calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Tough one
To get areas upgraded, competition without the inhibitions of local franchises would be a better incentive. The only reason Comcast/ATT had to be leveraged into upgrades is that they felt relatively "safe" from competition because of their franchise agreements.
As for the wiring of school or muni buildings, the franchise agreement just serves as a back-door tax increase. These are worthy expenses, but they should be paid for through traditional means, not hidden costs buried in cable rates.
I remain convinced that franchise agreements serve only local political greed and to limit competition.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to heathcpe
If you want to get technical, it currently appears that Verizon is NOT going to do TV over IP. I know that you didn't say that this was, but I just wanted to make that distinction. Another branch of this thread started to compare VoIP and digital phone service that some cable companies provide...that too is different in the same way to what TV over IP is to Verizon's planned "cable" TV.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to calvoiper
Again though, you're blaming the politicians for the failure of the agreements....
When Comcast had to go around forging new franchise agreements with each AT&T Broadband market, many towns used the leverage to get areas upgraded, schools and municipal buildings wired, etc......
Some just used it for a money-grab. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to cdru
Those so called "public access channels" are just so much fluff to buy support for the cable company. Every little whiny interest group gets to produce its own cable show, and often the local cable company runs some "local newsmakers" show which just produces puff pieces about local politicos. It's just free publicity and fawning media about those politicians and interest groups with the pull to get on the show.
Here in Marin County, they pre-empt the last 5 minutes of each half hour of Headline News with a local blurb about this or that local politico. The @$$-kissing is so extreme that you can hardly hear the conversation for the smooching.
Local franchises don't benefit consumers--they keep out competition and increase the costs of distributing video services. They do help the local power structure, and since the cable companies get to pass along the costs and have fewer competitors, they play along.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to griff1013
said by griff1013  :Cable companies also have to pay local taxes which sat does not. Which local resources does satellite companies use? Roads? Right of ways? Telephone poles? Satellite companies don't use them, so they shouldn't have to pay for them.
Likewise, Verizon already is paying for them, so should they have to pay AGAIN to use the exact thing that they are already using? It adds no extra infrastructure burden to add CATV to the FIOS service...it's not like it will require another cable other then the one already being provided for telephone service.
Cable runs all the city council meetings and such. I am sure they would love to dump all those local channels and save the dbandwidth. Hopefully they don't RUN the city council meetings, rather they just provide the televising of the meeting. I'm sure they would ditch it if they could, but it's part of their franchise agreement.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. |
|
griff1013
join:2002-01-10
Virginia Beach, VA | reply to cdru
Cable companies also have to pay local taxes which sat does not. Cable runs all the city council meetings and such. I am sure they would love to dump all those local channels and save the dbandwidth. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to Karl Bode
But this is a great point for discussion.
In theory since IPTV is a data service, it would be regulated in a similar fashion to VOIP.
If it's not a cable service (as traditional Comcast offerings are), then it's product is not subject to franchise fees anyway. I know our franchises here only generate revenues on "cable tv services" and not data services (such as VOIP or internet services). IPTV would be excluded by its very nature of transport.
In addition, VOIP services don't pay local telecommunications taxes either. In our area, the local govs can impose up to a 6% telco tax on traditional phone landline and cellular phone services. But offerings such as Vonage are exempt because of their "data service" classification by the FCC. Which also brings up another problem - they also don't pay into 911 funding.
If I was Comcast, SBC, or Verizon I'd be shooting for the triple play via ip just because I could avoid all of the franchise requirement payments and telco taxes, except for maybe pole attachment fees.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| reply to yock
Digital phone is what most of us have from the telcos. The call travels up the loop to a point that it is converted to digital and is routed to its destination via fiber trunks or copper T1s. The phone switch is all digital now and can pass the four streams of ATM. It can even port an analog signal but that just takes up lot of bandwidth that you can route other things with it. The next step in telco world is to only allocate the bandwidth for your phone line when you pick up the line right now that bandwidth is allocated all of the time. That is one of the gains with the packet based network that Verizon and others are deploying. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to heathcpe
TV over IP isn't even deployed. |
|
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Not necessarily a fair equation, because VoIP isn't regulated yet. In that sense, is TV over IP regulated??? |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| reply to yock
said by yock :How exactly is Digital Phone *NOT* VOIP? It's 2 different technologies. They are not the same. Someone above posted what the differences are:
VOIP uses data packets going through your ISP.
TW's digital phone uses reserved bandwidth on their cable facilities for a seperate avenue for phone service. In other words, if you have RoadRunner service with time warner and digital phone service, they are totally seperate. |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| reply to yock
I can assure you that neither the RCN "digital phone" I have, or the Comcast digital phone I had is "voice over IP". It modulates a digital signal over the coax and is terminated at the CMTS, where it is carried onto the phone network. Also the cable companies have direct CO connects for 911 service etc, and you have to pay similar line charges and fees to the ones verizon charge.
Where Verizons claims really fall down is this - although they have a "phone franchise agreement", they could notionally offer TV+Internet+VOIP over FIOS, and not be collecting any revenue for the franchise agreement they have.
noz
|
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84 :It is fair, some cable companies have offered digital telephone service for a while, which is not VoIP. How exactly is Digital Phone *NOT* VOIP?
--
Search first, ask questions later. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to Karl Bode
It is fair, some cable companies have offered digital telephone service for a while, which is not VoIP. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx :Does satellite TV need a franchise agreement? ... About the only thing the franchise agreement does is ensure a cheap locals only tier. Bad example.
The franchise agreement between a city and utility is a mutual benefit for both sides. Typically with cable service, the city/town will get added revenue to help fund public interest television, an outlet to air those channels, and the say over the most basic rate tier (aka "lifeline") of cable. The cable company in exchange for their money, bandwidth, and a little bit of oversight, get the use of city right of ways as well as usually a monopoly on cable service.
Satellite doesn't need the right of way nor the monopolistic power that cable companies need/want, so they don't have to agree to pay the local government for the franchise fee.
Verizon's deal is that they already have the right of way with the FIOS lines providing the telephone service. They now want to add a service on top of that line that the original franchise agreement didn't mention. There is where the problem, or at least dispute, lies.
--
Win some of $250 in prizes. Try your luck with The Amazing Race Contest. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to Karl Bode
If Verizon can provide cable service, they should have to provide naked dsl, as part of there agreement. In addtion Verizon should not be alternative gifts to schools, thus spliting towns, for example. Local highschool and goverment channels exclusive to Verizon. Verizon should have to have a franchise agreement just like any other cable operator. Phone, data whatever doesnt matter, if they provide cable there need a franchise. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to yock
quote:
I'm not sure if I trust that source to be unbiased.
Ask a local town lawyer then. I'll bet you'll find it less biased than your local bell's PR man, or free market conservatives who think deregulation cures cancer and prevents earthquakes. Franchise agreements, when written and enforced properly, are designed to aid you.
quote:
My point is simply that turnabout is fair play. It is true that television providers must pay franchising fees, and VOIP is not regulated as to require franchising fees of its own, but the spirit of law here is what's being argued.
There's definately some leveling of the playing field that needs to occur between cable and phone providers, particularly concerning line-sharing and USF. Telecom laws are going to be re-written before year's end, and given the current political climate, I'll bet near total deregulation will be the end result......
That doesn't necessarily mean a bell who offers cable shouldn't have to adhere to a franchise agreement that actually addresses what they're deploying (video service).....and yeah, vice-versa for cable companies offering phone service.... |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Karl Bode
Does satellite TV need a franchise agreement? With cable we're stuck with the highest prices and the slowest innovation. As of Comcast taking over, things are finally getting somewhat modern around here, but I beleive that is due to competitive forces, not regulatory ones. About the only thing the franchise agreement does is ensure a cheap locals only tier. Whoopee! People can always go to their cable company for that. All the franchise board can do is threaten not to renew, and when was the last time you heard of that happening? I seem to recall Florida trying to kick AT&T Broadband out but not doing so in fear of lawsuits.
With Verizon entering a market with so much existing competition, I'm just not sure encumbering them with cable's franchise hoops is necessary. If people are disgruntled they have other places to go. It's not like when cable systems were first installed and it was pretty much the only feasable choice for TV.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to Karl Bode
I'm not sure if I trust that source to be unbiased.
Anyhow, making Verizon pay franchising is probably the legal thing to do here. Whether or not it's right is a question for the pundits, because quite frankly I just don't care enough to argue it.
My point is simply that turnabout is fair play. It is true that television providers must pay franchising fees, and VOIP is not regulated as to require franchising fees of its own, but the spirit of law here is what's being argued. VOIP is essentially a loophole here, and no amount of disdain for Verizon will make me argue that they must pay some regulatory fee when VOIP providers aren't required to pay similar fees just because they aren't yet regulated to do so. Verizon is simply fighting for equal regulatory rights in this case and I don't blame them one iota.
--
Search first, ask questions later. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to stoli412
quote:
I agree. I believe the main original purpose of cable franchise agreements was to secure rights of way in cities and towns. Since Verizon already has the rights of way (assuming they're laying the fiber in the same conduits and on the same poles they already use for copper), why should they have to obtain another agreement
Because cable franchise agreements don't just cover right of way issues, and phone franchise agreements alone won't be enough to cover all TV service provision issues.
A good primer:
»www.democraticmedia.org/ddc/CCCIntro.php
A hybrid agreement is probably needed that adds some regulation and removes other duplicate provisions..... |
|
