said by Karl Bode :

Yeah weird, the same exact choices they could have had under the old franchise system, except with broader deployment, their eminent domain rights intact, and consumer protections. Other than that, great point.

said by wifi4milez :

How come it never happened under the old franchise system then? The bottom line is that without changing the franchise laws, no other carriers would have deployed anything anywhere. The old rules were prohibitive and anti-business. The new rules make it attractive for additional carriers to actually want to provide service to a given area. As it stands now a percentage of the residents of Wisconsin (and a number of other states as well) have choices for video content that they didnt have a few years ago.

said by marigolds :

Because the old franchise system had consumer protections and coverage requirements.

How come it never happened under the old franchise system then?

The bottom line is if municipalities keep pushing back on the carriers, then they will simple pass over that town/city/etc and move on. Guess who gets hurt when that happens......THE CONSUMER.

said by Karl Bode :

Because AT&T decided to sue any town or city that told them they could ignore existing laws.

said by Karl Bode :

So stripping consumer protections is pro-consumer.

said by marigolds :

Coverage requirements only apply to the first provider in an area or the dominant (40%+ market share) provider(s) in an area.
They do not apply to overbuilders entering a market.

said by marigolds :

The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.

said by wifi4milez :

Again, that just further proves my point. If the original laws didnt have so many conditions attached then ATT would have simply built out to begin with.

said by KrK :

Not so. AT&T decided a long time ago (back when they were SBC) that they would withhold DSL, and later Project Pronto, and now U-Verse to anywhere who didn't give them a big sweetheart deal and protection from competition and consumer protections.

And they played hardball, actually telling end consumers that the reason they couldn't get said services was because of their PUC, or Corporation Commission, or because of certain politicians, and that you need to contact xxxxxx to complain.

Most states folded like wet paper bags. Wisconsin was just one of the more recent.

said by wifi4milez :

I think you are just confirming what I am saying. ATT didnt think the original conditions presented to them by the state/local government were fair. Now that those conditions are more reasonable, they have rolled out their services as promised.

said by marigolds :

It is considered an overbuilder, and is treated that way for franchise purposes. This is part of the reason Verizon had little issue with getting local franchises. FIOS actually is much closer to a overbuilder business plan than an incumbent business plan.
AT&T, on the other hand, has a business plan built on being a separate market from cable tv. Their business plan depends significantly on price point competition through reduced regulation relative to competing products.

said by marigolds :

The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.
Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed).

said by marigolds :

The FCC decides now.
The FCC made a rule that franchise buildout requirements have to be waived for new entrants into an established market. The LFA has no choice in that matter. I think at one point the LFA could apply buildout requirements to overbuilders, but that has not been the case since somewhere in the mid 90s.
Beyond that, the LFA still has the authority to establish buildout requirements for the incumbent (and they get very specific) and can specify buildout requirements for an overbuilder, but the overbuilder has an escape clause that if their penetration is below a certain amount the requirements are waived. I cannot remember the FCC cutoff off the top of my head (it may be as low as 20% penetration, but I think it's determined by market share), but most franchise agreements set an even higher bar because they want to encourage overbuilders.
Of course, overbuilders are ridiculously hard to recruit. Even when you wave all the buildout requirements and place a cost share on I-net and similar requirements (you cannot waive those, or the incumbent will have you in court), most overbuilders will not even bother to return your letters. The franchise I worked with would recruit 8-12 overbuilders every year to come overbuild our franchise, and only 1 ever got as far as drafting up a franchise agreement (which they never signed).