Verizon's Texas TV Franchise Approved FiOS TV coming soon for 21 communities Yesterday, the Public Utility Commission of Texas approved Verizon's state-issued franchise application to offer Verizon FiOS TV service to 21 communities in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. This will expedite Verizon's rollout of its new TV service to North Texas communities in its service area where fiber deployment is actively under way. The communities covered by the state-issued franchise are: Allen, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Denton, Double Oak, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Garland, Grapevine, Hebron, Highland Village, Irving, Lewisville, Lucas, Murphy, Parker, Plano, Rowlett, Southlake and St. Paul.
|
  gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | Wish it was here... I wish Verizon was our provider here in Flagler County (north of Daytona Beach/Volusia County) | |
|  HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Not so Fast !!! Wait Hi,
I just read a article about the franchise agreements here in Northern New Jersey. Fact is some towns around here are calling for some legal intervention or pressuring the State legislature.
The problem is the towns will lose some $40,000 a year that the local agreements produce. Their logic seems that the State will get the money and "President Reagan's Trickle down theory "would not apply.
If I find the article I post it.Seems like Jersey may have a war on their hands on the local level.
Lee
--
"I don't feel Tardy"www.gwbmcfund.org | |
|  | | | cdobol
join:2002-02-12
Denville, NJ | I have been trying to follow the development of state wide franchise here in NJ. Local government is very aware of losing franchise money but the legislation has not even been written so towns shouldn't be crying wolf yet.
Verizon has proposed to charge a flat percentage rate from revenue generated from FIOS TV and give this money directly to the communites. »www.njslom.org/magart1005_page106.html This makes much more sense than the monopoly friendly negiotiated franchise for each town. From the communication that I have received from my mayor I assume he would support this. The legislation is suppose to be discussed after the elections.
There is another thread about the nj franchise law here --> »[TV] FIOS TV legislation - in NJ and in congress | |
|
| | solution My solution (very humble) would be to set x amount of money based on the population of each town the franchise is in that the local government gets. So if there's a statewide franchise agreement, and they're actually deploying in 8 areas, x amount of money, depending on each area's population, would go to that area out of the money paid to the state. Not that this would ever happen... but we can dream! | |
| | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: solution said by aaron12345:My solution (very humble) would be to set x amount of money based on the population of each town the franchise is in that the local government gets. So if there's a statewide franchise agreement, and they're actually deploying in 8 areas, x amount of money, depending on each area's population, would go to that area out of the money paid to the state. Not that this would ever happen... but we can dream! Why do you think the locals should get anything? | |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Towns have gotten greedy In addition to fees some towns have held out for other concessions. Such as emergency veichles and such.
I'm sure the 40k they lose will quickly be made up in property tax valuation increases they use a backdoor tax increases every year.
--
»www.silentbrouhaha.com | |
| | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: Towns have gotten greedy said by NOCMan:In addition to fees some towns have held out for other concessions. Such as emergency veichles and such. I'm sure the 40k they lose will quickly be made up in property tax valuation increases they use a backdoor tax increases every year. Either that or politicians will finally hold the line on spending elsewhere. Emergency vehicles come first. But new highways to nowhere, Centers for the Performing Arts, tax breaks for favorite corporations, etc, etc, should be removed from the budget. Maybe this will force it to occur. | |
| | | | | Re: Towns have gotten greedy If anything they should be cutting taxes for all individuals and corporations. High taxes hurt the economy and whenever politicians talk about taxing corporations, they're always talking about using the corporations to collect their taxes, at everyone's expense. | |
| | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
·Charter
| Re: Towns have gotten greedy said by AnonymousRepublican :
If anything they should be cutting taxes for all individuals and corporations. cutting taxes for corporations? F that. those dirty bastards weasle their way out of paying the taxes they are suppose to be paying now with loopholes and such. then there are companies like horrible Accenture that base their company in the caribbean to avoid paying taxes to the u.s. government. ... then we give them millions in consulting contracts to tell companies to outsource work to india. ah, it's a mess. take home message: ACCENTURE BLOWS
--
no sig | |
| | | | | | | Re: Towns have gotten greedy If you do business in America, you pay taxes to America.
Just like if you live in Illinois and work in Missouri. You still pay taxes in MO even though you don't live there. | |
| | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Towns have gotten greedy Foreign consulting company Accenture (formerly part of the infamous Anderson Consulting) uses Bermuda as a tax haven. It's widely agreed that they being based out of Bermuda is strictly to dodge taxes. I believe I read they pay about $30-40,000 a year to the government there, while in the U.S. their bill would be much higher.
--
no sig | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Towns have gotten greedy You are incorrect. Accenture is a partnership and the partners pay taxes on behalf of the company in the form of income taxes since all income from the company flows down through the partnership. Unless every person that is a partner of Accenture lives in Bermuda and never steps foot in the US then they are paying taxes on the company's behalf to the US just as BearingPoint or any other former accounting firm's consulting group is. | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | If anything they should be cutting taxes for all individuals and corporations. High taxes hurt the economy and whenever politicians talk about taxing corporations, they're always talking about using the corporations to collect their taxes, at everyone's expense.
Yeah,that's worked out really well,wouldn't you say?
Tax cuts to energy companies...record profits,are you nuts?
I guess if you call having the largest deficit in history as good for the economy,then your right  | |
| | | | | phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA | Re: Towns have gotten greedy Maybe its time for the fair tax proposition to start being considered. | |
|
| | Relic of the past. Franchise agreements held a purpose back when cities helped encourage and subsizidize the building of cable infrastructure. They'd give a company a right to operate the system and then later could if they so chosed to let someone else operate the system. Now that the federal government has removed all their powers it's just a money giveaway.
If cities need monetary aid they should be getting it from the state and federal government. Not from some company as a bribe for them to lobby in favor of an incumbent near monopoly. | |
| |  JoeOnSunsetDoublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL | Re: Relic of the past. As if a state-wide utilities commission is going to be less political and more responsive to consumer needs? I'm not sure what you mean by "lobby in favor of an incumbent near monopoly." PUCs don't "lobby." If they did, I don't know why you'd think the same situation but state-wide would be any better.
If monopolies are going to be created and regulated, it's MUCH better to do it on a local level, where there is more transparency and the commission is much closer to the end users. I honesty can't think of one reason why franchises should be state-wide, except to make it easier on the monopolists. | |
| |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by Taget:If cities need monetary aid they should be getting it from the state and federal government. Not from some company as a bribe for them to lobby in favor of an incumbent near monopoly. That may be nice for your state, but in some states the cities do not get money from their state governments, or only receive very small amounts of money. They only receive revenue from local fees and taxes.
What should they do?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| |  JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
·Verizon FiOS
| said by Taget:Now that the federal government has removed all their powers it's just a money giveaway. No one is giving anything away under the current structure.
Public companies profit from the use of public land, and they provide compensation to the locals, who maintain the land.
The federal government hasn't removed all the power from the locals (yet). Locals can still deny franchise renewals (though I'm not sure it's ever been done) and take over the system. | |
|
 Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX | Wonder Which One is Really Serious? It would appear one of the companies below is really serious about fiber ...
From the Verizon press release:
"In fact, the response to our 100 percent fiber-optic suite of services continues to be so positive that we plan to hire 150,and possibly more, union-represented fiber network technicians in North Texas over the next several months to provide our customers with continued excellent service."
SBC also got a state franchise recently. But just Thursday SBC said this (reported on BBR):
From »money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_to···ey/cm/nw
"Lindner said SBC cut 3,000 jobs in the third quarter, and expects 10,000 work force reductions for the year. SBC will be able to generate enough free cash flow to cover the additional capital expenses next year related to the rollout of its fiber network Project Lightspeed..."
and
"SBC's Project Lightspeed, which connects consumers with a high-speed fiber network, is on schedule in its rollout. The channel line-up and video-on-demand content for a controlled launch has been secured, and the company has completed its field trial in San Antonio."
Guess which one! | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Wonder Which One is Really Serious? said by Gwailo:It would appear one of the companies below is really serious about fiber ... From the Verizon press release: "In fact, the response to our 100 percent fiber-optic suite of services continues to be so positive ....... SBC also got a state franchise recently. But just Thursday SBC said this (reported on BBR): SBC will be able to generate enough free cash flow to cover the additional capital expenses next year related to the rollout of its fiber network Project Lightspeed..." Guess which one! Oh goodie! A guessing game. Hmmm.. I bet my money on SBC. Verizon is a big fat fake! (But what else is new. Many people will soon remember the beast that Verizon and Telco in general is)
You are trying to associate SBC's reduction in work force as not being serious. Rather, reduction of work force is a positive sign. It's shows that SBC is making sure there is going to be enough money to build their project all the wya through. SBC is trying to make sure they aren't too 'in-the-hole' going out the door and is choosing to be more, gasp, "convertative" about their roll-out.
I know this doesn't play well into a group that wants all the latest technology, and wants it now, and makes it loud and clear that they will pay only the least amout for it. SBC isn't no dummy!
Now, as for the Verizon project and just "how serious they are" about fiber. I don't think I need to say much. I will let the news articles speak for themselves.
See the following:
»Verizon has exit clause in Woburn deal
and the actual story at:
»www.boston.com/business/technolo···rn_deal/
"Verizon Communications Inc. plans to start signing up customers for its cable TV service in Woburn early next year, but a clause in its franchise agreement with the city could allow it to disconnect all those customers in 2009.
Through language in its contract with Woburn, Verizon has three years to decide whether or not it has enough subscribers to make the service in Woburn financially viable. If it decides that's not the case, Verizon could pull the plug on the service with only 90 days' notice to the city and its customers there." And this part too, I like this quote:
Verizon says that it is unlikely to need to use the exit loophole because it expects its service to be popular. How can Verizon "expect" that it's service will be popular when they want a ditch clause in their agreement? Doens't sound like they are too sure of themselves. Sounds to me, when the day is over, that THE KNOW they are building an expensive beast that will likely not return on their investment as they really hope. I am sure they also know that Comcast and the others will compete heavily in the Fiber over build areas. Verizon will be heavily cash strapped and won't be able to play with cable who's system is already well paid for and generating cash revenues.
Maybe this is also why SBC is reducing it's work force to free up cash. | |
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Wonder Which One is Really Serious? said by fiberguy:You are trying to associate SBC's reduction in work force as not being serious. Rather, reduction of work force is a positive sign. SBC firing thousands of workers is not a positive sign. Neither is their decision to move forward with dsl over copper for video. I hope they know what they're doing because the dsl video plan is just stupid.
--
no sig | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Wonder Which One is Really Serious? Oh I agree that Video over DSL is like trying to feel a neighborhood's water supply through a 1" pvc pipe. It's just not going to happen.
However, you are relating the 10,000 layoffs as not a "positive sign" why? Because people are loosing their jobs? Layoffs in the corporate world are common when cash is needed. Sometimes you have to reduce your workforce in order to move forward and grow. Those jobs, though cut now, will eventually come back. What you often do hear about too is that many of the 10,000 layoffs will come from attrition from people leaving anyway, or offering of early rtirements.
If these 10,000 jobs were $22,000 a year earners (lets assume) the cost savings in payrole alone is 220 million a year. That doesn't count the cost for benefits, taxes and other costs associated with employing someone. It's a considerable amount of cash. (And this is on the low end)
Another thing you may not be looking at is that investors LOVE to see reductions in payrole expenses. This also stirs cash flow too.
This, in my opinion, is a VERY positve move by the company. Many industry and money people, I am sure, would agree. Just look at any major company that is about to sell itself. You will ALWAYS see them let people go in order to make the numbers look better in order to attract a better price. | |
|
| | cdobol
join:2002-02-12
Denville, NJ | I guess cable companies do generate cash, but they must burn it even faster. Although articles have been written that FIOSTV will be gone in a few years because investors may not be patient enough to see the return on investment and they will have to 'dump' the project.
Cablevision net income Nov. 2004 (676,092)
Comcast net income Dec. 2004 970,000
Verizon net income Dec 2004 7,831,000 | |
| | |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | said by fiberguy:How can Verizon "expect" that it's service will be popular when they want a ditch clause in their agreement? Doens't sound like they are too sure of themselves. If you have dealt with contracts in large corporations, Verizon's seeming dual personality makes a lot of sense. Corporate lawyers exist to mitigate risk. And the fact that a clause exists that leaves Verizon an out means nothing except that they have lawyers on staff that know what they are doing. Good corporate lawyers always think about all eventualities, no matter how unlikely, and make sure the contract allows for them. An out clause, therefore, shows nothing about Verizon's intentions.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Wonder Which One is Really Serious? I understand what you are saying, however, when you want the public's confidence in something, this is not a good thing.
The original comment was about "who was serious here, VZ or SBC"...
My point is that people are flocking to Verizon, the company that chose to lay some fiber, as gods and perfect saints in the world of the triple play. I think people are blinded by that and overlook the years of B.S. that the telephone comapnies have spewed on the consumer.
More people are giving a free pass to VZ simply because of the fiber... | |
| | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Wonder Which One is Really Serious? said by fiberguy:My point is that people are flocking to Verizon, the company that chose to lay some fiber, as gods and perfect saints in the world of the triple play. I think people are blinded by that and overlook the years of B.S. that the telephone comapnies have spewed on the consumer. Well I am not in that category.
The way I read that boston.com news story, Verizon wouldn't be tearing up the fiber on a pull out. It would only affect TV and not voice or internet access. For better or worse the deal they gave Woburn is the same exact deal they gave every city they applied to for TV franchises. If the cities are signing these deals, either they don't care about their constituents or they are pretty sure enough people will sign up to have Verizon not needing the escape clause. And the franchise agreement isn't exclusive - meaning that the cable companies will still be doing business as a competitor. My take is that the cities don't see that clause worth fighting over.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
|  Woof WoofI Miss Brother Iz
join:2004-09-01
Keller, TX | I took a look at the SBC filing for a state issued cable franchise agreement. It is rather humorous if you look at the maps. A tiny bit of this subdivision, but not that subdivision, this street, but not that one.
It is rather hard to read, but the areas they want to serve are outlined in bold on the maps in this PDF:
»interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebA···2990.PDF
The cable companies were afraid that phone companies offering TV would just pick the areas that would make the most money, and skip everyone else. Mind you, this initial filing may just cover the areas they are testing in, but it still looks bad on paper. I wonder if the color version of the maps use Red to outline the areas they want to provide TV to... yah know... red-lining?
As it stands, it looks more like Project LightBeer in San Antonio. | |
| | | Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX | Re: Wonder Which One is Really Serious? I wonder if Mr. Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. (SBC CEO) lives in one of the neighborhoods 
He doesn't seem to have a listed phone number (except one at the office): »www.whitepages.com/10778/log_fea···type=428 | |
|
| | Keep it the same I would keep the same or similar agreements that the cable companies "pay to play" deals are and if they want to offer "new" services, then they have to negotiate fairly. Btw, I like the "free voip" right next to Verizon's franchise reform in Texas... makes you wonder, when, oh when we will see lower prices from Verizon. None of the cost savings have been passed on to the consumer YET!
Verizon MUST prove that after all the tax breaks, after raping the consumer for decades, when will the consumer benefit in the least from letting them into TV, the marker was there be competition for getting into the long distance market, now, the bar must be set for the consumer to benefit again from VIDEO competition. I am also not opposed to letting the local municipalities getting screwed out of revenue but ONLY if the consumer benefits, becuase if not, then piss up a flagpole, fiber and all. | |
|
| |
|
|
