 old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03 Bedford, MA | Franchises We definitely have the best government money can buy. | |
|   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
4 edits | More info on this bill not in newspapers
Link to bill's text: »www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/···led.html
Some provisions:
This bill would enact the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 and would establish a procedure for the issuance of state franchises for the provision of video service, which would be defined to include cable service and open-video systems, that would be administered by the Public Utilities Commission. The commission would be the sole franchising authority for state franchises to provide video services.
The bill would provide that cities, counties, cities and counties, or joint powers authorities would receive state franchise fees in exchange for the use of public rights-of-way for the delivery of video services provided within their jurisdictions, based on gross revenues, pursuant to a specified formula.
The bill would also authorize local entities to establish a fee to support the costs of PEG channel facilities, in the amount of 1% of gross revenues, or more in specified circumstances.
The bill would also require the local franchising entity to enforce customer service and protection standards and to enact an ordinance or resolution providing a schedule of penalties for any material breach of those standards
The bill would provide that a state franchise is valid for 10 years and would require a provider to apply to the commission for renewal of the franchise for any additional 10-year period.
The bill would prohibit the commission from permitting a telephone corporation that is providing video service pursuant to a state franchise to authorize an increase in rates for residential basic service until January 1, 2009
The amount of the state franchise fee shall be 5 percent of gross revenues, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 5860, or the percentage applied by the local entity to the gross revenue of the incumbent cable operator, whichever is less. If there is no incumbent cable operator or upon the expiration of the incumbent cable operator's franchise, the amount of the state franchise fee shall be 5 percent of gross revenues, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 5860, unless the local entity adopts an ordinance setting the amount of the franchise fee at less than 5 percent. So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety. They get 5% franchise fee plus a 1% peg fee. They get basic telephone rates frozen until 1/1/2009. What are the localities giving up, but the ability to blackmail special deals out of the telcos and cable companies to feather local pols nests.
Edit: Added link to description put together so that the legislators could understand what they were voting on: »www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/···oor.html
-- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|  |   rit56
join:2000-12-01 New York, NY
| Re: More info on this bill not in newspapers what are they giving up? how about self determination, the ability to have a say to insure that there is some local programming to reflect the community at large rather than the controlled content the big media corporations want to deliver. the boring national reports that most people I know never watch. even local news here is pathetic. right now the Republican Congress has been outed for covering for a pedophile Congressman from Florida, a sexual predator going after young boys and it is not being fully reported. they sure got themselves in a huff over Clintons antics but it's ok for a Republican Congressman to harass underage boys? the local news is talking today about Autumn foliage. pathetic. Liberal media? Right wing controlled media is the reality now. and all the cable co's are helping to provide cover for this administration. now that I'm on a roll here check out Woodwards new book. The President of the United States and Karl Rove telling fart jokes. pulling fart jokes in Cabinet meetings. The President of the United States enjoying fart jokes at cabinet meetings? go ahead and defend that. it is just incomprehensible that the President is a dumb frat boy and enjoys fart jokes in cabinet meetings. . God help us. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   ropeguru Premium join:2001-01-25 Bridgeport, WV clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: More info on this bill not in newspapers said by rit56 :what are they giving up? how about self determination, the ability to have a say to insure that there is some local programming to reflect the community at large rather than the controlled content the big media corporations want to deliver. the boring national reports that most people I know never watch. even local news here is pathetic. right now the Republican Congress has been outed for covering for a pedophile Congressman from Florida, a sexual predator going after young boys and it is not being fully reported. they sure got themselves in a huff over Clintons antics but it's ok for a Republican Congressman to harass underage boys? the local news is talking today about Autumn foliage. pathetic. Liberal media? Right wing controlled media is the reality now. and all the cable co's are helping to provide cover for this administration. now that I'm on a roll here check out Woodwards new book. The President of the United States and Karl Rove telling fart jokes. pulling fart jokes in Cabinet meetings. The President of the United States enjoying fart jokes at cabinet meetings? go ahead and defend that. it is just incomprehensible that the President is a dumb frat boy and enjoys fart jokes in cabinet meetings. . God help us. I don't know what national news you have been watching, but just about every political oriented news story I have seen lately has been bashing Bush and the republicans up one side and down the other. I have no idea where you are getting that the entire media is covering for them.
And I would like to see video of the fart jokes in cabinet meetings. If you have links then I will believe it. -- FWD#: 223611 | |
|  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by rit56 :The President of the United States enjoying fart jokes at cabinet meetings? go ahead and defend that. Well i can understand being angry about that if they were really bad fart jokes. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  |  |  |  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| said by GOLFnSUN :So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety. They get 5% franchise fee plus a 1% peg fee. It doesn't say that. It says the state will get a 5% franchise fee and the city, county, and state will each receive a piece of that. Also notice that while the PEG fee is a facitilies fee only. Facilities fees are difficult to authorize in comparison to equipment fees and operational fees (and can only be used for education and government, not public access), which are the more important fees in PEG support. These parts are typically supported by pass through fees rather than gross revenue percentage fees, and pass through fees are banned by the bill. Any locality without existing percentage fees (i.e. that uses pass-through fees), can not collect such fees.
The definition of "gross revenue" is modified by the bill. "Gross revenue" is defined as the lowest gross revenue earned by any provider in the franchise area, not by the franchise holder.
Notice also that there are no density based buildout requirements in the bill. Instead, providers are required to buildout to 40% of households within 5 years with no requirement to buildout to more than 40% of households (and with an option to extend the deadline if less than 30% of builtout households have subscribed).
The last most important aspect is that despite the assurance that "So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety," only the state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce provisions on fees, PEG channels, and I-nets and only the PUC and state courts can enforce buildout standards.
And of course the most important part of the bill: it prohibits local emergency service notification requirements. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   ropeguru Premium join:2001-01-25 Bridgeport, WV clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: More info on this bill not in newspapers said by GOLFnSUN :said by marigolds :said by GOLFnSUN :So, in effect, the localities still get to control service levels and safety. They get 5% franchise fee plus a 1% peg fee. It doesn't say that. It says the state will get a 5% franchise fee and the city, county, and state will each receive a piece of that. And exactly where does it say that ?, because that is NOT in the analysis of the bill at this link: » www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/···oor.html It does say that the state will get 5%, but nothing about the localities getting a piece of that. -- FWD#: 223611 | |
|  |  |  |  |   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: More info on this bill not in newspapers Requires the holder of a state franchise to pay rent to each local entity where it provides video service a franchise fee based on the gross revenue, as defined in the statute, for the use of the public right-of-way. If there is an incumbent cable operator in that jurisdiction the fee shall be 5% of the holder's gross revenue or the percentage applied to the incumbent's gross revenue, whichever is less. If there is no local franchises or after all local franchise have expired, the franchise fee will be 5% of gross revenue or a lower level set by the local government thru ordinance. I'd like to see where you believe you are right. All I saw was you claiming it. No section of law cited. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|  |   JakCrow
join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA | It's amazing how many people sell out the consumer for the empty promises of corporations that have been shown to lie time and time again. What's up with that? | |
|  |   jslik That just happened Premium join:2006-03-17 clubs:
1 edit | said by GOLFnSUN : What are the localities giving up, but the ability to blackmail special deals out of the telcos and cable companies to feather local pols nests. Like what? The vast, vast majority of the franchise so-called 'extras' are things that help and support the citizens of these cities. One good example is fiber networks that helps public safety and that cities use for reduced telecom/data/video costs. Gee, better communication for police and fire and reduced costs to government? How is that bad?
Also, no state PUC will have the time, staff, or inclination to haul providers into court. Even if they do, who ends up paying for it all? | |
|   ropeguru Premium join:2001-01-25 Bridgeport, WV clubs: | And to think... they could have just left things as they were and spent that 20 million on something that would have actually benefited the customer. -- FWD#: 223611 | |
|  cybercrimes
join:2003-12-24 Phoenixville, PA 1 edit | Arnold Schwarzenegger for US President If Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President would you vote for him i know i would | |
|  |  Thaler Premium join:2004-02-02 Encino, CA
| Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for US President said by cybercrimes :If Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President would you vote for him i know i would *shrugs* Not like it could do any worse. The puppet changes, but never the puppeteers. | |
|  |  |   brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07 Brooklyn, NY | Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for US President att and verizon are going to put there boxing gloves now lol | |
|  |  |  |   JakCrow
join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA | Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for US President Like hell. They'll still collude to keep out of each others territories, like it's always been. | |
|  |  |  |  |  unoriginal
join:2000-07-12 San Diego, CA | Nice thought but he can't run. You have to be born in the US to be prez, he came from Austria (?). | |
|   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| So how does this work? Ok say this was law in my state. Right now I have Charter. So now Charter, Comcast, Time Warner and Cox could all come in and offer service? Of course Charter is not likely to allow those other to use their stuff so basically all of them would have to build thier own system in my area. Not that they would, but that would be A LOT of cable being laid everywhere. And this is good? Every fricken month there would be digging going on because of upgrades from 4 or more different cable companies?
Of course the costs would be prohibitive for any other cable company to move in, so basically I'd still be stuck with Charter. So I don't see how this helps the consumer one bit. | |
|  |   logcabinboy
join:2001-07-23 Whitmore, CA clubs: 1 edit | Re: So how does this work? I would think that any new companies would simply buy the existing companies. There would be no economic benefit to them to spend all that money in constuction, for a gamble. This wouldn't apply to laying fiber optic cable for telcos. | |
|  |  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: So how does this work? said by logcabinboy :I would think that any new companies would simply buy the existing companies. There would be no economic benefit to them to spend all that money in constuction, for a gamble. This wouldn't apply to laying fiber optic cable for telcos. They can do that now under current law. So that means just ONE cable company servicing my area. So once again all this stuff that eliminating local franchises bringing in more competition is pure BS. | |
|  | |  |
|
|