AT&T Sues Walnut Creek Over franchise agreement IPTV spat Verizon has been going market to market trying to sign franchise agreements in order to provide Fios television service. SBC (now AT&T) decided to take a simpler route: don't seek any, then fight any challenges in court. Walnut Creek, California wouldn't play along; AT&T has in turn threatened to sue. Such rules don't apply, argue AT&T lawyers, because the company's IPTV service "does not meet the federal definition of cable, since it is an interactive on-demand service." The other tactic has been to lobby state lawmakers for state-level agreements ( Texas).
|
  woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
1 edit | Hmmmm..... Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies....
and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings.....
--
BlooMe | |
|  |  KeepOnRockinMusic Lover ForeverPremium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR | Re: Hmmmm..... said by woody7:Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... True, but lawsuits sure make the lawyers some money though.
Come on, we have to save the starving lawyers so they don't go hungry this Christmas  | |
| |  ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Gotta hand it to ATT -- what they lack in vision -- they make up for in arrogance  Personally I agree that the franchise process is just legalized robbery. ATT is right to "call" 'em on it. | |
| | | | | Re: Hmmmm..... Bravo,
It was good enough for cable companies to be able to offer telephone service without applying for additional licenses/franchise agreements. VZ and ATT own the poles and/or right of way with existing services provided. I appreciate VZ's stance on compliance, because ATT could be in for a world of heat if they don't win. | |
| | | | | | Re: Hmmmm..... The poles belong to the power utilities, as without them everything else needs batteries which are not included. | |
|
|  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | said by woody7:Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... So does anyone who does streaming video also need franchise agreements? | |
| | |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Hmmmm..... said by vpoko:said by woody7:Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... So does anyone who does streaming video also need franchise agreements? No, streaming video is generally not a closed system. Anyone on the internet can subscribe.
--
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 | |
| | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Hmmmm..... said by marigolds:said by vpoko:said by woody7:Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... So does anyone who does streaming video also need franchise agreements? No, streaming video is generally not a closed system. Anyone on the internet can subscribe. So if the carriers let anyone subscribe it would be OK? Of course the quality would be unbearable for anyone not close to the "head end" (IPTV server) because there isn't enough bandwidth on the internet backbone, but I'm sure Verizon and AT&T would be happy to sign you up... | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by woody7:Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... Everything you said is irrelevant.
Bottom line is, and yes, Oliphant - hear it here, if Telco is going to offer IPTV services, the city has NO business standing in their way with franchise agreements.
This is not "cable television" like what comcast, TWC and the likes offer. Just as cable modem service is an informational service, so is IPTV. It's pure data transport over an IP backbone, therefore, under the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, this is an informational service.
Who is the city of Walnut Creek or anyone else for that matter to stick their forks in the telco company for hostage money?
To this day, there still remains a PHONE company and a CABLE TV company. They can call them selves COMMUNICATION companies or BROADBAND companies, but by all definitions, one is a TV company running over hyb.fiber-coax that offers alternative types of services (HSI and Telephony) and the other is a PHONE company running twisted pair (mostly) and offers HSI and now possibly a service which is like television service..
One has to play by franchise rules, the other is regulated by the PUC.
Governmnet, GO AWAY! | |
| | | | | Re: Hmmmm..... This argument coming from a company that has insisted that cable is its primary competition and has bitched incessantly about a level playing field between cable and the bells and the unfair nature of a different regulatory treatment between the two.
Now they come back trying to play with the technicalities of regulatory definition to gain differential treatment, precisely the kind of regulatory BS a level playing field should mitigate.
Then they go back to funding astroturf orgs supporting voip companies paying into usf.
blech. | |
| | | | | said by fiberguy:Who is the city of Walnut Creek or anyone else for that matter to stick their forks in the telco company for hostage money? You are familiar, perhaps, with the concept of government? All money is theirs except a little which they let you keep.
And, really, is anyone surprised that some place in California would demand special treatment? | |
| | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Well, the critical distinction will be whether or not the system is a closed video service.
If the telephone company is providing closed video services using public right of ways, then the city probably does have an argument that the more restrictive video franchise may apply to that telephone company.
Telephone franchises meanwhile are less restrictive and issued automatically, part of the reason the reverse argument over VoIP does not fly quite as well (but still could be applied, just not by the city because of how phone franchises are granted).
The exact language is generally "cable, fiber, or other wires or lines that are within the public-rights-of-way" so twisted pair would be covered just as well as hybrid fiber-coax. It is the common carrier status of telephone companies that actually causes complications, not the manner in which they provided their video service, but when the video is retransmitted directly to video subscribers, I think Title II exemptions of the Cable Act may no longer apply.
--
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 | |
|
| | | I love lawsuits, it is sooo exciting to take people to court.:) GO ATT!
--
Verizon Wireless "Nation’s Most Reliable Network" | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
2 edits |  Possible federal law could make this issue moot
»www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_a···_E_36552
It is not clear whether comprehensive telecom reform proposals can achieve passage, given the contentious issues raised by any wide-ranging legislation, leaving narrowly focused bills as the most likely candidates for enactment. Senator Ensign (R‑NV) touched on the question of the most appropriate legislative approach at a Capitol Hill forum on October 25 in extolling the benefits of S. 1504, his Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act (discussed in the October Bulletin). He focused on one provision of the bill that would enable carriers to obtain national video service franchise rights. Although he indicated that he is anxious to have such a policy enacted, he is not inclined to separate that provision from the rest of the bill in an attempt to push it through Congress faster, noting that Senate floor time is at a premium. Relevant text from the bill:
quote:
SEC. 13. VIDEO SERVICES.
(a) Video Service Providers- A video service provider may not be required--
(1) to obtain a State or local video franchise;
(2) to build out its video distribution system in any particular manner; or
(3) to provide leased or common carrier access to its video distribution facilities and equipment to any other video service provider.
(b) State and Local Government Authority to Regulate-
(1) REASONABLE FEE-
(A) COMPENSATING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS-
(i) IN GENERAL- A State or local government may require a video service provider to pay a reasonable video service fee on an annual basis to the units of local government in which the video service provider provides video service for the purpose of compensating such local government for the costs that it incurs in managing the public rights-of-way used by such provider.
(ii) AMOUNT OF FEE- The video service fee imposed under clause (i) shall not exceed 5 percent of gross revenues.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Possible federal law could make this issue moo said by ThrowDemsOut:A bill winding its way thru the Senate will make this whole issue moot. It is S.1504( » thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z···s.01504: ) and it would authorize national TV licensing rights that no community could override. » www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_a···_E_36552It is not clear whether comprehensive telecom reform proposals can achieve passage, given the contentious issues raised by any wide-ranging legislation, leaving narrowly focused bills as the most likely candidates for enactment. Senator Ensign (R‑NV) touched on the question of the most appropriate legislative approach at a Capitol Hill forum on October 25 in extolling the benefits of S. 1504, his Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act (discussed in the October Bulletin). He focused on one provision of the bill that would enable carriers to obtain national video service franchise rights. Although he indicated that he is anxious to have such a policy enacted, he is not inclined to separate that provision from the rest of the bill in an attempt to push it through Congress faster, noting that Senate floor time is at a premium. Hope it passes...Regardless of the anti-telco pundits, the bottom line is it would mean more competition which in the end is better for consumers. | |
| | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Possible federal law could make this issue moo said by Cod:Regardless of the anti-telco pundits, the bottom line is it would mean more competition which in the end is better for consumers. It would mean more competition if you live in a highly profitable area capable of supporting multiple buildouts.
If you even live on a block that does not match a profitable profile, not only could you not see competition but you could see reduced services from your existing provider (e.g. they could decide to offer only 256/256 data services and digital only tv with a family cable base package).
--
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 | |
|
mekaleka
join:2003-01-15
Palm Beach Gardens, FL | Good for the consumer... Why would anyone NOT want IPTV and competition for the local cable/phone provider? | |
| | | | Re: Good for the consumer... said by mekaleka:Why would anyone NOT want IPTV and competition for the local cable/phone provider? Graft, umm, Taxes, umm, Franchise Fees...  | |
| | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Good for the consumer... said by J D McDorce:said by mekaleka:Why would anyone NOT want IPTV and competition for the local cable/phone provider? Graft, umm, Taxes, umm, Franchise Fees... And control over where the services are located and how they are located.
Without a franchise, IPTV can be redlined and phone companies can install the equipment in the right of ways without compensation or review.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | Re: It is an Internet Service Seems like the lower case letters are a lot more arrogant than the capital letters. AT&T I mean "at&t" is throwing their power around already. I would seriously sign up for IPTV though, something different and new would be good for customers. They can't say it isn't internet Hello! "IPTV" | |
| |  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by r81984:All ATT has to do is offer their IPTV over any internet broadband connection(meaning competitors) that can handle it and there is no way for anyone to say that it is not an internet service. Yeah, I'm sure Comcast will love that.
If it ever happens, watch broadband ISPs (Cable especially) start to screw with IPTV packets just like some of them are doing with VOIP.
Rather than all this mess, I would like to see networks offer their feeds over the net themselves so we can cut out the middleman (and so we can really vote with our checkbooks)... | |
| | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by r81984:As long as it uses tcp/ip and they can prove it is an internet service, there is no way to dispute it. All ATT has to do is offer their IPTV over any internet broadband connection(meaning competitors) that can handle it and there is no way for anyone to say that it is not an internet service. More specifically, it would be a subscription open video service.
Thing is, that is not what AT&T plans to offer.
--
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 | |
|
 oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Simply deny permits... If they want to play that game, they'll just find the city harassing them every 5 seconds with fire inspections and the like.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| | | | Re: Simply deny permits... Part of the argument, not an inconsequential part, is that they don't have any physical facilities - just an IP network strung on telephone poles or other public right-of-way. Gone are the days when wired television meant you had to have a cable headend in the locality with big satellite dishes using rf spectrum. | |
|
| | Not a good strategy, recent court precedent says that telcos wishing to provide cable tv channels (content) over any IP infrastructure have to deal with local municipalities in respecting community standards (pornography and decent/indecent material) and to pay franchise fee right of way, NO MATTER THE MEANS by which those signals get to the consumer, and YES that means satellite, potentially too.
Its just a matter of time before it catches up with them! | |
| | ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
1 edit | Re: Not a good strategy, said by denyignoredeny :
... and to pay franchise fee right of way, NO MATTER THE MEANS by which those signals get to the consumer, and YES that means satellite, potentially too. ...and who actually pays those fees?...you my brilliant friend! (certainly not the providers)
Yeah...stick it to 'em -- and bend-over while yer at it! | |
| | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | not true ATT already has permision in Texas to do IPTV state wide. | |
|
 JoeyDeePremium
join:2004-07-23
Las Vegas, NV | YEAH! An alternative to a force fed cable agreement foisted on me by politicians and Comcast, neither of whom I trust. Go AT&T!!!
Why should there be only one way to get the programs you want?
I like it. Don't ask permission or forgiveness. | |
| | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: YEAH! So, that means you are volunteering to let retransmission facilities be located on your property without review, restriction, or compensation?
No permission, no forgiveness after all. | |
| | | | | Re: YEAH! For the most part, there are no retransmission facilities located on anyone's property in either IPTV or Verizon's FIOS. | |
|
 rovernetPremium
join:2004-02-11
Richardson, TX
kudos:2 | Little House on the Prairie? I'm not kidding, I thought it was something taken from that TV show.... | |
| | | Walnut Creek is Awesome! Yeah I love Walnut Creek, stick it to 'em!
...no but really, I do love Walnut Creek, nice little town, lots of good restaurants. | |
| | | as long as we're losing focus here Don't forget the Apple store... | |
|  EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7 | The two edged sword That's an interesting position. So, if thee is an interactive service, then it isn't cable. So laws that forbid theft of "cable" services wouldn't apply to this type of service? | |
| | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: The two edged sword said by EGeezer:That's an interesting position. So, if thee is an interactive service, then it isn't cable. So laws that forbid theft of "cable" services wouldn't apply to this type of service? Interesting tact, but yes, theft of cable services laws would not apply.
I am sure there are some other laws that could be used, but the theft of cable service laws exist because it is extremely difficult to use other laws to prosecute.
--
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 | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
·
