States Waking Up To AT&T, Verizon 'Franchise Reform' Con Unfortunately for them, it's several years too late... Wednesday Aug 26 2009 11:06 EDT As we've been saying for years, the "franchise reform" bills the baby bells have been pushing state by state promise lower TV prices, but are really little more than legislative wish lists that erode consumer protections, legitimize next-generation broadband "cherry picking," strip away eminent domain rights, and make lobbying easier for carriers. After dozens of states drank a little too much lobbyist juice, consumers in those states are waking up in bed with a ragged-looking AT&T or Verizon, and no lower TV prices anywhere in sight. In AT&T's home state of Texas "reform" was passed quickly, but locals have noticed no savings, and a commission tasked with studying whether the bill actually helped consumers has mysteriously disappeared after the fact. Last week, Tennessee woke up with a headache wondering where exactly the TV savings was that they were promised by AT&T lobbyists, who broke records for state lobbying spending to get a similar bill passed in their state. While AT&T's finally now offering TV service in the State, the deployments have been very selective, and the law there includes language prohibiting towns and cities from wiring themselves with broadband. Wisconsin consumers recently realized their lawmakers passed one of the least friendly "franchise reform" bills in the country. That law not only gave carriers the right to cherry pick next-generation deployment, but it also obliterated consumer protection laws that protected subscribers' rights to prompt repairs, ensured refunds for service outages, mandated notice of rate increases or service deletions, and forced carriers to provide a written notice of disconnection. Does that sound like "reform" to you? Michigan is the latest to come to their senses, the Detroit Free Press suddenly realizing just how miserable these bills really are for consumers. The paper notes that by letting AT&T cherry pick profitable deployment markets and eliminating local consumer protections, said "reform" not only raised prices, but made Comcast more powerful; and while local communities used to have the power to do something about it, now they don't: quote: Now, three years after AT&T's champions in the Legislature crowed that Comcast's reign as the 800-pound guerrilla of Michigan cable service was over, Comcast remains the state's dominant provider, maintains a de facto wire-line monopoly in most its franchise areas, charges higher rates for basic cable service, and has far fewer legal obligations to the subscribers and communities it serves.
Despite the claims of mega-ISP lobbyists, there's absolutely nothing in the existing video franchise system in most states that prevented either AT&T and Verizon from entering the TV space. Verizon themselves even admitted in a moment of candor that they were able to deploy FiOS quickly without any real problems under the previous localized franchise model. Apparently, that executive didn't get the talking points memo. The real reason carriers wanted video franchise laws "reformed?" Local towns and cities often hold phone and cable companies more accountable for poor service and limited penetration. The existing localized franchise model was the primary reason most rural cable customers even have cable TV and broadband service. Yes, municipalities also sometimes demand that carriers put in a little extra effort, and are occasionally unreasonable -- as anyone looking out for their own interests is. But these instances were demonized by lobbyists for political effect. Having the FCC boss personally lie for you was a nice touch. These bills are actually harming consumers, and it appears that most people are waking up to this fact far too late. Despite the endless failed promises, phone company lobbying astroturf front groups like TV4US are still using the promise of lower TV prices to push these franchise reform laws in additional states. TV4US even gets quoted in news reports as a consumer group concerned with high cable prices. An extra point for irony. The entire thing has been one elaborate, ingenious con, but well-lobbied state politicians continue to pretend that these laws help consumers. The media certainly hasn't helped. When bloggers and technology journalists can be bothered to cover this issue (droll video legislation is not exactly an eyeball grabber or advertising engine), they've usually taken the cost saving claims of carrier lobbyists at face value. It should be interesting to see how many more states the ILECs can con before the public really wakes up from what's been a major disinformation bender. |
celeritypcFor Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle Premium Member join:2004-05-15 Caldwell, NJ |
Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"Who didn't see this one coming? Did these people actually expect prices to go down? I said it before, if you have more than one provider it is up to you to find the bargains, they won't be looking for you. Many have gotten good deals by pitting one against the other but it requires work on the part of the consumer, work most aren't willing to do.
Also, while programmers (Disney, Viacom, NBC-Universal, et al) continue to hold providers like Comcast or Verizon hostage to high costs, especially sports programming, customers will never see lower prices. | |
| | Stumbles join:2002-12-17 Port Saint Lucie, FL |
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh""Who didn't see this one coming?"... the politicians. Well maybe they politicians did, but did not want to upset their campaign contributions cart. | |
| | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 10:02 am
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"said by Stumbles:"Who didn't see this one coming?"... the politicians. Well maybe they politicians did, but did not want to upset their campaign contributions cart. The problem is we all pay for the sins of our politicians. I wish it was easier than it is to track campaign contributions, lobbyist visits and legislative votes. Often the consequence of lobbying doesn't become clear until long after a legislator has voted. | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to celeritypc
said by celeritypc:I said it before, if you have more than one provider it is up to you to find the bargains, they won't be looking for you. Since this is about video franchise reform, don't a vast majority of consumers already have access to multiple providers? | |
| | | aSicapplication specific Premium Member join:2001-05-17 Wakulla, FL |
aSic
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 10:20 am
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"said by openbox9:Since this is about video franchise reform, don't a vast majority of consumers already have access to multiple providers? No. | |
| | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 10:28 am
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"DirecTV, Dish, OTA, and possibly a cable company. Care to qualify your "no" response? | |
| | | | | aSicapplication specific Premium Member join:2001-05-17 Wakulla, FL
4 recommendations |
aSic
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 11:04 am
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"OTA technically cannot be included in the argument, as its about franchise reform. There are no franchise agreements between OTA stations and the counties/localities they serve.
Nor can Dish/DirecTV, as they dont sign franchise agreements either. This topic is about video providers involved in the franchise process. Cable, and IPTV providers. Stay on track.
A vast majority of people only have access to either NONE, or only ONE provider that would be involved in the franchise process. A minority of people live in an area where there is competition from multiple companies involved in this franchise reform.
Now to answer your off topic question..
No view of the southern sky, as I refuse to chop a hole in the beautiful canopy I've got.
40mi to nearest OTA transmitter, 50+ to the rest. Too far a distance unless I spend big bucks for a tower and a massive aerial, and even that would get me 4 channels, none of which are involved in the video franchise reform debacle.
No cable, it stops 1/2mi away, and thats only cause they just got finished building a school, and had to extend the plant.
No IPtv providers in the area.
Cheers. | |
| | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2009-Aug-26 11:37 am
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"openbox9 got served. | |
| | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 11:42 am
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"Hardly. Removing one word from my previous post nullifies most of aSic 's response. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"Actually I think deleting your entire post would "almost" nullify it. Just leaving your name there would still make it pretty valid though. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to aSic
Much better response than "no" regarding franchise requirements for different providers. However, the topic of this thread revolves around lowering cost and pitting competing providers against each other to find the best deal. My point is that since we're discussing video, there are multiple options available to a vast majority of consumers. | |
| | | | | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 12:36 pm
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"I tend to agree with you on this. People do have other choices than the franchise provider their state / county / town approves. Generally most if not all of us can get Dish or DirecTV. In my area, there is competition between Comcast and AT&T. In many areas there is competition between a franchised cable company and an incumbent telco (usually AT&T or Verizon). It appears cable companies also lobby to impose extra taxes on satellite providers. The lobbying problem isn't just about getting a better deal for a franchise, its also about imposing higher costs on alternatives. DirecTV has a site, to help customers petition to stop new taxes which are often lobbied by cable and telco franchises at - » www.stopsatellitetax.com/ | |
| | | | | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills Americans Premium Member join:2002-03-05 |
to openbox9
Try telling Comcast that they're competing against Dish and DirecTV.
Earlier this year I canceled video services from Comcast in favor of going with DirecTV. When I tried pitting Comcast against DirecTV to get a better deal from Comcast, their response was that DirecTV could offer better prices because they didn't have miles and miles of cable to maintain, rights-of-way to deal with, and pesky counties and municipalities to prevent them from "helping" the consumer (helping themselves to the consumer's wallet is more like it). No price competition. No specials. Nothing other than an "I'm sorry, we don't compete with DirecTV" response.
Perhaps your experience has been different, but right now Comcast doesn't seem to be affected by satellite providers... only something like the availability of FIOS seems to get them to change their tune when it comes to charging customers a premium for average to sub-par service. | |
| | | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 2:14 pm
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"I've never done business with Comcast so I can't comment on their retention policies, but I will say that with my previous Mediacom experience, they were more than willing to throw around "intro" and "retention" discounts...at least for a while. Eventually, unbundling my services simply became more economical and I ended up with Dish for TV and Mediacom for my HSI. Mediacom did offer me a welcome back offer after I cancelled their TV service, but it wasn't enough to entice me back. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI |
to aSic
said by aSic:A vast majority of people only have access to either NONE, or only ONE provider that would be involved in the franchise process. A minority of people live in an area where there is competition from multiple companies involved in this franchise reform. Can you provide some sort of statistical data for this? | |
| | | | | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills Americans Premium Member join:2002-03-05 |
NOVA_Guy
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 1:34 pm
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"How many people live in areas where two cable companies compete against each other for business?
With the deployment of other services like FIOS, I would venture to guess that more people do today than 5 years ago, but I'd still say it's a safe bet that most people don't have access to two or more providers with franchise agreements that cover a specific area. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"Sounds about right.
I can count on one hand the number of major overbuilders in the US. RCN, WOW, Knology, GrandeComm. Pretty sure that's it.
Other than that, you've got fiber-based providers (nearly all of 'em) and AT&T U-Verse,, plus a handful of small providers with ADSL or VDSL based video delivery systems.
Here, Comcast is the terrestrial pay-TV provider. At home, TWC is. That's it. | |
|
| | | | | WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
to aSic
yea move out in the middle of nowhere and expect to be the first to get service. How long has cable been 1/2 mild away.
You can't prove a negative but if cable has little competition except satellite what keeps them from rasing their price. AT&T may not have lowered prices but they may or may not have slowed price increases. I suspect you would still have slower internet speeds if AT&T had not started Uverse.
Other then reusing the existing cable all the equipment for Uverse is new and how long has U verse been available. How long has cable had to build their network.
This crowd want instant gratification for $10 a month when you get your company up and running drop me an ad. I can only get TWC my choices are to move or put up with it or drop the service. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"Sat has probably kept CATV prices in check. Cable TV or sat are the only options both here (Denver) and at home (TX Hill Country).
On the U-Verse side you can outrun U-Verse tiers with well-made DOCSIS 1.1. Insight offers 20 Mbps down, 1.5 Mbps up service that does just that.
Conversely, here Comcast has decided to upgrade their infrastructure to DOCSIS 3. It helps that DOCSIS 3 adds effectively two high-end residential tiers to the internet offering, pushing ARPU up a smidge. Competition in this area doesn't quite exist yet; Qwest tops out at 7 Mbps minus overhead for their DSL. Upstream speeds are around 700k. | |
|
| | | jjeffeoryjjeffeory join:2002-12-04 Bloomington, IN |
to aSic
Actually, the competition on the video franchise side has nothing to do with these bills. There is DirecTV, Dish Network, & Your local Cable Company almost everywhere. In many places there is your phone company. The big problem is that the last two are playing the same money game with you. You can get some savings from the satellite provides sometimes. It's really all a mess if you ask me. Too much money is being spent by the consumer. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"I can haz sat-TV over IP?
Seriously though, most places at this point in time CAN'T get more than one terrestrial pay-TV option. By terrestrial I mean non-sat, and by pay-TV I mean not OTA. If you don't have fiber, VDSL or the rare coax overbuilder in your area you simply aren't going to get any choice but the MSO. | |
|
| | |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Since this is about video franchise reform, don't a vast majority of consumers already have access to multiple providers? Yea, it's called DirecTV & DISH - as long as you have a view of the Southern sky, you have your access to it. | |
| | | | aSicapplication specific Premium Member join:2001-05-17 Wakulla, FL |
aSic
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 11:08 am
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"But DTV and Dish are not involved in this franchise reform fcukup as they do not sign franchise agreements with the localities they serve. They are not within the scope of this thread. | |
| | | | | baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI |
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"By the letter of the law, you are correct, they are not involved. But, by the spirit of the law, they are legitimate TV choices, which is the main discussion here. | |
|
| | ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:said by celeritypc:I said it before, if you have more than one provider it is up to you to find the bargains, they won't be looking for you. Since this is about video franchise reform, don't a vast majority of consumers already have access to multiple providers? In our area of CT it's either the local cable company or satellite. | |
| | | |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:]Since this is about video franchise reform, don't a vast majority of consumers already have access to multiple providers? Nope. Let's see.. where I routinely reside: New York, NY: Time Warner only. Verizon: no Fios yet. No view of satellites. Tampa, FL : BrightHouse (cable) only. Verizon's Fios isn't here yet, no view of DTV satellites Fort Myers, FL: Comcast (cable) only. Embarq has no plans to enter the TV market. No view of DTV satellites Daytona Beach, FL: BrightHouse (cable) only. AT&T has no current plans to bring video to this market, no view of DTV satellites. That's 4 cities, 2 states, with cable being the only option. So, what options does a regular consumer have? I'll admit that we do cheat on this one -- we have a pile of DirecTV boxes at the main office with Slingboxes attached to them. Far less expensive than maintaining cable TV service at the various corporate apartments, same with our own VoIP PBX for phone service for these apartments as well, but still. These aren't exactly normal arrangements, not available to 99% of the consumers out there. | |
| | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Aug-30 3:20 pm
Re: Just another chapter in the "Book of Duh"Looks like you have a lot of north facing condos. I still stand by my claim that a vast majority of consumers in this country already have access to multiple video providers. | |
|
| |
to celeritypc
Programming has nothing to do with this. This is the fact that ATT is promising that if they get what they want the public will get lower bills. In return ATT has actually RAISED rates several times for Programming and STBs. What does the customer get? 5+ channels of "private access tv channels" That's it.
ATT wants $45 for 20ish channels when i can go to TWC and pay $45 and get 70 channels. What gives ATT? Oh did i mention I don't have to lease a $7+ box for the TVs either? | |
|
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 9:48 am
hmmmm.....I know it is probably hard to do, but just enact "new"legislation to "fix" their concerns.....Peace | |
| | ••• | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 10:00 am
Laws did what they were supposed to - give more competitionThese state laws did what they purported to do - make competition available sooner by streamlining the franchise approval process.
And TV rates are what they are because Hollywood controls the costs to ALL cable & telco providers. They set a base cost that affects all TV rates. | |
| | ••••• | banner Premium Member join:2003-11-07 Long Beach, CA |
banner
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 10:03 am
Absolutely nothingThese bills are doing absolutely nothing for consumers, and it appears that most states, news outlets and consumers are waking up to this fact far too late.
Go ahead and call me a shill, but I disagree with the premise that there have been absolutely no benefits. There have been benefits been slight to moderate to consumers, but I grant that there is probably not enough benefits to be overjoyed. Uverse service is slightly cheaper than Cox service in my area and they are offering $200 rebates. That's a modest prices savings, but more than absolutely nothing. [side note: I am still waiting for service after FOUR tech dispatches, engineers need to expand the completely full box down the street]. I have heard anecdotal stories of cable companies locking in consumers with 3-year contracts at much lower rates when u-verse or FIOS comes to town. I am not familiar with those contract terms, they may be dubious, but those price savings are more than absolutely nothing. there's absolutely nothing in the existing video franchise system in most states that prevented either AT&T and Verizon from entering the TV space.
I recall that Verizon's was delayed for months in Philly due to the local city council. Not sure how much that issue is related to the video franchise system itself or another dispute. I imagine that its difficult to forecast statewide product rollout costs when you have to negotiate with each individual city council in the state, I imagine that each city would want a better deal from the telco than their neighbor.. | |
| | ••••••••••• | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 11:53 am
Same deal in Oklahoma(Except here they aren't talking about investigating anything.)
AT&T promised that in exchange for reform and removal of oversight Oklahoma would receive:
Lower prices due to increased competition AT&T would bring more jobs to the state Faster broadband and upgraded service to much of the state
What we have now:
Limited U-verse deployment in Tulsa and Oklahoma city Net job decrease Prices higher then ever, I was just pricing U-Verse "bundles" last night and it was more expensive then Cox or DSL + DBS + VOIP. DSL Speeds are the same now when deployed in 1999. | |
| baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI
1 recommendation |
Go farther up the chainCable/Telco are just the middleman between networks and consumers.
TV costs will drop when programming costs do. If you really want to point fingers for high TV prices, point them at Disney (ESPN, sports programming) and Viacom (MTV/Nickeloedon, kids programming). | |
| | ••••••• | |
jblow50
Anon
2009-Aug-26 1:00 pm
PoliticsAs long as polititians can legally accept bribes as campaign contributions, none of this will ever change, period. | |
| toddbs98 join:2000-07-08 North Little Rock, AR |
This is what makes America great! Free enterprise is what makes America great and doing away with the franchise agreements is in the best interest of consumers because what is good for corporate America is good for citizens. We don't need the government telling business what we need and when we need it, that should be left in the hands of the free market. | |
| | ••• | volntnThe Volunteer Premium Member join:2002-01-05 Cleveland, TN |
volntn
Premium Member
2009-Aug-26 2:48 pm
eminent domain rightsstrip away eminent domain rights,
As in protections or take away domain rights from the Government?...If it's the latter...I am all for that. | |
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2009-Aug-26 4:00 pm
Oh pleaseenough with the whining
Ok let's address "cherry picking" if at&t didn't get reform in my state guess what NO ONE would have u-verse. yeah that's better. Then cable/satellite would have one less competitor. which is really what this is about. Cable/sate bitching. which I find ironic because thanks to the so called pro-at&t reform Comcast and Charter can ALSO get statewide franchise and not have to deal with city by city which you'd think they prefer. comsumer protection? Sorry didn't have that before anyways. All my LOCAL franchise got use was fewer channels and higher prices. Where is my protection? Anyone that sings the prasies of LOCAL franchise agreements is a fucking moron. By the way at least in my state at&t is in fact required to service a certain minium number of households and not just in well to do areas within 3 years. So that adresses both protections and cheery picking. | |
| | |
Re: Oh pleasesaid by 88615298:Cable/sate bitching. which I find ironic because thanks to the so called pro-at&t reform Comcast and Charter can ALSO get statewide franchise and not have to deal with city by city which you'd think they prefer. Actually most of the changes to the franchise rules favor telecom upgrades only as they typically allow statewide franchises for IPTV. Most cable cos do not yet do IPTV and may not for some time so no, they can not get statewide franchises in most cases. I believe a much older bill governs cable co. franchise requirements. So I would say they have pretty good reason to bitch. | |
| | | |
Re: Oh pleaseWRONG Insight Communications, when't from having a franchise agreement for my house w/Blendon Township, to now with Ohio Dept of Commerce. | |
|
xrobertcmx Premium Member join:2001-06-18 White Plains, MD |
Not exactly trueThat article isn't exactly correct, oh they are cherry picking, but it is cheaper. I am actually paying less now with FIOS for both TV and Internet then I was with Comcast or DirecTV. We spent about $110 a month for the two with various discounts about to expire on DirecTV and another rate hike waiting for us. With DirecTV we had standard definition channels and a DVR with no premiums, and one extra box. With FIOS we have a multi-room DVR, the HD extreme tier, and the second box. We pay $104 a month non-promotional. As of July (when the $10 a month discount from DirecTV would have expired.) we are saving about $20 a month, and get more for that money. Comcast and Cox in our area don't seem to be trying to compete on price, so that may be why it doesn't look like prices are coming down. | |
| |
att cherry pickinIn CT, U verse was held up in courts over these franchise laws. The AG Blumie said "att would cherry pick towns and deploy their product without serving the "WHOLE" towns. " Guess what.... they do some streets over others because some DA's are larger and got better "results" in engineering, for the number of households fed. This met project goals and got management great bonuses. They just chose the "Bang for the Buck" PLAN, Inner cities and dense lower Middle-class communities got Uverse. The Meat and Potato middle class and the Wealthy in the woods, with $400,000 to $1 million dollar homes get cable or Dish. OR NADA. They got this Hugh "banana" on a map cut thru the state and if your outside the FruitLoop... T.S. They told sales that after 2009 "that's all folks". They plan no major tidying up the few thousand DA's that didn't feed less than 500 customers. Isn't this what the AG said they would do? Isn't this cherry picking? The laws deemed that the "WHOLE" town get's service. They hit the dense areas only. The poor can't get Uverse due to credit score restrictions. So if you live and work here in Conn., you would know, we're "rural", 30 min commuters, more than city dwellers. Look at our traffic, you get the picture. So we all build our nice homes out in the woods, just where att isn't going to serve. Reverse discrimination of the wealthy ODD? Too few homes= no rapid return on investment,is the only mantra, to the bean counters.Blinded by statistic and data matrix they see deployment with little or few sales. They wonder why? Yet, when people come out of their homes, actually go out- side, to ask the techs, "when are they installing Uverse?" just ,because " I HATE comcast". No kidding, then marketing is run by MORONS and planning has got their heads up their bonus driven asses. I see were Uverse will sell but, I don't run this company. Any Company that spends more money, to get out of work, than it would ,if it really invested in the community is driven only by greed. Fair? NOT Customer concern? NOT. No different than VZ selling VT,NH, ME to Fairpoint dump the rural because cows and sheep don't need TV.....SAD. | |
| cork1958Cork Premium Member join:2000-02-26 3 edits |
cork1958
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 4:37 am
It's all about the fat catsThis is all just a crock of crap!!
There is NO competition and NEVER will be. There are just WAY to many greedy, lieing, deceiving, dishonest politicians/lobbyists. There is no way around it.
Every sector of government/authority has become so corrupted it's totally ridiculous.
What we need to do is totally start over with a new governemntal system and throw EVERYONE in there now out. The democratic way of doing things just does not work when everyone involved in it is nothing but a lieing, thieving, dishonest b*****d!! | |
|
| |
|
|