasting of public, educational, or governmental (PEG) channels; establishes deployment requirements for statewide cable franchises. |
|
ankanoju
join:2004-06-16
Delmar, NY
| If you live in NY, PLEASE contact your assembly and senate member and voice your support for these bills. Get your friends and relatives to do the same.
You can find your legislature at the following website:
»nymap.elections.state.ny.us/nysb···arch.asp
For me, the reason to support these bills is simple. More cable competition benefits consumers.
Please take a minute to send an email. Thanks! |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to SD6
I dont get it, that bill means the hood and the barrio in NYC will get FIOS first. How is that possible? Is this really going to pass or those population counts and net neutrality restrictions going to disapear soon after VZ launches a astroturf attack on it (pretty funny even though the bill was made to help it)? |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| said by patcat88  :I dont get it, that bill means the hood and the barrio in NYC will get FIOS first. How is that possible? Is this really going to pass or those population counts and net neutrality restrictions going to disapear soon after VZ launches a astroturf attack on it (pretty funny even though the bill was made to help it)? Huh? The 7000/sqmile is high density but not just NYC meets that density. It's also possible that a cable company would seek a franchise in say western NY and then it would apply to Buffalo and Rochester. Who says the bill was made to help Verizon? |
|
dt_dc
join:2006-09-27
Herndon, VA
| reply to SD6
said by SD6 :Overall, it seems (now) to be a decent law. There is localities' inolvement and rights (and state system is voluntary anyway) so as not to be a huge power grab by state, it avoids the prospect of broadband black holes likely from NJ law, and minimal net neutrality is a fair tradeoff for state franchise. Taking Verizon for example, the concern is that they will eventually attempt to restrict 3rd party VoIP services. At first glance, it also seems to avoid the "breaking the monopoly but encouraging a duopoly" problem of some of these franchise reform bills which 1) yes, encourage Verizon or a telco to build out service but 2) seem to virtually guarauntee a telco / cable duopoly by making it difficult for overbuilders, CLECs, power, etc. to start offering cable services. Ie, the ILEC is given cable franchise reform ... but other (possible) competitors aren't.
Anyway, read the bills carefully ... just because something is called a "cable competition" bill doesn't always make it so. Some definately seem more likely to achieve the (desired) results than others.
I haven't really been following the New York bills though so ... I'll leave that to the New Yorkers. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to SD6
said by SD6 :said by patcat88 :I dont get it, that bill means the hood and the barrio in NYC will get FIOS first. How is that possible? Is this really going to pass or those population counts and net neutrality restrictions going to disapear soon after VZ launches a astroturf attack on it (pretty funny even though the bill was made to help it)? Huh? The 7000/sqmile is high density but not just NYC meets that density. It's also possible that a cable company would seek a franchise in say western NY and then it would apply to Buffalo and Rochester. Who says the bill was made to help Verizon? What cable company overbuilders do you know of that are thinking of/building a network right now in NYS? RCN? All cable companies that currently exist already have agreements, the only "cable company" building a network right now is VZ. |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| said by patcat88 :What cable company overbuilders do you know of that are thinking of/building a network right now in NYS? RCN? All cable companies that currently exist already have agreements, the only "cable company" building a network right now is VZ. I think you're thinking that the bill should address the current situation. Not so. If passed, it will be there for the next 20 years and should not focus on those companies who are currently building networks.
dt_dc is right is that we should look beyond cableco/telco duopoly, and try to open up the state to more robust competition. |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to SD6
ALBANY - A proposal to let companies offering fiber-optic video compete more effectively against cable television for subscribers ran into opposition yesterday from cable-TV officials and from Verizon, which is building a fiber-based network in select communities.
At issue is a bill that would make broad changes in telecommunications regulations, sponsored by Richard Brodsky, D-Greenburgh, chairman of the Assembly Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee. One plank would remove the requirement that companies trying to offer video or cable TV seek a "franchise" from individual localities and instead let them apply for a statewide franchise.
Consumer groups like the idea. But cable executives are fighting it.
"We recognize that competition is here," Howard Simons of the state Cable TV Association said in a hearing conducted by Brodsky. But, he added, "A one-size-fits-all approach denies the opportunity to tailor a franchise to a local community."
The cable operators noted that they have been getting franchises from local communities for 30 years and think their competitors should have to go through the same process. Most of the state is served by one of two cable companies, Time Warner and Cablevision Systems Corp.
The telephone company Verizon has been trying to expand its fiber-optic-based video service as a cable alternative for TV and Internet services and has secured franchises in about three dozen New York communities. Verizon representative Monica Azare said the company liked the idea of awarding a statewide franchise. But another requirement in Brodsky's bill - that the company make its service quickly available to outlying areas - makes it "not economically feasible."
Brodsky said a statewide license would speed competition, potentially with benefits, including lower costs, for consumers. He said he thinks a statewide franchise could cut bills by as much as 28 percent.
But his plan requires that a company like Verizon provide service to 85 percent of the state within six years after winning a franchise. That would "likely deter and delay, rather than promote, competition," Azare said.
In contrast, Charles Bell of Consumers Union told lawmakers that Brodsky's plan could lead to lower costs.
Since Congress deregulated the cable industry in 1996, Bell said, prices in states with no effective competition for cable have risen 64 percent, or about 2 1/2 times as fast as inflation.
Meanwhile, prices have climbed 15 percent less in areas with competition, he said.
"A statewide franchise system with strong consumer protections and appropriate provisions to meet local needs could foster new video competition and discipline ever-rising cable rates," he said.
Binghamton Mayor Matthew Ryan said "the key phrase for lawmakers should be universal access" to video services.
He said the firms should be required to provide more affordable broadband services for rural areas and more money to help citizens use public-access stations.
Brodsky said another provision would require the providers to charge the same for all information transmitted - a concept known as "net neutrality."
"This bill would put the interests of average people first," he said. |
|
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA |
DOA...DOA....DOA
Build out requirements too stringent.
Money grab for PEGs included.
Cable hates Net neutrality as much as the Telcos, and they'll say so if they're forced to |
|
