The baby bells have lobbied very hard to gut the existing local franchise system, without it getting much coverage from the technology media. With the FCC's help, they've passed franchise "reform" laws in more than a dozen states under the promise of more jobs and lower TV rates. In reality, the bills are designed to legalize cherry picking, kill consumer protection laws, eliminate local authority and eminent domain rights, and streamline lobbying. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, with TV rates skyrocketing, Wisconsin is the latest to notice that the franchise "reform" bill they were sold didn't actually do anything for consumers that the old system didn't.
quote:It was supposed to foster vigorous competition among cable television providers and create jobs. Yet almost a year after Wisconsin's video franchise law was enacted, the debate continues over whether many consumers have benefited. . .But it's unclear exactly where the service is offered or when it's coming to a community because AT&T refuses to provide that information unless it's part of the company's marketing efforts. Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services, while leaving much of the state without much competition and weaker consumer protection.
Gosh, if only someone had warned them. Actually the State had plenty of warning, local UW Madison Professor Barry Orton testified to the new bill's dangers at length. Orton explained, but was ignored, how the changes proposed by AT&T and Verizon would actually eliminate some decent consumer protections:
quote:State and local consumer protection has worked to the advantage of consumers. Section 100.209 of Wisconsin statutes protects subscriber’s rights to prompt repairs, refunds for service outages, notice of rate increases or service deletions, and written notice of disconnection. AB 207/SB 107 would eliminate these basic subscriber rights; Wisconsin video service providers could refuse refunds to customers if the service went out, raise rates or cut programming services without any notice, and disconnect customers without notice or reasonable cause
AT&T and Verizon spent several years arguing that local franchise control prevented them from deploying telcoTV. With the occasional fib by FCC chief Kevin Martin, the baby bells convinced state legislators around the country that scattered, unreasonable demands by towns and cities were the norm, and were preventing the arrival of TV competition utopia. By demonizing local video franchise authorities, AT&T convinced many States to pass bills that were little more than anti-consumer telco wishlists. Wisconsin's was among the worst.
In reality, Verizon deployed FiOSTV to many municipalities under the old system of local franchise control, and has publicly stated that they were able to do so quickly. In most cases it was AT&T, not the local municipalities, that stopped AT&T from deploying U-Verse IPTV service and next-gen broadband infrastructure. AT&T simply didn't want to deploy next-generation services evenly or deal with the tough consumer protection laws in several states, and threatened to sue any town or city that said otherwise.
The State by State approach was only attempted because efforts to pass a federal version of these bills failed. Initially, AT&T and Verizon had recruited the help of convicted felon and recently re-elected Alaska Senator Ted Stevens to pass a national franchise "reform" law, but that effort was derailed by the network neutrality debate.
On the even less savvy state level, the sales pitch of lower rates was too compelling, telco lobbyists were simply too well funded, and consumers too under-represented. In Wisconsin, AT&T's astroturfing front group, TV4US, was particularly aggressive in getting the law passed, giving promotional packets to State lawmakers with lists of people who supported the measure -- when they actually didn't. TV4US is still trying to swindle additional States into passing reform bills, and is still promising lower TV prices they know will never come.
...here shocked? Anyone? Anyone? Just another story about how a huge corporation is more concerned with profits than serving consumers. Hell, the "Con" isn't even a story. Big business tells government that they really really really do have the consumers in mind when it eventually turns out that they don't. Jesus, how many times has this happened?
Oh please. Here in California we're beyond bankrupt, facing 10.5% sales taxes, 200% increase in car taxes and you have a dumbass electorate voting for $20B ($10B+interest) for bullet trains no one will use. You think for a second that they won't believe the onslaught on cable and telco ads telling everyone that undoing franchise reform wouldn't be a "gov't power grab" or other such bullcrap?
You think for a second that they won't believe the onslaught on cable and telco ads telling everyone that undoing franchise reform wouldn't be a "gov't power grab" or other such bullcrap?
Voters are stupid.
If I typed the first sentence, GrammarCheck would have a fit, and of 100 people I asked that question as written, 60 would pretend I didn't say a thing and keep on walking because they parsed the grammar and concluded it was a waste of their time. 36 would say "Huh?", 2 would answer Yes, and 2 would answer No.
Of the 36, 52% would approve of "Change, whatever that is" and 46% would approve if it looked like I had legs enough to stand for a couple of more years without keeling over because they liked the color of my hair. The remaining 2% still remember Annette Funicello when she wore that funny looking hat on daytime TV.
Of the remaining 4, all would parse the grammar and half would get tripped up in the double negatives and vote for what they thought they heard, while the other half would sincerely understand what I asked.
So, yes, voters are stupid, but the questions *are* complicated.
And then there's the other whammy. If you are in the minority that really understands the questions, you get slammed by those who aren't because they want to run the show, not the elites, whoever they are.
So it comes down to who can dance the best. Ballet and ice skating are examples. The best dancers are smooth and make it look so easy. Yet we know it takes hard work and constant practice. Once you lose that edge, the best you can do is teach.
Or go do something else. There's always another dancer who looks good.
I'll leave argument alone. However, it is the obligation of our duly elected representatives to inform its constituency about matters such as this. If the politicians had ANY of the publics interest in mind, then each representative would have made sure it had an informed electorate. But they don't. They bask in the corrupted system that they themselves created. What a F***ing waste.
Don't blame the voters...blame the criminals running this enterprise, and all of the prostitutes that enable this to stand!
Oh please. Here in California we're beyond bankrupt, facing 10.5% sales taxes, 200% increase in car taxes and you have a dumbass electorate voting for $20B ($10B+interest) for bullet trains no one will use. You think for a second that they won't believe the onslaught on cable and telco ads telling everyone that undoing franchise reform wouldn't be a "gov't power grab" or other such bullcrap?
Voters are stupid.
California Voters vote on a lot of stupid things. Of course, Obama will bail them out.
Say it isn't so. There is no clear good and evil here. You have corrupt local and state gov't vs corrupt corporate racketeers. Meanwhile, as usual, the public loses no matter who wins.
Meanwhile, here is another telco slamming article from Karl Bode ...so will he get the apology from the coaxial kissasses who endless claim bias?
Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services
Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
]Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
Ya, that deregulation bit has worked so well, for the airlines, the banking industry and the energy businesses.
While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements.
While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements.
Lets switch to communism where the community owns all property in the USA and then we wont have silly little fights, comrade.
While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements.
Lets switch to communism where the community owns all property in the USA and then we wont have silly little fights, comrade.
Oh, I get it, you think that public trust lands are communism.
I think you will find Illinois Central particularly relevant and enlightening on this particular public trust issue. Meanwhile, Martin v Waddell should firmly establish for you why the public trust is a Constitutionally granted foundation of the American Republic and a capitalist society.
I think you will find Illinois Central particularly relevant and enlightening on this particular public trust issue. Meanwhile, Martin v Waddell should firmly establish for you why the public trust is a Constitutionally granted foundation of the American Republic and a capitalist society.
Screw that, 1 mille per breath of air or I'm bagging your head to prevent theft of property.
Uhhh, the "community" does own public land, and easements are private property. In what sense should at&t or any telco/cableco have the right to do anything they want to with land they don't own? Would you simply give over to them the right to do anything with your land that they want to? someone else's land?
Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
ahhh...tk, where would we be without the neo-con spin that you provide on a daily basis...
what the telcos have done using franchise reform is allowed themselves not just to choose where they want, but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition. this allows them to offer higher speeds at the same price or lower where areas have competition from indie-sources or cable, but in ares where this competition is lacking, allows a "monopolistic" approach to speeds and pricing. we can see it all over in the disparities between speeds and prices in fios areas and those who aren't served by fios. this is just another incarnation of it.
but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition.
How so? From what I understand, the franchise reform minimizes the requirements to deploy new technologies into markets. How does that allow an incumbent to choose where competition exists?
but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition.
How so? From what I understand, the franchise reform minimizes the requirements to deploy new technologies into markets. How does that allow an incumbent to choose where competition exists?
Before: Local franchises dictate 98% coverage of their population.
After: State franchise has little to no coverage requirement.
Result: People in rural / less "competitive" areas get no cable / phone / etc. They choose where competition exists and where to compete. Rather than serve an entire city, they can "cherry pick" and serve only the "rich" area that will buy more of their services.
Before: Local franchises dictate 98% coverage of their population.
After: State franchise has little to no coverage requirement.
I understand the before/after situations, what I don't understand is tubbynet 's comment about allowing providers to choose areas where there is competition. Franchise reform aids providers to choose where they deploy service, but doesn't necessarily allow providers to choose where there is competition...short of them choosing not to compete in a market, which they already do.
They choose where competition exists and where to compete. Rather than serve an entire city, they can "cherry pick" and serve only the "rich" area that will buy more of their services.
Is there proof of that? I see the "redlining" comment bantered around a lot, but haven't seen any actual evidence.
They can choose areas where the median income is above average. For example, look at this map with communities with professional degrees »www.city-data.com/top2/h188.html
They can choose areas where the median income is above average. For example, look at this map with communities with professional degrees »www.city-data.com/top2/h188.html
Not to mention that S_engineer 's links list macro level details while most arguments against franchise reform highlight micro level concerns.
incorrect, what the maps show (in general) are areas where the limited fios resources (micro)are being deployed in more affluent areas. Of course they're going to want to bypass municiple franchise laws by just doing at the state (macro) level.
Not to mention that S_engineer 's links list macro level details while most arguments against franchise reform highlight micro level concerns.
incorrect, what the maps show (in general) are areas where the limited fios resources (micro)are being deployed in more affluent areas. Of course they're going to want to bypass municiple franchise laws by just doing at the state (macro) level.
S-engineer - You don't have any maps and you haven't shown anything.
Did you look at Verizon's wireline network map by state? It oddly lines up more or less with the user reported Verizon FiOS deployment map...and the top earning zip codes...and the professional degree locations that you highlighted previously. The only correlation that I see from this relatively high-level data is that Verizon is deploying FiOS across their footprint that coincidentally happens to be the highest paid, most educated areas of the country. Accusations of "cherry picking" are still far fetched and undocumented from what I can see based on this info.
They can choose areas where the median income is above average. For example, look at this map with communities with professional degrees »www.city-data.com/top2/h188.html
now tell me with a straight face that theres no "cherry Picking" going on.
All I see is three lists. I don't see any correlation done by you proving anything.
instead of using the pins, i'll use the FIOS map with illinois as a test case. I'll run a covariance model using cokriging of professional degrees and income as a predictive for FIOS deployment, and we'll see how it comes out.
Of course, that will not prove anything since we are still looking at a community level, which local franchises will not affect. Still though, it can indicate a pattern. The better test would require census block or block group level deployment statistics (we're supposed to have those any day now, right?)
Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services
Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
so TK, you have no problem with me opening a car dealership in your front yard with no conditions and no compensation to you?
Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services
Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
so TK, you have no problem with me opening a car dealership in your front yard with no conditions and no compensation to you?
Not as long as you pay me $500,000 for the privilege. Because a car dealership isn't an easement.
Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
The Constitution says nothing about states dictating the terms under which business can operate in their respective boundaries.
Actually, it just dawned on me, the 10th Amendment actually give states those rights to do just the opposite of what you've stated.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too.
Funny you should mention "Big Brother." AT&T and Big Brother are practically synonyms.
I don't even agree that these are wholly private companies when their infrastructure overlays substantial private lands, public rights of ways and public airwaves.
If this was a robust competitive market, with many competitors and with low barriers to entry I would agree with you.
Since it is a very capital intensive market that seems to constantly tend toward one company controlling all the wires, with very high barriers to entry, and since these companies need access to a lot of other people's land to get all these wires to potential customers (it requires the government to coerce millions of property owners into granting access to portions of their land for use by such a company), why is it unreasonable for the government to impose conditions on these companies which pressure them to provide universal service in exchange. Easements require everyone to make a sacrifice by telling them what they can do with their property and by forcing them to provide a free benefit to a company. Why shouldn't the company have a reciprocal requirement to provide a benefit in exchange for the benefit that they are receiving from everyone else? Why is this so unfair or oppressive?
Meanwhile in Phil Montgomery's reelection campaign...
Phil Montgomery's campaign donations from telecom sources jumped from $2k in 2004 to $10.7k in 2008. This includes 8 out of state maximum donations from AT&T/SBC employees.
Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. How ATT pulled off this horrendous con is mind boggling, since providing more competition is clearly a terrible thing. The citizens of Wisconsin should demand ATT immediately cease deploying services, as they are furious they can now choose between two (or more) providers.
sorry local franchise control is a joke and anyone thinking otherwise is either ignorant obtuse or both. The only thing my local franchise authority ever got us is higher prices and fewer channels.
Cherry picking? That was going on already. Charter for YEARS in my state has given certain area upgrades while ignoring others. For example in some parts of my state you can get 16 Mbps internet here it's only 10 Mbps. In some areas you can get VOD, my area stil waiting even though the county right below me has had it for nearly 4 years. If that's not cherry picking then I don't know what is. So please.
Yes Wisconsin you have also been screwed by AT&T without a kiss to the consumer.
I was one of a state-wide group that opposed this type of bill in Ohio, with similar results. We were ignored by state senators and congress people who were seduced by ATT's promises of roses and chocolate (read jobs and economic development)
Why is it politicians believe the large corporations over their own citizens and local officials?
State after state the Bills written by AT&T are accepted by the politicians. What can be done to break the "AT&T spell?
One might be tempted to point out that proceeding to build an automobile based infrastructure in earnest just as one's domestic oil production was peaking was ill-advised. One might be tempted to point out that refusing to even admit that there might be a problem with importing 60% of one's oil to keep said automobile infrastructure going right about when the world's oil production is peaking is, well, batshit crazy. And one might also point out that a continued irrational attachment to one's automobile based infrastructure, in defiance of international finance norms, of international law (when one needs to 'unilaterally' launch wars to dislodge 'terrorists' from the 2nd or 3rd biggest puddle of oil in the world), and a rejection of the most certain cure, rail; well, one could, couldn't one? But then one would be off-topic, wouldn't one?
Yep, this state voted for change! Thats all we will have in our pockets at the end of 2012, thats for sure!
Many of us RURAL people don't have ANY choice for broadband other than dial up or satellite. Cable? Nope.... DSL? Nope.... This Reform did nothing more that strip away local control of services that people need. I don't think I will ever see broadband at my home in the next 10 years because of AT&T's hold on our liberal State!
I don't think I will ever see broadband at my home in the next 10 years because of AT&T's hold on our liberal State!
HDMan
AT&T may have a hold in that many liberals support union jobs, but Phil Montgomery, a republican, was pushing this bill for Big Telecom. So how are the "liberals" involved in the CTPRB (conspiracy to prevent rural broadband)?
Have you checked into socialist options such as municipal or coop fiber or WiMax? If you're not into that, I do believe there is a private WiMax entity setting up systems in your neck of the woods.
This was past through our liberal Governor and his liberal croanies....
There are no fibers or WiMax in the area. If you think there is a private WiMax operator in the area, let me know. I have checked them all. The closest one is the City of Waupaca, and that does not reach to where I live. Zip code here is 54961.....