dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| And They'll Get Content Where???
....of cutting off nose to spite face?
I'm not a lawyer, so if I'm totally wrong, chime in...
but it seems the very smug SBC could have a problem.
If SBC says they're just a 'data service', then does any cable channel actually have to deal with them at all? Some would, but these days, many companies that own cable channels (and content, for that matter), also own cable companies. Who says they'd at all have to provide channels to just a 'data service'. (For example I wouldn't think Time Warner would be excited to offer HBO on 'data service' channels.) That could severely limit content on 'just another data service'. I know they HAVE to deal with cable/dbs companies, but wasn't that specifically mandated previously? For that matter, content owners licensing might not permit distribution over 'data services'. (And SAG and everyone else would likely chime in... I don't think there's a 'data service' category for determining residuals. ) 
...just a thought. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Let me give you all a real life situation where this is already taking place.
Sacramento California. A company called Surewest, previously called Roseville Telephone located in Placer county. They have, however, expanded into Sacramento County to service the communities of Sacramento and other areas as well.
In the Sacramento County area, they are a 100% fiber network. In order to run these networks, they are having to negotiate with the franchise autority (which in this area happens to be a county authority, not city like many other places - 'The Sacramento County Cable Commission') to operate. The LFA gets involved with their business on a daily basis.
Now, if they are all data driven, digital, etc.. AND they are also primarily a telephone company, and the video is not necessarily RF to the home, rather all 1s and 0s, why does the LFA get involved.
I know many of the answers to these issues but there is such a mixed bag of 'issues' and 'facts' here that completely tied many arguments here together.
We have a telephone company offering video, they were required to get permission from the LFA, but they are not a "cable company", rather a phone company offering all services as broadband.
... discuss. |
|
Fatal Vector
@aol.com
|
Most likely because their core business was being a telco. Either that or they just went and did it like idiots. But then, California has a "code" and laws for everything under the sun, so it's not surprising at all. Sacremento, being the capital has some of the screwiest of them all, as well as a overbearing government, both county and local.
They were most likely simply told that they would have to pay government extortion to operate in Sacremento county, simple as that. No government entity in CA will ever foreswear a source of revenue such as this. |
|
lookingwestandsmilin
@verizon.n | HAHAHA!! Move out of California now, while its alrady too late! There are still a few democratic vestiages of the country left... Say, if a few million of you moved to OHIO we'd be in a very different place, now -wouldn't we-! |
|
christij
join:2005-01-16
Central Islip, NY | Perhaps if the phone companies stopped fighting municipal owned wireless network then they'd get less resistance on the video front. |
|
