 
bba71
The One
join:2002-11-20
Pleasanton, CA
| since when.... since when was it illegal to negotiate? stand firm San Jose.
alleging that the city leaders were holding franchise renewal over the company's head 'illegally' as a motivation for long requested service improvements
kinda like holding increased internet fees for non-tv subscribers over their heads... | |
|  | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: since when.... said by bba71  :
alleging that the city leaders were holding franchise renewal over the company's head 'illegally' as a motivation for long requested service improvements
kinda like holding increased internet fees for non-tv subscribers over their heads...
Reading all of the available published press reports, it appears that this dispute has very little to do with improved service to subscribers!
First off, the suit is required by Federal Law to preserve Comcast's legal rights. There are quotes from city officals saying that the law suit is a necessary step!
Next it appears that the city had never bothered to negotiate this agreement for at least 15 years, with any of the previous owners!
The city wants the cable company to construct a telecommications system (I-NET) for the exclusive use of the city government at a monthly cost of $1.50 per cable system subscriber, which would be added to everyone's cable bill, even though it appears that the subscribers would not be able to use this new system.
Finally, the news reports go on to say that this is a system formerly owned by ATT and one which ATT refused to upgrade. But since Comcast became the owner, the upgrade has begun and will be completed by the end of 2004! | |
| | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | Re: since when.... Do you work for comcast or something?;) | |
| | | | | | | | | cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
|  Re: since when....
well, most people who do that post a link to the info so everyone can see it. may i ask why no post? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by cableblows3 :
well, most people who do that post a link to the info so everyone can see it. may i ask why no post?
Did you bother to read the links in the posting that started this discussion? If you had bothered to look at the information provided in the links at the top of the discussion, you would not be asking this question!! If you could not be bothered to follow the links at the top of the discussion before making your comments, why should I have to provide them again for you to ignore! | |
| | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
| Miller & Van Eaton, P.L.L.C (Cable and Telecommunications Attorneys for Local Governments, says it's legal to negotiate for an INET said by Feature of the Month (past features):
An institutional network, or INET, is a part of a cable system devoted primarily to serving governmental and non-residential cable system users. The Cable Act allows a local government to require a cable operator to build an INET, and to dedicate capacity on that INET for educational and governmental use. Many operators have agreed in franchises to install a fiber INET dedicated exclusively to school or government use, at no or very low cost.
New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate, provides this recommended language: said by Negotiating Cable Franchise Renewals:
I-NET and VLAN: Company shall provide, construct, operate and maintain both an Institutional Network (excluding coders/decoders, interface and other terminal equipment which will be supplied by I-NET Users) that will provide the Municipality and other I-NET Users with Institutional Network Services and a Virtual Local Area Network (“Virtual Local Area Network” or “VLAN” ). The I-NET and VLAN shall be as set forth below. Unless the Municipality agrees otherwise in writing, the I-NET, including the individual fiber optic fibers constituting all or a portion of it, shall be owned and maintained by Company but provided for the exclusive use of the Municipality and other I-NET Users. Except as set forth in Section 4.g.ii.(7), the I-NET and VLAN shall be provided without any charge to the Municipality or I-NET or VLAN Users.
Many other jurisdictions have bargained for a newly constructed INET, or upgrades/expansion of an existing INET:
• Consolidated City of Indianapolis, Indiana
• County of Santa Clara
• City of Austin
• City of Saint Paul
• State of Hawaii
• Town of Natick, Maine
• City of Issaquah, WA
• Fairfax County, VA
• Montgomery County, MD
• Prince George's County, MD
• Boulder, CO
• Fort Worth, TX
• Brooklyn
• South Manhattan
San Jose isn't the only franchise authority that's had a bumpy ride. Albuquerque recently negotiated.
City at Odds With Comcast Over New Franchise Agreement (Jan '02)
City of Albuquerque and Comcast Reach Agreement (May '02)
said by mjcrocket :
Reading all of the available published press reports, it appears that this dispute has very little to do with improved service to subscribers!
(snip)
The city wants the cable company to construct a telecommications system (I-NET) for the exclusive use of the city government at a monthly cost of $1.50 per cable system subscriber, which would be added to everyone's cable bill, even though it appears that the subscribers would not be able to use this new system.
EVERYBODY in the community benefits from the INET, through use of public services:
• Public Libraries
• EMS Facilities
• Fire Departments
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Public Schools (including Community Colleges) | |
| | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: since when.... Horsehockey. This is a new way to tax citizens so government has more money to spend.
First, cable subscribers had to pay for a "community" channel which usually filled up with crud about "how your city council serves you". About as useful as all those free mailings we get from our congresspeople.
Now, cities want cable subscribers to pay for the city phone and data services, too. Stinking bureaucratic money grubbers.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
| Re: since when.... Horsehockey? Uh oh...
* wonders what horse-related-reference calvoiper will accuse me of next, after reading this post *
The Alliance for Community Media values PEGs as much as I do. said by Alliance calls for rally to support PEG Access, Jul '01:
PEG Access Centers are unique in that they provide the local community access to media technology, furnishing them with the tools they need to voice their views and opinions. This independent, local medium has become all the more vital today in the midst of dizzying media consolidation and technological convergence.
As far as the INET goes... do you think the government shouldn't have/doesn't need a network? | |
| | | | | | 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: since when.... Re: "...providing the local community access to media technology, furnishing them with the tools they need to voice their views and opinions..."
Are you trying to tell me that this isn't something that's already possible? We've been doing this for over a hundred years. The fact that there's an acronym for the whole thing also makes me _extremely_ wary.
I'm in full agreement with calvoiper. Sounds like a bunch of not-so-citizen-friendly rubbish to me.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. | |
| IAmTheEvilest
There Is Nothing Like A Restart
join:2001-01-03
Santa Barbara, CA
clubs:
| Sure there would be quite a few other companies...
Well, if they don't want to upgrade, then give the franchise to someone else.
--
The two biggest things: the universe & human stupidity --Albert Einstein | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Maybe not such a good thing....
Unfortunately, more likely this lawsuit will end up with a "settlement" giving Comcast even more than it is entitled to. Settling a lawsuit is a way for municipalities to:
1. Cut a deal in private, because litigation related matters are exempt from open-meeting laws, and
2. Do something "under court order" that they otherwise might not be able to justify--for example, they might get a requirement that Comcast would agree to SJ's terms, but SJ could then only issue franchises to competitors if they took EXACTLY the same terms--making the apple far too big for any new entrant to bite into.
Beware litigation--especially when it can be used as a cover or dodge....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| jonnyzor
join:2002-07-28
San Jose, CA | Give them Hell SJ I hope that this dispute gets to a level where San Jose kicks Comcast to the curb. It is time for a new cable company to move in. I am still on the old A/B cable set. They tell me that the lines in my area are over 30 years old!!! | |
| | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: Give them Hell SJ said by jonnyzor :
I hope that this dispute gets to a level where San Jose kicks Comcast to the curb. It is time for a new cable company to move in.
Remember, Comcast would still own the system! Any new replacement company coming in would have to purchase, or rent the Comcast system. If they didn't want to do that then they would have to build their own system from the ground up! How many years would the city want to be without cable service while a new company builds a new system?
said by jonnyzor :
They tell me that the lines in my area are over 30 years old!!!
The news reports also indicate that since Comcast has taken over, the system upgrade has begun and will be completed by the end of 2004. Sure it would be nice to have the upgraded system operational tomorrow, but at least they are doing the upgrade that ATT would not do, and have set a target date to complete that upgrade! | |
| 
Pazalatin
@attbi.com | SJ Resident! Nice to see a political system actually looking to help the consumer. I thought they were both giving $$$ to each other... Still, the SJC cable system is horrid for what is supposed to be the Silicon Valley. WHERE IS MY FIBRE CONNECTION! | |
| | Nagrom Nniuq
join:2002-11-19
Springfield, OR | Re: SJ Resident! Down with Comcast in with competition! | |
| | | gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA
| Re: SJ Resident! there' plenty of competition out there. all you have to do is open your eyes and look around. it's obvious that most people complain about being held hostage to comcast only because the offer the biggest bang for the lowest dollar.
if comcast is so bad, just go out and get dsl- or even worse directway or starband. | |
| | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| said by Pazalatin:
Nice to see a political system actually looking to help the consumer.
Well that would be nice, but in this case the San Jose government is trying to help itself to a new voice/data network that the consumer will not have access too. The system upgrades that help the consumer are going to happen regardless of if the separate government only network is built. A simple solution would be for the city to let comcast itemize the $1.50 per month charge for the new government network on the customer bill. Then they have no argument about how it would be an hidden tax. Comcast would now have a new government service they provide the San Jose city. Win Win for the City and Comcast.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| saratoga66
join:2002-08-22
Saratoga, CA
| I'll Side With Comcast On This One I just wanted to point out that this battle started long before Comcast took over the system. San Jose wanted TCI to build this private communications network for the city buildings and they refused. Then they tried to convince AT&T who also refused. Now Comcast is refusing. I think San Jose might be asking a bit to much here since 3 different cable operators have refused to give in to their demands. Do you really think another cable operator would be willing to? I doubt it. Most of the bay area city's have renegotiated their cable franchise agreements during the last few years and have had their systems rebuilt for 2-way communications. I think if the City of San Jose would have been more reasonable their residence could be enjoying a modern cable system. | |
| | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: I'll Side With Comcast On This One said by saratoga66 :
I think San Jose might be asking a bit to much here since 3 different cable operators have refused to give in to their demands. Do you really think another cable operator would be willing to? I doubt it. Most of the bay area city's have renegotiated their cable franchise agreements during the last few years and have had their systems rebuilt for 2-way communications.
According to the news articles that are linked in the posting that started this discussion, This is the first time in over 15 years that the city has bothered to conduct negotiations concerning the renewal of this franchise! If the city government is so concerned why did they wait 15 years? I have to agree, that the city is most likely on some weak ground. Remember they have allowed previous owners to provide less than adequate service, and now it appears that Comcast is at least attempting to correct past wrongs on their own! Also, remember that if Comcast provides this private service to the city, then that cost will just be passed on to all of the subscribers through increased rates; which will then have everyone upset again! | |
| | |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
| Re: I'll Side With Comcast On This One said by mjcrocket :
According to the news articles that are linked in the posting that started this discussion, This is the first time in over 15 years that the city has bothered to conduct negotiations concerning the renewal of this franchise!
That statement is a little bit misleading, mjcrocket. A franchise authority can't just decide to negotiate terms anytime it feels like it. They have to wait until the current franchise expires. As far as I can tell, these negotiations have been ongoing since 2000. The INET is not a new requirement. said by Alliance for Community Media, PUBLIC POLICY UPDATE, Aug '00:
AT&T has threatened to sue the city of San Jose, California because the city has not allowed AT&T to begin construction that would upgrade their system to provide cable modem service. AT&T owns two cable systems in San Jose, one bought from Pacific Bell in 1998 and one acquired in the TCI merger in 1999. AT&T wants to upgrade the old Pacific Bell network to the level of the TCI network. San Jose city officials are contending that AT&T does not hold a valid franchise agreement for the Pacific Bell system and no construction will proceed until AT&T signs a new agreement covering the entire city. San Jose is requiring conditions in the new agreement that would increase the number of public access stations from two to seven and that would require AT&T to build a network that would connect all city buildings. (San Jose Mercury News, August 22, 2000)
Here's what hasn't happened in the past 15 years: the cable companies haven't bothered to transfer the franchise when ownership of the system was transferred. said by Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journel, Dispute between city, AT&T delays launch of high-speed cable, Dec '02:
While AT&T is pinning delay of its services on the city's refusal to release permits, the city says the dispute has nothing to do with permits.
It questions whether AT&T is a valid franchise holder, says Tom Manheim, public education and community outreach manager in San Jose's city manager's office. He is directly involved in the dispute.
Mr. Manheim claims AT&T violated its franchise contract with the city because it did not seek San Jose's approval before purchasing TCI Communications, the former cable franchise holder in San Jose, in 1997.
Mr. Manheim cites other cable owners who did not seek city approval as far back as 15 years.
EDIT
As far as I can tell, these negotiations have been ongoing since 2000 1999. said by Memo from Tom Manheim, City of San Jose Public Outreach Manager, STATUS OF CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL NEGOTIATIONS Sep '99:
Remaining Negotiations – Despite the issues resolved in the Settlement Agreement, a number of other issues of significant benefit to the City and the community remain unresolved. Among these is support for Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access and for the creation of an Institutional Network (INET). The INET, a fiber optic system designed to carry voice, video and data, would connect government buildings and would also link together the City’s 19 school districts and roughly 200 school sites. The franchise extension action before the City Council on January 30, 2001, will allow the renewal discussions to continue in a manner consistent with federal law.
[text was edited by author 2003-05-31 16:46:28] | |
| 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| If I ran SBC, I'd be licking my chops Unfortunately for San Jose residents and SBC shareholders, the SBC management has the worst stragegy imagineable. They should be focusing all efforts on cities like San Jose. They arte getting their butts whipped by cable yet they ignore the areas where there is no cable competition. They could make this whole dispute irrelevant if they wanted to. By the time they finally settle, all of Comcast's potential customers will already have DSL. Will they get some to switch? Sure, but at a highly discounted and close to zero profit rated. The overwhelming majority will not switch, not out of spite, although that would be my motivation, but out of laziness and less hastle. To me this just shows once more the terrible priorities that these companies have.
THey should be deploying DSL to 100% of San Jose residents REGARDLESS OF THE COST OF RTs. The ROI on the most expensive RT will be greater than most COs in other cities, even if they GAVE ACCESS TO CLECS FOR FREE!!!!! | |
| 
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| They're not the only ones For what it's worth, Adelphia is suing a few towns in my area (not mine) for the same thing.
What I'd like to know is, how could I get into a business where I can sue people for reconsidering whether they want to be my customers, and still argue that I'm not a monopoly? Wake up folks, in the world of cable providers, apples fall up.
--
Sutor, ne supra crepidam | |
| 
gnucleus7
Number 3 Forever
join:2002-06-06
NASCAR
| this rocks I think this is a great idea. While I am less than pleased with the fact that the city is trying to upgrade it's networking at the taxpayers expense, this is just politics as usual. As for comcast's sh**ty service, well it's about time citys started holding these worthless scumbags to task.I wish more cities would do this. Then again, that would require the voters to get off their a$$es and vote. Good luck.
--
antec case,asus a7v333,xp2200,Win 2K (going dual boot with mandrake 9),gig crucial pc2700 DDR,ti4600,hp9100,DVD,SB audigy platinum,60gigHD./Soyo,Asus k7,900 Tbird,256 pc133,Mandrake MNF,/Server,Asus Mb,1gig tbird.768 ram. (Netware file server)./ SFTP box. | |
| | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: this rocks said by gnucleus7 :
As for comcast's sh**ty service, well it's about time citys started holding these worthless scumbags to task.I wish more cities would do this.
Since Comcast just took over this system less than six months ago, could you please tell us how Comcast can be held accountable for the wrongs of the previous owners? It appears from the links at the top of this discussion that Comcast is infact attempting to bring the system into a state of good repair and provide the much wanted upgrades! There is nothing in the links provided that indicates Comcast is not providing adequate service in the area of this system! I think the articles indicate that the upgrades should be completed by the end of 2004, that doesn't seem unreasonable if the system has not been properly maintained for the last however many years!! The news articles very clearly indicate that this dispute has been going on for many years, long before the system was purchased by Comcast! | |
| 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
|  It is bad there...
Other than a T1, we have no options. Comcast does not offer a business solution and the xDSL availability is the pits. Hopefully, San Jose will tread carefully on this otherwise I fear the Comcast completion for the end of 2004 will probably be more like 2024.
Now if they could just light a fire under SBC to upgrade xDSL service availability. Being 17,000 feet from the CO is bad. | |
| | | | 
CableUZR
Cuidado, Hay Llamas
join:2003-02-04
Mount Holly, NJ
clubs:
| What's in SJ's INET fine print? As JT mentioned, Comcast has entered into INET agreements with several governmental agencies via negotiations with LFA's. I'm betting that if it's worth Comcast's time and effort from a legal standpoint (which CAN'T be cheap) that SJ is asking for some rather unreasonable terms in their proposed INET. Does anyone know if there is a website that shows the proposed INET requirements that San Jose is trying to force Comcast to meet?
I'm off to Google....
Uzr | |
| |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
| Re: What's in SJ's INET fine print? * anxiously awaits CableUZR's results *
My (VERY limited) understanding of INETs:
The city/county/whatever needs a video/data network. Generally, the cable company signs exclusive agreements with contractors, so it makes sense to arrange for the build at the bargaining table with the cable company. Generally, subscribers pay, so the only thing the cable company has to do is build it to spec on time (although some of those links I posted suggested that the cable company should pay).
In Montgomery County MD, the PEG/INET fee is now listed as a separate line item, so as not to be confused with cable company pricing. | |
| |
CableUZR
Cuidado, Hay Llamas
join:2003-02-04
Mount Holly, NJ
clubs:
| Well, here's what I've found so far:
this (rather old) document:
»www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/cty_clk/1_···info.htm
Which doesn't really go into any details, but I find this paragraph interesting I've highlighted the interesting bit:
Remaining Negotiations – Despite the issues resolved in the Settlement Agreement, a number of other issues of significant benefit to the City and the community remain unresolved. Among these is support for Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access and for the creation of an Institutional Network (INET). The INET, a fiber optic system designed to carry voice, video and data, would connect government buildings and would also link together the City’s 19 school districts and roughly 200 school sites. The franchise extension action before the City Council on January 30, 2001, will allow the renewal discussions to continue in a manner consistent with federal law. And this 2002 memo:
»www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/cty_clk/8_···2.13.htm
UPDATED INFORMATION
Staff has continued negotiations with AT&T representatives. Recent negotiations have been fruitful and we are very close to agreement. However, we will not have an agreement in front of Council by August 12. We are requesting that the City Manager be authorized to extend the deadline for the RFRP response as needed to reach agreement or if agreement is not reached to set a new deadline. We make this request so that AT&T staff resources remain focused on reaching agreement rather than preparing the RFRP response.
We have reached agreement on the cable ordinance. We are working on the text in the franchise agreement. We are working on the text of the INET agreement and the settlement agreement. Staff plans to bring an agreement to Council for action in August.
Apparently SJ's government has been trying to get the INET agreement right for a few years now...
Unfortunately I couldn't really find any requirements documentation that give more specifics on what SJ is expecting from it's INET, in fact this whole statement seems pretty vague to me: "The INET, a fiber optic system designed to carry voice, video and data, would connect government buildings and would also link together the City’s 19 school districts and roughly 200 school sites." It could be that SJ was asking Heritage Cablevision, then ATT, and now Comcast to provide some part of the INET services that are unreasonable. For example, the VA INET agreement has Comcast providing the cable plant, but the gov't. handling provisioning and services that run across the plant. Maybe SJ is demanding that Comcast provide all and manage all of the equipment necessary for video teleconferencing, cablemodem provisioning, and IP telephony, rather than just making the cable plant available to support those services. Now that would probably cost a hell of a lot more than paying a team of lawyers to fight the agreement in court...
Just a thought.
Uzr | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
|
·
·
·
·
·
Does anyone know how much it costs?