lml2000
Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: What a bunch of lamers The issue is not power capacity, but of the ability of DWP to respond to requests by MSOs, telcos and mobile wireless providers to provide power to remote facilities located in the neighborhoods.
Specifically, when a telecom company requests power, it must first submit engineering drawings of their proposed facility, or what is too often the case with DWP, an installed facility that has sat idle for months, identifying its precise location and power needs. Then DWP provides comments to those drawings, informing the telecom where the nearest point of feed is located and what requirements will be necessary in order to deliver power to that facility (i.e. installation of conduit, location of pedestal for meter, etc.)
The problem in Los Angeles is that DWP is hooked into City departments of planning, public works and building and safety. As such, the process quickly becomes convoluted and subject to unnecessary bureaucratic delays. I have PERSONALLY dealt with these issues myself, as a consumer, but with respect to the same delays PacBell has experienced with DWP in powering one of their RTs to serve my neighborhood.
Unlike SCE, DWP does not simply respond to the telecom request and go out to provide power. It takes its cues from the various City departments who have their own agenda on what they want from the telecom, be it full landscaping, a wall to obscure the facility from view, sometimes public review where nearby residents can provide comment, sometimes unrelated reasons. IMHO, much of the holdup to PacBell was because of PacBell's refusal to pay the City franchise fees. FWIW, in contrast, more often than not, SCE provides power to these sites BEFORE the facility is even in place.
Here, with Adelphia, we are discussing cable modem service. About a year and one-half ago, following the Portland Decision in which the Ninth Circuit (which covers CA) held that cable modem service is NOT a "cable service" many of the MSOs operating in CA began refusing to pay franchise fees based on CM service revenues. Some MSOs have cont'd to pay these fees but to a third-party escrowed account rather than the City awaiting a final ruling on this matter, which we saw the FCC do last week. Bottom line, the cities don't stand to profit from CM service, and they're not happy about it.
Moreover, ever since Adelphia's purchase of Century MORE THAN THREE YEARS AGO, Adelphia has failed to respond to the City's repeated requests for a complete audit of Century's books. Adelphia provides the excuse that its not accountable for Century's books. But yet it relied upon those books to make its bid on the company. So, IMHO, that excuse is BS. At issue, I believe is the historic non-payment of franchise fees owed the City.
If you go over to the Adelphia forum, you will see that I have provided more comment on this article. But you will also note that whenever I post there I become subject to a barrage of attacks by mostly uninformed Adelphia employees who believe their sole purpose at DSLR is to defend their employer without facts. Instead of substantive counter-arguments to my comments, they instead focus upon me because I have chosen to highlight to DSLR how Adelphia has attempted to commandeer the DSLR Adelphia forum, and they don't like it. But then again, Adelphia is not known as a very tolerant MSO supportive of free speech.
So, the title of your topic is "what a bunch of lamers." How about venturing over to the Adelphia forum to gain a better insight into a bunch of lamers. |
