A Democratic House's Impact on TelecomGoodbye national franchises, hello net-neutrality laws? ( old news - 03:17PM Wednesday Nov 08 2006) tags: competition · fcc · business · PoliticsDemocrat John Dingell (MI) and Democrat Ed Markey (MA) have both been avid supporters of net-neutrality laws and are expected to take command of telecom policy when Democrats reclaim power in the House next January. Dingell will be appointed chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees phone & cable operators. Markey will lead the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee, which could apply pressure to change tactics at the FCC. Obviously this means a renewed interest in neutrality laws, but it may also damage telco efforts to pass legislation giving them a nationwide video franchise. Telco lobbyists had argued such a franchise would allow them to speed up next-generation network deployment by eliminating negotiations with towns and cities. Opponents were concerned the change would allow them to cherry-pick only the nation's densest and most affluent areas for broadband network upgrades while eroding local authority. Despite Republican control and the Senate Commerce Committee directly circulating incumbent astroturfing materials, Senator Ted "Tubes" Stevens still had a hard time getting the 60 votes needed to pass his Communications Act of 2006. The Act, which now has little chance of passing, contained numerous provisions beneficial to incumbent providers but primarily focused on video franchising. Sensing the sea change, incumbent broadband providers like AT&T and Time Warner have flipped their financial allegiances accordingly. What will be interesting to watch is how Markey's renewed position (he held this same post in 1994) impacts the FCC's media consolidation push, as well as the AT&T and BellSouth merger approval process. AT&T and Republican FCC chief Kevin Martin had hoped to see the merger approved before the elections without conditions. Related:- Politicos Lay Out 2007 Broadband Agendas
- House Leaders Back Cable in FCC Fight
- FCC Boss Riles Cable Astroturf Machine
- Kevin Martin Doesn't Hate Cable, He Just Loves Ma Bell
- Late Night Fun At The FCC
- Monday Evening Links
- Tuesday Morning Links
- Tuesday Evening Links
|
 broadbander
join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| there few things I agree with Democrats on ... But honestly, net neutrality is one of them, at least in theory. I don't know if legislation regarding it needs to be enacted (the system hasn't been abused yet), but I don't hope a Democratic House will help further the impulse for a national broadband vision, though I hope that vision has room for serious deregulation and franchise reform in addition to the promotion of municipal broadband networks and net neutrality. Alas, for some reason it seems many politicians see all of those premises as conflicting (though they are certainly not). | |
|  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
edit: November 8th, @01:46PM
| Re: there few things I agree with Democrats on ... The Dems will want to be reelected. So they will take industry money to fund their campaigns. LOL - don't look for much change in Congress. Lots of noise, but little to no real changes.
Edit: P.S. The stock market doesn't see much reason to worry about the changes in Congress. It is pretty much a ho-hum response so far. I guess they know the Dems will stay bought too. -- -- My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |  |   Nemokrad
join:2002-04-24 Miami, FL | Re: there few things I agree with Democrats on ... Actually the real reason nothing will happen is that the Senate, House and President all have to approve a bill, and the parties won't approve each others bills. | |
|  |  |   TamaraB Question The Current Paradigm Premium join:2000-11-08 Underway
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by TK Junk Mail :P.S. The stock market doesn't see much reason to worry about the changes in Congress. ... And your interests are the interests of the "Stock Market" ?? Fool! Someday, when you and your family can't eat well; perhaps you will change your mind? I doubt it! Ignorance only supports and harbors ignorance!
You will be lambasting universal health-care, at a time when it will directly benefit YOU! I truly hope, the future system actually discriminates against your kind (I surely wouldn't want to pay to keep you breathing, certainly not at federal expense), Bob -- Motor Vessel - Tamara B. 43' Long-Range Trawler Cape Elizebeth ME. See her Here. | |
|  |  |  |   Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA
| Re: there few things I agree with Democrats on ... said by TamaraB :Ignorance only supports and harbors ignorance! It would be funny if only it weren't so sad that you say that in the same post you completely fail to have any idea how much the stock market affects your life. Even more funny that you seem to be advertising boats in your sig. -- Early to rise, early to bed; Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
|  |  |   cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| said by TK Junk Mail :P.S. The stock market doesn't see much reason to worry about the changes in Congress. It is pretty much a ho-hum response so far. I guess they know the Dems will stay bought too. Actually based on history the markets prefer not necessarily who is in power, but that the power is divided. They would prefer it when one party has control of either house of Congress, or if the same party controls both, that the President is of a different party. It makes for more "gridlock" in passing of bills, making for a more stable environment overall. When one party has control of everything like the Republicans have, you tend to have issues where things can be more favorable in one area (national franchise agreement), but get screwed elsewhere (footing the bill for warrentless wiretaps). -- Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|  |  DufiefData
join:2006-06-13 Gaithersburg, MD | It may be hard to believe, but it seems like the internet in America is doing pretty well so far without government oversight. | |
|  |  |  broadbander
join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: there few things I agree with Democrats on ... said by DufiefData :It may be hard to believe, but it seems like the internet in America is doing pretty well so far without government oversight. What is the evidence to back that up? Broadband penetration could be doing MUCH better. And unfortunately, there already is "government oversight," it just makes no sense. There needs to be a reformation of that oversight, changing franchise rules but also encouraging local municipalities to start their own network in the absence of the big players. The US has gotten continuously lower on the list of country's with the deepest penetration. | |
|  Shoreline Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29 Santa Clara, CA
edit: November 8th, @01:08PM
| so-so While it's good that the Democrats have won the House and possibly the Senate (rather than the status-quo), they're still politicians. I'm more interested to see how the AT&T change of political funds will affect legislation. I'd be more than disappointed if the Democrats cave in. As always, we'll see.
Passage of net-neutrality legislation is a must, as well as incoming municipal broadband to force competition and lower prices for a service ranked quite essential.
I was very pessimistic about broadband development, competition, and oversight with the current administration, but now I feel with the future maybe Congress will get something good done. Again, we'll wait and see. Money corruption and incompetence isn't something that's exclusive to one side of the fence. But now, at least, I feel some hope. | |
|   upidstay
@bellsouth.net
| NOT-Neutrality? sarcasm: Run for the hills! The Communist left is all but back in power again, along with tree huggers, sin lovers, and baby killers. And now they will get a chance to pass thier socialist one-world-internet agenda. Seriously, though even most well educated power users and IT personell around the industry, even those with differing political views know the real issue behind net neutrality is that the ISP's want to charge more for bandwith that is ALREADY PAID FOR. While I dont think that any certain political party or candidate will be that much better or worse than the other, in my opinion net neutrality is a no brainer being that it is the only way to keep the status quo "democratic nature" of the internet.QoS and tiering cannot make up for bandwith, which the Telecoms are reluctant to provide (understandably, fiber ain't cheap). However right now at least probably no net neutrality legislation is needed as long as the status quo can be maintained. | |
|  |   guitarzan Premium join:2004-05-04 Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: NOT-Neutrality? said by upidstay :
sarcasm: Run for the hills! The Communist left is all but back in power again, along with tree huggers, sin lovers, and baby killers. And now they will get a chance to pass thier socialist one-world-internet agenda. IMHO that is not sarcasm, but the ugly face of reality. On a day when Democrats win control of the House and possibly the Senate, its ironic an omen appears in the Pennsylvania's daily lottery number on election day...666
»www.wnep.com right side column near bottom of page.
quote: karlmarx Finally, we can use bittorrent to it's full potential.
You go right on believing that. The biggest contributors to the elected Democratic liberals is Hollywood. All those who voted believing the Democrats will restore civil liberties, by repealing the Patriot ACT, Homeland Security ACT and end NSA wiretapping. Boy are you in for one helluva surprise. Because the Democrats voted for and were fully briefed on it and went along with it.
BTW: Thanks Pennsylvania voters for being so F&*king liberal, it's disgraceful.
To all voters every where, who elected so many liberal anti-gun politicians, your going to get what you deserve, and rightfully so. -- Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|  |  |  xrobertcmx Premium join:2001-06-18 Sterling, VA clubs:  | Re: NOT-Neutrality? Look, we don't need a political debate here. Let's try and stay on topic. -- 4 More years and we won't have a country. | |
|  |  |  |   guitarzan Premium join:2004-05-04 Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: NOT-Neutrality? said by xrobertcmx :Look, we don't need a political debate here. Let's try and stay on topic. Almost every post in this thread involves politics, so WTF -- Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: NOT-Neutrality? "Most seemed to have more to do with neutrality or the net and less to do with calling 50% of the population misguided fools who would get their own for not supporting gun control. Honestly I don't know if the Dems will do anymore with then the Republicans. I've always thought follow the money and you will find the crook."
I have news for you, slick. About 95% of the population is dumb, unthinking, emotion driven, lazy and greedy. A politician knows this, which is why they appeal to them.
Joe and Jane could give a damn less about network neutrality. All they care about is their porn, you tube or whatever dumb stuff trips their trigger.
The only ones who do, really, are geeks and professional whatevers like those that inhabit this site
And, yes, it is generally true that if you follow the money you eventually find truth. | |
|   NyQuil Kid 8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06 Brick, NJ edit: November 8th, @01:23PM
| The Only Difference between Reps and Dems... ...is that at least Republicans _admit_ to being a**holes. Thanks, but I'd rather take a greedy GOP than a hypocritical Dem any day.
[8F] The NyQuil Kid | |
|  |  LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06 Felton, DE | Re: The Only Difference between Reps and Dems... There is no difference. Politician is a Politician. Just new people lying to us for the next 4 years. | |
|  |  |  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | ... You forgot. The Republicans say they are annointed by God... | |
|  |  |  Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26 Spring Valley, CA | Re: The Only Difference between Reps and Dems... that is patent nonsense if not an outright lie. who said this and where was it said? can you source this or do you just like making things up? | |
|  |  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: The Only Difference between Reps and Dems... Hmm... Just a quick response
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." --- President Bush | |
|  |  |  |  |  SilentMan
join:2002-07-15 New York, NY | Re: The Only Difference between Reps and Dems... Have you noticed how even in the background painting Jesus raises his LEFT hand?  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   NyQuil Kid 8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06 Brick, NJ | Re: The Only Difference between Reps and Dems... Yes, but when he was on the cross, it was the man on his _right_ that went to paradise 
[8F] The NyQuil Kid | |
|  |   NyQuil Kid 8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06 Brick, NJ edit: November 8th, @03:56PM
| Oh course I forgot...the Democrats are as pure as snow.
Thanks for reminding me of my error (insert sarcastic sound here).
[8F] The NyQuil Kid | |
|   Alpine Premium join:2000-01-11 Atlanta, GA
| It'll definitely be interesting... Karl asks "goodbye national franchises?" We shall see. I'm all for anything that will speed up next-gen deployment, and I can't see how continuing to require local franchises will do that. I understand the "cherry-picking" concern, but disagree with it. Telcos are private businesses; they should be able to deploy to profitable areas first - that's simply Business 101 and the government should have no authority over that. They'll eventually deploy to everyone - their desire for continuous growth demands it.
I don't see this having too much of an impact on the ATT/BellSouth merger, except for some of the usual cage-rattling. The merger has a good bit of bi-partisan support, especially in the South, so it'll pass sooner rather than later.
The net-neutrality boogeyman will be interesting to watch. Though nothing has happened yet and I think it's ridiculous to legislate a so-far non-existant problem, I'm sure the Dems will do some pandering and try to force through some laws. If they even care one way or the other... It's not like the Dems understand broadband any more than the Republicans did. They just have some different lobbyists.
For me, the change is good because it was relatively moderate Dems that got them over the top. Hopefully that will balance the far-left among them. They'll lose every gain they made in many states if they veer over to high taxes and socialism.
Adam | |
|  |  rradina
join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
·Vonage
| Re: It'll definitely be interesting... I agree if it wasn't the telcos but in my opinion, Business 101 only works if there's true competition. We can argue all day long about cable providing TV competition to the telcos but as regulated monopolies, the telcos have a guaranteed position that will fund losses for years until they either give up their video quest (leaving the cable monopoly) or gain a foothold.
That's not business 101 at work. That's massive, government-guaranteed corporations attempting to extend their reach.
The same thing goes for the cable folks. In areas under served by DSL, they are the only broadband choice. To allow them to exploit that monopoly based on the data's purpose goes against everything Business 101 believes.
If we had true competition, Business 101 would say net-neutrality is unnecessary government oversight. Since we don't have true competition, I don't think Business 101 applies. | |
|  |  Dolgan Premium join:2005-10-01 Sun Prairie, WI
·Verizon Online DSL
| Thinking that the Telcos will "eventually bring fiber to everyone" is only a pipe dream. Verizon will not be deploying FIOS to huge swaths of the ex-GTE footprint due to the lack of potential subscribers and profitibilty. They are now deploying ADSL2 and more ADSL in the upper midwest states of OH, IN. IL, WI, and MI--do you really think that they will upgrade to FIOS in areas where they are currently deploying this technology?
How much fiber are companies such as TDS Telecom, Century Tel, and Frontier Comm deploying? These are now the major Telcos in rural America as the RBOCs keep spinning off{trying to anyway} their rural customers. Furthermore, many of these rural areas are not served by Cable Co HSI and do not even have the option for any broadband other than Sattelite. The Cable Cos are only upgrading their speed tiers in competitive/profitable markets, just like the Telcos.
The change in control of the House {and possibly the Senate} will do nothing to either speed up or slow down deployments of next gen networks. The major players will continue deploying at the rate which they can justify to their stockholders with good return on investments. The Telecomm and Cable companies are more concerned about the bottom line versus customer service, quality of service, and product offerings than ever before. | |
|  |  SD6
join:2005-03-26
| said by Alpine :Karl asks "goodbye national franchises?" We shall see. I'm all for anything that will speed up next-gen deployment, and I can't see how continuing to require local franchises will do that. I understand the "cherry-picking" concern, but disagree with it. Telcos are private businesses; they should be able to deploy to profitable areas first - that's simply Business 101 and the government should have no authority over that. They'll eventually deploy to everyone - their desire for continuous growth demands it. As it stands now, they are largely able to deploy to the most profitable areas first. Verizon has generally decided to do the suburbs of large cities first and there is nothing preventing that. It's just that if and when they decide to go into a county, city, village or town, they must have permission to leave any parts of the county, city, village or town unconnected. That's not the part that slows things down, it's the negotiation of the franchise agreement with hundreds of different locals officials that slows things down. | |
|  karlmarx
join:2006-09-18 Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC Finally, It's time to replace the fat cat republicans who have sold out the FCC to the megacorps, and get back to basics. The FCC was formed to SERVE the public interests. The republicans interpreted that to mean "collect cash from megacorp and let megacorp screw the consumer". Luckily, once they kick Teddy (tubes) Stevens (who has NO CLUE what the 'interweb' is) off the committee, things will move forward. Finally, we can have a national broadband policy, where everyone can expect to get at LEAST a 10/10 connection. Finally, we can use bittorrent to it's full potential. Finally, businesses and individuals can flourish on the INTERNET. Unlike Dubyah, we don't use 'the google', we use google. And unlike Dubyah, the American public believes that high speed internet access is a RIGHT that all americans should have access too. Happy days are here again! -- Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
edit: November 8th, @02:03PM
| Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC Very little will change. And if you have any doubts about that, see the stock market's reaction to the election. They know who is still in charge - the people with money. »finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5eIXIC&t=1d&c=
And, BTW Ted Stevens is in the Senate, and that House of Congress is still up in the air yet as to who will be in charge. And even if the Dems grab the Senate too, Stevens stays on the committee as the ranking minority member. -- -- My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |  |   SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC said by TK Junk Mail :Very little will change. And if you have any doubts about that, see the stock market's reaction to the election. I don't see any reason for the stock market to react to an election. Stock markets are driven by people interested in money. Not politics. You won't see any changes just because there is a regime change in Congress. You will start seeing changes in the market only when actual bills come to a vote that would affect their interests. | |
|  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC said by SRFireside : Stock markets are driven by people interested in money. Not politics. Is anybody still this naive? Of course the stock market is affected by political events. It is one of the many drivers of market reaction. -- -- My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |  |  |  |   SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC Lets try this again. Stock market is about money. Congress has done nothing to affect that... yet. You won't see any changes in the market until the new Congress starts ruffling a few feathers. Until then there is absolutely no reason why Joe Stockholder should sell his shares (and lose those sweet dividends) when nothing is directly affecting the value of that stock. Only an idiot would mess with their portfolio like that. | |
|  |   Transmaster Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY
| If you think there will be any change in the dysfunctional FCC there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell to you for real cheap, the FCC has been for sale since the first auctions of frequencies where done and political hacks where shocked at how much money this racked in. This made a commission post real plums for people who where only interested in lining their pockets with promise of high paying jobs with the very companies they where suppose to be exercising over sight on after they left office. -- The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC said by Transmaster :If you think there will be any change in the dysfunctional FCC there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell to you for real cheap, Hello;
I am Adbud la Boounta, the cousin of the former Major of Mamook in southern Nigeria. When my cousin was threatened with murder he hid all his wealth and trusted me with the knowledge of where it was in case he was killed. Sadly, 2 years ago he was indeed killed in a suspicious accident involving a runaway cart of grapefruit. Since I believe his murderers are still watching our family closely, I must find a way to get money out of here and into the U.S.A. without going through official Nigerian channels.
I am very interested in your Brooklyn Bridge offer. I wish to buy it as an investment. I also wish to buy the New Jersey Turnpike, but I can alas send only one check, so what I will do is send you the money for both, you sell me the bridge, and then forward the money for the Turnpike into an account # I will provide you with. Of course you can keep $20 million US as a fee for yourself for helping me out.
Please get back to me with your contact information and bank account numbers so we can complete this deal soon. I am standing here beside myself in anticipation of finally providing business opportunities for my family.
Thank You,
Adbud la Boounta -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|  |  |  |   Transmaster Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY | Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC LMFAO  | |
|  |   porkchops ...meh Premium join:2003-05-17 Saint Marys, WV
| said by karlmarx : Finally, we can use bittorrent to it's full potential.
Shhh... Don't tell them that. We might end up with national packet-shaping.
But seriously, as long as there is free-enterprise, there will never be internet-equality in terms of bandwidth. The "megacorps" are really the people that control of the residential broadband market. | |
|  |   dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22 Walla Walla, WA | No, the American public does NOT believe that high speed internet is a RIGHT. Only bleeding heart liberals that think no one should work for what they get and want people dependent upon the government think so. | |
|  |  |  PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR
| Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC said by dispatcher21 :No, the American public does NOT believe that high speed internet is a RIGHT. Only bleeding heart liberals that think no one should work for what they get and want people dependent upon the government think so. Actually, Congress thinks so, and said so in the 1996 Telecom Act, which was signed into law. It is U.S. National Policy that affordable broadband become available to all Americans in a timely manner. | |
|  |  |  |   dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22 Walla Walla, WA
·Packet8
| Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC To become affordable does not make it a right...utilities are not rights. Dont pay your water bill and it gets turned off. Dont pay your internet bill, it gets turned off. Your REAL RIGHTS are in the Bill of Rights...you dont have to pay to use those. | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by karlmarx :Finally, ... Happy days are here again! holy smokes man, calm yourself down!
First off, it will be at least 2 years (more?) before anything changes at the FCC. Copps and Adelstein may be encouraged to stand up more for competition, but Martin still controls the agency. The new guy may have lobbied for the CLECs, but the fact this administration chose him doesn't give me comfort - there is still a 3-2 republican majority at the FCC.
Also, the democrats are now in power, and they are generally more friendly to competition, but it remains to be seen if they are willing to wean themselves from the teat of big Telco and Cableco.
To get real competition is going to mean goring a lot powerful oxen and I don't know if the dems are up for it. At best, we can hope in the near term things don't get worse.
That being said, if by some miracle the ATT/Bellsouth merger gets derailed, all bets are off and it may indeed be happy days. | |
|  |  bogey780
join:2004-03-19 Covington, LA | Yea, I agree. The internet should be free. It's a shame people expect to make a profit on a utility. /sarcasm
Everyone wants everyone else to give them everything for free. | |
|  |   Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA
edit: November 8th, @05:25PM
| said by karlmarx :Finally, businesses and individuals can flourish on the INTERNET. Finally we can start to admit the economy is good. Finally we can go start saying new stuff going thru congress (which is exactly like the old stuff) is good. Finally we can say the majority of Americans have demanded change (when the majority of Americans actually said "who cares"). It'll be fun, like the manic portion of bipolar disorder. -- Early to rise, early to bed; Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
|   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Only One Change The interests pushing legislation will just change what's on the "Pay to the Order of:" line on the campaign contribution checks. It happened in 1994, it will happen in 2006. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|   N3OGH It's Biden Vs. the Biscuit. Sarah's hot Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Not much will change... Not much will change over this. The President is still the person who nominates an individual to a position like the FCC board.
The Democrats can promise the world, but can't deliver without a veto proof majority. They can tell you they're going to do everything from "fix" social security, to cure AIDS, to speeding up the harvest and transporting you off this rock, but as long as Bush sits in the white house, he has the power to veto it.
Click....clickclick...Click.
Yep, I think that's Bush's veto pen coming out.....
Americans like divided government. Things will slow down in Washington for a while, and that's probably a good thing... -- Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
|  |  See 29 replies to this post | |
  takeyourpick
@verizon.net
| whoever you vote for.. has consequences... it looks like the ultimate price tag of the GOP was too high.. let me just list the credit card miles your GOP was foaming at the mouth with: OIL industry deregulation=manipulation of crude=$$$at the pump TAX 'reform'=the rich get richer, the poor and middle class get pooped on War Policy=$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, did I forget to mention $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, kaching!, $$$$$$$$$$
BUT; its a razor thin majority... it could flip flop in 2 years on the house side, which is to say.. that the rust/bible belt voters will trust democrats as far as they can throw/hang them from the highest church in town (needless to say, most victories were in the north)
who knows, by that time.. we could all have 100/100megabits symmetric, and claim "Victory in Iraq"
:-P | |
|  squid7 Premium join:2006-09-02 | Simple answer... NO.
Because they're all whores, Democrats and Republicans. Telco money is green and the DC whores all have their hands out. | |
|   VZ TECH
@verizon.net | verizon As a Verizon tech, i can't wait till them Dems start getting in Verizon's ass now. | |
|   richardpor Fur it up
join:2003-04-19 Portland, OR
| What wil Happen
Net-Neutrality Up Innovation Down, The telecoms will find another place to put their money other than back bone improvements and Google will just have to wallow in the traffic congestion they cause.
National Franchising down, Video over ip Down and FTTH Down. This could be a FIOS killer. The selling point was to be how one can get multiple services through a single fiber. | |
|  |  LonghornXP
join:2005-08-27 Largo, FL
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: What wil Happen I don't believe the Dems are against a national/statewide franchise agreement "but" I do think they were against a nationwide/statewide franchise agreement that didn't have at least some built-out requirements. Built-out requirements in my view is to require a new company offering TV service to at a specific point to wire each and every customer that is currently wired with either a) their own service and/or b) the cable/telco currently serving the area. So to put this simply I'll give two examples below.
Say AT&T serves just one entire county of a state and they want to rollout FTTP internet, phone and TV service. Well in this case a requirement of getting the nationwide/statewide franchise agreement would be that within the next X amount of years they must wire all of their current wired homes with this new fiber.
Now lets look at the much more likely situation below and I'll give a real word real company example too.
In the Tampa Bay Area of Florida Verizon is wiring customers up with fiber for their FIOS service. Well for Verizon to get a nationwide/statewide franchise agreement they would need to commit to doing the following two things below.
1. They must wire every home with fiber that currently has a copper drop. This means if you can order Pots phone service (the customer doesn't need to have Pots service just the ability to order it) they must wire that customer with fiber within XX amount of years.
2. They must also provide fiber to all customers within all of the Tampa Bay Area that also are wired by the cable company which in this case its called Bright House Networks. If a customer is wired with Bright House Networks but isn't wired for Pots by Verizon than Verizon would still be required to run fiber to this customers home either way. In a home that isn't wired with a Verizon POTS phone line "and" a cable company cable line they have no requirement to wire that customer with fiber.
All the above is really stating is that a nationwide franchise agreement just requires that they wire their own customers within a specific amount of time. It also requires that they wire any customer that the current cable company has wired which IMO seems 100% fair.
Now beyond that the number of years should be based on the area and what is involved in labor and time to get it done and extensions can be given often enough as long as the delays are beyond their control such as weather or lack of hardware for a specific amount of time. But Verizon pulling out workers to another area won't be an excuse for a delay.
Beyond that the timeframe is just a max amount of time to wire everyone but the order Verizon or another company wires the area is of their sole choice. So they can wire their best customers first just as long as they must wire everyone at some point within the near future is all that is required.
If after reading the above you don't think this is fair I'm not sure what you really expect. Now I'm not saying the Dems will do this but I do believe they will when they have the power todo so which most likely would be in 2008. | |
|  |  |   SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: What wil Happen My concern with national and statewide franchises is what happens to local programming. The local franchises made way for public broadcasting like PBS and other public access channels. Not to mention local franchises also brought up concerns by the area regarding the building of that infrastructure as well as put some revenue to the community. I'm not saying all local franchises were fair, but the system did work. | |
|   sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Budd Lake, NJ | Dingell? As in Tauzin/Dingell? If this is the same guy, don't I recall him being quite brown in the nose when it comes to telcos? | |
|  |   SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Dingell? Yup. Same guy. Keep in minde the Tauzin/Dingell Bill had a LOT of criticism from the House Committee of Energy and Commerce, which brought about some changes on the bill. Maybe Johnny Boy has a change of heart considering he supports net-neutrality. Maybe his interests lie in the nationwide franchise. That makes more sense as I bet the telcos want that more than any "tubes" legislation.
Plus you also have Ed Markey. I don't know what he has done previously, but if he has it out against national franchises then Dingell will have a fight in his hands on that front. Either way there is a fighting chance we will finally get those neutrality laws in place. | |
|  | |  |
|
|