 | |
AnonDude
Anon
2014-Dec-2 8:36 am
Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbDon't they still own the infrastructure and wouldn't any new cable company have to purchase that from Comcast and couldn't Comcast simply refuse to do so? | |
|
 |  Rob
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2 ·Xfinity
|
Rob
Premium Member
2014-Dec-2 8:54 am
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbsaid by AnonDude :Don't they still own the infrastructure and wouldn't any new cable company have to purchase that from Comcast and couldn't Comcast simply refuse to do so? I believe so, but in some areas, it may be cheaper for the community to roll out fiber optics than to try to purchase and maintain the aging equipment. | |
|
|  Frank
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
somewhere |
to AnonDude
said by AnonDude :Don't they still own the infrastructure and wouldn't any new cable company have to purchase that from Comcast and couldn't Comcast simply refuse to do so? In theory, They could always get all of that stuff using emminent domain and it might be cheaper than its worth considering how most businesses tend to heavily depreciate the value of thier assets as a tax write off. | |
|
| |  fg8578
join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR |
fg8578
Member
2014-Dec-2 10:36 am
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbsaid by Frank:In theory, They could always get all of that stuff using emminent domain and it might be cheaper than its worth considering how most businesses tend to heavily depreciate the value of thier assets as a tax write off. That's not how imminent domain works. If the government condemns private property, they (gov't) have to pay a fair market value for it. Since most governments (local, state and federal) are short of funds, where exactly is all this extra (i.e., unbudgeted and unplanned for) money gonna come from? | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbIn most states that fair market value has appeals as well. The state will have to do an independent appraisal of what the property would be worth if it was placed on the market. The owner is usually allowed to challenge the appraisal or provide a secondary one at their own cost. The government is required by law to pay the highest appraised value. This is the policy in most states and is a pretty good baseline. There are variations in the process, timeline and who's involved depending on state law. | |
|
| | | | fg8578
join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR |
fg8578
Member
2014-Dec-2 11:29 am
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbsaid by rahvin112:In most states that fair market value has appeals as well. The state will have to do an independent appraisal of what the property would be worth if it was placed on the market. The owner is usually allowed to challenge the appraisal or provide a secondary one at their own cost. The government is required by law to pay the highest appraised value. This is the policy in most states and is a pretty good baseline. There are variations in the process, timeline and who's involved depending on state law. Agreed; my point was in response to the claim that the government can get private property for "cheaper than its worth". That's not gonna happen, although reasonable people can differ in their opinion as to what the property is worth. | |
|
| | | | |
to fg8578
The taxpayers of course | |
|
| | | | fg8578
join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR |
fg8578
Member
2014-Dec-2 12:23 pm
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbsaid by TheMayor:The taxpayers of course The same taxpayers who can't fund current government operations are gonna fund a huge infrastructure takeover? OK | |
|
| | | | | | |
KennyWest
Anon
2014-Dec-2 12:54 pm
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbThey do in many cities with crazy ideas of competing with AT&T, Comcast, TWC and alike. That's why munis are a horrible idea. You can't fund your own day to day operations but are quick to vote and fund a network that you don't need since you can barley pay for police and fire. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbMunicipal fiber is funded by customers, not tax dollars. It's like a water utility. Fewer than 2% of municipal networks have defaulted on bonds. Heck, the Koch Brothers through Koch Financial are the primary investors in a municipal fiber project and the terms they agreed to make it a de-facto unsecured loan. | |
|
| | | | |
to fg8578
Fair market value in the just compensation part of eminent domain is an obituary price point, so there's wiggle room there to low ball the citizen. I saw this happen quite a bit in Las Vegas, NV when they were expanding the freeways around downtown and to the West. Lots of law suits ensured over the fair market prices being too low. | |
|
| | | | |
to fg8578
What is fair market value on a fully depreciated asset that is of no longer any value to you because you can't use it? | |
|
| | | | fg8578
join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR |
fg8578
Member
2014-Dec-2 8:22 pm
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbsaid by Skippy25:What is fair market value on a fully depreciated asset that is of no longer any value to you because you can't use it? Good question -- are you talking in general, or specifically with respect to Comcast's existing network? Because Comcast's network is not fully depreciated, and it remains quite valuable to them. Just as an example, Comcast is much larger than Time Warner Cable, yet Comcast is buying TWC for $45B. Compare that to TWC's property, plant and equipment of $35B and depreciation of $20B for net PPE of $15B. Quite a premium, so obviously Comcast thinks that TWC's depreciated network is worth something. In your own case, if you were selling your ten-year-old used car, that was fully paid for, would you give it away for free just because it is fully depreciated? I wouldn't. I would set a price that I thought someone would pay for it (given its age and condition). Meaning its value is whatever a willing buyer and willing seller can agree on -- depreciation has very little to do with that. In the case of Comcast's offer of $45B for $15B in net assets, I'm guessing the finance guys at Comcast did a net present value on estimated future income to be derived from those depreciated assets and also considered that Charter was about ready to make a competing offer (again showing those assets have value) before deciding on the purchase premium. | |
|
| | |
to AnonDude
said by AnonDude :Don't they still own the infrastructure and wouldn't any new cable company have to purchase that from Comcast and couldn't Comcast simply refuse to do so? Yes and no, no and yes. It's complicated. First of all, the MSO doesn't own the poles - those are typically owned by the power company. And they have to pay the power company for space on the poles. The headends may be owned outright or leased buildings. They're usually owned outright so they can modify to maintain RF compliance. But scam lease-back deals are popular these days. Meaning the building's owned by a "separate" entity that just happens to be the MSO, and the MSO provider "leases" from that entity. Because those lines cost money to stay hung, and pulling them down costs money, Comcast would generally want to sell (while completely neglecting all maintenance) to get rid of the drain. But no, there is no requirement. The city could try to seize with eminent domain, as some have suggested, but it's futile and pointless. First off, eminent domain generally only applies to real property - meaning the land. Secondly, in a lease-back deal they'd have to try and wrangle it from the shell corporation. Third, it can't cover the lines and pole lease agreements. The city would still either have to run new cable or negotiate a purchase and transfer of the pole leases. | |
|
| | WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2014-Dec-2 7:03 pm
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbThe telcos also own a lot of the poles. Before Power and telcos started burying there cables they tried to keep about the same number of poles that they shared so the one with the smaller number of poles did not have to write a very big check on the pole lease at the end of the year. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Even if Comcast gets kicked to the curbsaid by WhatNow:The telcos also own a lot of the poles. Before Power and telcos started burying there cables they tried to keep about the same number of poles that they shared so the one with the smaller number of poles did not have to write a very big check on the pole lease at the end of the year. Despite the name being "telephone pole", the telephone companies own damn close to none in most areas. It depends on when the ROW was granted or if it's an easement, when things were actually built out, and local ordinances. It is VERY rare that the poles are owned by anyone other than a municipality or power company unless power cables are fully buried. Around here, I can tell you as point of absolute fact that AT&T owns zero right of way poles. Not "1%" not "a few" but absolute zero, and that's been the case for at least 2 decades. They went buried cable for cost reasons during the Ameritech days. One, no more paying FirstEnergy. Two, less maintenance in storms. (Until the gaskets blew on the SLC boxes and they just let 'em flood when it rains and snows.) | |
|
tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA |
tpkatl
Member
2014-Dec-2 8:43 am
The problem is systemic - but it's not necessarily Comcast's faultSure, cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every pissant little town in every state. But then they file the documents and lock them away.
Why? Because the cable-industrial-complex can't make money if they deliver services customized for each city and town. Suppose Lawrence, MA said that they will only sign an agreement if Comcast guaranteed 1 gig service for $50/month. Comcast won't make any money at that, unless they have a large enough service area to properly amortize the investment they would be making for that sort of service.
Then multiply Lawrence's demands by each of the 65 municipalities in Greater Boston, and you have a a blather of competing and inchoate demands, each on a very local level, which have zero chance of being done. So Comcast says "why play the local franchise game THEIR way - we'll do it OUR way."
The systemic problem goes back 50 years. It makes no sense for franchising of cable services to be handled at the ultra-local level. It would me much more sensible (and probably cheaper) for everyone (including the consumer) to make licensing a county, or regional function, not a local one.
I'm definitely not a Comcast apologist, but I recognize that the hyper-local model of franchising and licensing is NOT going to work for the small towns, because the economics aren't in their favor, largely because Comcast isn't going to incur ultra-local costs.
I would also question how useful the whole "franchise agreement" concept is in the year 2014. It might have been useful in 1970, but what does it accomplish today?
| |
|
|  Zenit
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
kudos:6 ·T-Mobile US
·Xfinity
|
Zenit
Premium Member
2014-Dec-2 9:01 am
Re: The problem is systemic - but it's not necessarily Comcast's faultIn Virginia it is largely a county issue. Only independent cities tend to have their own franchises.
In my county there is a legal debate between Verizon and the County on where the all-county franchise applies - VZ claims it does not apply in incorporated towns, the county thinks otherwise as the Comcast franchise does apply in incorporated towns.
This franchise system is not ideal and rather broken. If you don't have a great county authority to enforce it, good luck to you.
The only good thing franchises do is ensure service in a region. I.E service for areas with 25 or more homes per mile, no matter what. | |
|
|  gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA |
to tpkatl
Customization is our culture. We don't need to be Generic to make it easier for Industry. They can still make profit and we can evolve our culture the way we want. | |
|
| | |
Franchise to tpkatl
Anon
2014-Dec-2 10:12 am
to tpkatl
And people wonder why cable companies lobbied for state franchise laws? Well the problem of all these dozens of local franchise agreements, with their grasping local crooked politicians looking to be bribed and paid off is the reason. Much easier to pay off a few politicians at the state level than hundreds across multiple states. | |
|
| | |
to tpkatl
I couldn't disagree with you more, It is completely Comcast's fault. Comcast's call centers are handled on a national level and that doesn't help at all. The clueless customer service and service techs, and raising rates every six months has put them right where they deserve to be.
Nearly all franchise agreements are non-exclusive. So another television provider could come in anytime. In my city the franchise agreement basically gives Comcast the right to hang their lines on the poles. The city has had several meetings about how poor customer service is along with how poorly the local office is run.
Holding cable companies accountable every three years instead of every ten sounds like an excellent idea to me. | |
|
| | | |
KennyWest
Anon
2014-Dec-2 1:01 pm
Re: The problem is systemic - but it's not necessarily Comcast's faultNational centers are much more efficient than local/regional ones. TWC screwed up by regionalizing everything and tried to correct with, well it's not working out. Any provider that ends up with the TWC mess is going to get just that. A mess. Charter is already in many Ohio markets looking at the plant and talking to residents/customers on what's wrong with TWC and what needs to be fixed and even redone because regional Presidents and VPs are worthless and pointless.
Nationalizing a company works better, same services, same pricing, same support training programs. It's basically creating a big box retail company. | |
|
| | | | |
wkm001
Member
2014-Dec-2 4:02 pm
Re: The problem is systemic - but it's not necessarily Comcast's faultYes, because Comcast's national call centers are working so well right now... | |
|
| | | |
to wkm001
These towns and cities need to demand a price lock if they agree to a long term agreement. They also need a demand a quick repair time agreement otherwise face a fine or void the agreement. | |
|
| | |
KennyWest to tpkatl
Anon
2014-Dec-2 12:57 pm
to tpkatl
This is why the states should get the right to sign these contracts and not the cities. Then you don't have these crazy demands and everyone is equal. | |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 |
dvd536
Premium Member
2014-Dec-2 9:18 am
Finesif they don't deliver theres probably fines in these agreements which the cableco happily pays then adds or increases an unfee on the customers bill to pay for it. | |
|
uk_jeff
join:2013-08-29
Lexington, KY |
Do cities really have any leverage in these fights?As stated in the story, Lexington, KY just renewed the franchise agreement with TWC after a long negotiation period. In the end, our mayor claims that the laws governing these agreements only allow them to negotiate on cable TV issues and they cannot consider broadband internet services at all. All we got was an increase in the fine for "poor customer service" from $100 to $500 per day (not to mention the fine was never enforced when it was $100 so the 500% increase on $0 still amounts to $0 for the city).
Is the story the same in most cities or was this just a Kentucky/Lexington thing? | |
|
| | |
Re: Do cities really have any leverage in these fights?"the fine for "poor customer service""
Who defines poor customer service? | |
|
| | | |
Re: Do cities really have any leverage in these fights?My understanding is that it's a metric for calls into customer service answered within a set period of time - for example 85% of calls answered within 45 seconds. That's one way I've seen it employed. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Do cities really have any leverage in these fights?How could you measure customer service on that metric? Comcast generally answers the phone in 10-15 seconds and the customer service is still crap. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Do cities really have any leverage in these fights?Remember, to be enforceable, it has to be measurable. It would be useful to factor in first call resolution as well - repeat calls from the same number within a certain time span kept under a certain percentage. I've never heard of that being applied, but some areas may use that. | |
|
| | | | fg8578
join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR |
to battleop
said by battleop:How could you measure customer service on that metric? Telephone companies have had such rules for a very long time. Answer time is one metric; percentage of problems cleared in xx hours is another. Percentage of repeat trouble reports on the same line in a month is another. They should add percentage of billing errors also. There any number of ways to quantify customer service. | |
|
| | | | |
•••••••• |
| | | | lawpdx
join:2014-04-16
Portland, OR |
to battleop
I guess you have to describe what "crap" is. | |
|
| fg8578
join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR |
to uk_jeff
said by uk_jeff:Is the story the same in most cities or was this just a Kentucky/Lexington thing? Local governments (cities and counties) don't have any legal authority over broadband. That's exclusively the jurisdiction of the FCC, and was settled in the AT&T vs. Portland case. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act might give states some room to act, but it doesn't extend to cities or counties. | |
|
| |
•••• |
| | |
KennyWest to uk_jeff
Anon
2014-Dec-2 1:03 pm
to uk_jeff
Yes it does not count broadband as the Internet is not regulated in the US. Therefore the cities can not regulate the services either. | |
|
| davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3 |
to uk_jeff
Here in Georgia the cities or counties cannot even do that. It is a very comprehensive statewide boilerplate franchise agreement that governs cable TV services. AT&T got the statewide boilerplate law passed in exchange for a vague promise to greatly expand U-verse in Georgia. | |
|
quisp65
join:2003-05-03
San Diego, CA |
So really no one would do business if they allowed two cable franchises?So really no one would do business if they allowed two cable franchises? Has any city experimented? I've heard some cities have two cable companies you can pick from but maybe it's only densely populated areas. | |
|
|
••••••• |
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Dec-2 10:12 am
For example, in Lawrence, MA, residents are now trying to work out...... a new franchise agreement with Comcast. But unlike past years, the mayor of the city is fighting to have just a 3-year agreement in place.
So he is trying to encourage even shorter term thinking and investment horizon?
And that will somehow IMPROVE services?
The only reason to negotiate on those terms is to stall and hope that fool is voted out before the next time it comes up. | |
|
|  IowaCowboyIowa native
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1 |
Re: For example, in Lawrence, MA, residents are now trying to work out...I'd like terms in our franchising agreement that would prohibit the use of offshore call centers and fine the company if a trouble ticket is not resolved on the first call. | |
|
| |
flwpwr
Anon
2014-Dec-2 10:18 am
and who will pay these costs in the end?The customer. Its a win for.... no one...
It's not the 20 year agreement, anyone can go in and get the right to overbuild. Its the cost of doing just that which is why there is no competition. The agreements cannot be exclusive to start with. | |
|
 djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:4
|
djrobx
Premium Member
2014-Dec-2 12:51 pm
Has a city ever NOT renewed?Everyone loves to hate Comcast, but let's say they kicked them to the curb. Do they really want Charter instead?
I do think cities having more leverage over the cable company is a good thing, but I don't think Comcast is really going to be shaking in their boots at renewal time if there's little or no chance of real repercussions. | |
|
| | |
KennyWest
Anon
2014-Dec-2 1:23 pm
Re: Has a city ever NOT renewed?Of course Comcast is not worried. They're the ones that owns the network and everything between them and the customer. Wouldn't be hard for them to start taking it down if they were not renewed and kicked out.
Comcast could careless just like any other company if they had to take down a network in a city. The City is the one who would be hurting and people would be recalling local law makers and filing lawsuits against the city for losing phone and other services due to not renewing a contract or finding a new provider to come in and build. | |
|
| | |
AnonDude to djrobx
Anon
2014-Dec-2 5:58 pm
to djrobx
said by djrobx:Everyone loves to hate Comcast, but let's say they kicked them to the curb. Do they really want Charter instead? Considering how much cheaper Charter is than Comcast probably yes. I do NOT look forward to my Charter area being traded to Comcast once the Comcast/TWC merger gets approved. | |
|
| |
Slick
Anon
2014-Dec-3 10:55 am
Article not correctBy law all franchises are non-exclusive. Other providers can come in if they wish. The long franchise terms were to guarantee the companies would be able to recoup their significant investments in infrastructure over the period. otherwise they would not be able to attract the investment capital required.
3 years franchise just place negotiations back in the window immediately for the next franchise as federal law requires a 36 month negotiation windows. Meanwhile nationwide, cities are sucking up billions of dollars in franchise fees charged to the customer.
Cable franchising is an antiquated requirement from the 60's that the cities hold on to to get these fees | |
|
|
|
·
·
