dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
36
share rss forum feed
« Forget cable
This is a sub-selection from Sounds Good to Me


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
reply to openbox9

Re: Sounds Good to Me

said by openbox9:

Extortion tactics as building new community centers, planting trees, or any other non-pertinent local interest items.
Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements.

The state level franchises are about more than "optional services". Basic cable is one of the two primary routes for the emergency alert services. Both the Iowa and Missouri bills expressly forbid requirements to carry emergency alerts. Why? Because phone companies do not have emergency alert interconnects in place already and they are expensive to build.

Besides that, basic cable and institutional cable is used for distance education by many colleges and community colleges. The state level bills are scrapping institutional cable completely and severely restricting educational basic cable (especially facilities support, which is completely eliminated in almost every case).

The last factor of basic cable beyond a "luxury" is remote viewing of government meetings. Try telling the senior and disabled community that they should just show up to meetings if they are that interested. These state franchises are also restriction funding and channel access for government channels. The Missouri bill authorizes cable companies to remove these channels from basic cable completely.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by marigolds:

Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research right now. I've sadly based my comments on what I've read on this forum...I know that's dangerous.
said by marigolds:

The state level franchises are about more than "optional services". Basic cable is one of the two primary routes for the emergency alert services.
Ok, then my community should pay for me to have CATV? I'm not sure I'm following your logic of "optional services". To me, optional is that I choose to pay for CATV and it's not "necessity" like water, electrical, PSTN service, etc. (some of which I disagree with btw).


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2

said by openbox9:

Ok, then my community should pay for me to have CATV?
I am not certain for Florida, but for Oregon and Iowa, the city does pay indirectly for limited basic cable service for those who cannot afford it. Limited basic is just emergency alerts plus access channels (and sometimes broadcast affiliates, it varies by city). Low income residents get limited basic for free, seniors get it for a reduced cost. The city makes this up to the cable company through reduced franchise fees (the cable company gets to deducted the discounted or free service from their gross revenue used to calculate the franchise fee).

This actually brings up another component to this. All new building construction in a franchised city is required to give access to dwellings for cable television service. A homeowner cannot say "sorry, I'm not going to subscribe to cable, so I don't want you to run wires to my residence". They must give every television franchiser access to building to run service even if they are not subscribing.
The reasoning behind this is to ensure that every new resident (especially renters) of the city can have access to the essential community components of basic cable, the emergency alerts and the access channels. In many cities, rental permits carry a condition of access to cable television or reasonable substitute (like an aerial capable of picking up a minimum number of emergency alert carrying stations) for this reason (even if the rental unit is not in a mandatory buildout area).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by marigolds:

the city does pay indirectly for limited basic cable service for those who cannot afford it.
Do they buy the TV that goes along with it? If someone is really that poor, I would think that CATV access is the least of their worries. Where does the socialistic mindset end?
said by marigolds:

All new building construction in a franchised city is required to give access to dwellings for cable television service.
I assume your talking about apartment/office complexes and not necessarily private residences?


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2

said by openbox9:

I assume your talking about apartment/office complexes and not necessarily private residences?
Applies to private residences too, but the private residences do not have to allow anything beyond the walls of the building and the cable company has to make reasonable modifications to their building plans.
Basically, the property has to be wired and the cable company can place a pedastal on the property for service.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

marcos04

join:2006-09-27
New York, NY
reply to marigolds

"Care to provide proof for that? AT&T was unable to provide proof when Congress asked them to and retracted their statements."

The FCC quoted telco testimony about a Florida municipality making similar demands in their December 20th Ruling on video franchising. Representatives of the Florida municipality claimed in the press that the story was entirely a fabrication.

But . . . AT&T did donate 1 million to a community center in Illinois. But this was a personal project of Congressman Bobby Rush. In exchange Rush signed on as a co-sponsor of the Barton-COPE Bill in the House. Not exactly a city extorting a corporation - more like a corporation buying political patronage.

Cable TV is a hugely profitable industry. In NYC alone, Time Warner posts over 1.3 billion in gross revenue. It's completely acceptable for local municipalities to request non-commercial channels and access facilities, iNets for municipal and emergency services, and fee set-asides to manage and maintain public right of ways.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by marcos04:

It's completely acceptable for local municipalities to request non-commercial channels and access facilities, iNets for municipal and emergency services, and fee set-asides to manage and maintain public right of ways.
In your opinion. In my opinion, it is a tax on the people because they will pay for these amenities in higher prices. It is just a sneaky way for local pols to tax their constituents while blaming someone else for the higher cable costs.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page