Verizon: Rules Schmules Tries to wiggle around TV franchise agreements Traditionally, to offer TV service, a cable provider needs to sign franchise agreements for each market they serve - agreements that often benefit the community that signs them. Verizon, never a big fan of pesky rules, this week headed to Washington to try and convince lawmakers their Fios TV service should be exempt from such guidelines. Verizon argues their video-service should be covered by their existing phone franchise agreements.
|
  icp1Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO | Tough one It's a tough call. How important is added competition to cable companies? If it's very important, than I can see the need to bypass some of the local regulatory issues.
If local rights are more important, then they are toast.
Rollout would be delayed by months or years in some locations. | |
|  | | | Re: Tough one Did the cable companies have to get a second franchise to offer phone service? | |
| | |  JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Tough one Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. | |
| | | |  yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Tough one said by JTRockville:Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. If that's the case, then Verizon shouldn't have to jump through the cable franchising hoops.
--
Search first, ask questions later. | |
| | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Tough one Not necessarily a fair equation, because VoIP isn't regulated yet.
Cable franchise agreements often fund public TV, ensure local airtime for political events, and are starting to be used to ensure quality broadband service (see Montgomery County, Maryland).
A reworking of regulation makes more sense than a removal of regulation.
Unless people really enjoy having less power in their lives and local communities, then by all means....approve and enjoy. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Tough one 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Tough one 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Tough one 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Tough one 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! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Tough one 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 | 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! | |
|
| | | | | | | It is fair, some cable companies have offered digital telephone service for a while, which is not VoIP. | |
| | | | | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Tough one 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. | |
| | | | | | | | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | Re: Tough one 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
| |
| | | | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by Karl Bode:Not necessarily a fair equation, because VoIP isn't regulated yet. In that sense, is TV over IP regulated??? | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Tough one TV over IP isn't even deployed. | |
| | | | | | | |  batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | Re: Tough one 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 | |
|
| | | | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | 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. | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | 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?
At the same time, I do think Verizon should pay some kind fee to local governments. It should be a uniform fee for anyone who is providing telecommunications service using public rights of way. This money would be used to fund public access and other things of that nature. | |
| | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Tough one 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..... | |
| | | | | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Tough one 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. | |
| | | | | | | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Tough one 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.... | |
| | | | | | | | |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·ViaTalk
·Vonage
| Re: Tough one 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. | |
|
| | |  KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | said by JTRockville:Cable companies do not need a separate franchise agreement to offer phone or internet service. Here in CT, Comcast had to apply for a CLEC aggrement. | |
| | | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Tough one Is Comcast providing digital phone or VoIP in CT? | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Tough one Correct me if I am wrong on this but I believe I just read an article that "Digital Phone" is a marketing buzzword used by cable companies for their VOIP.
In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. | |
| | | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Tough one said by Skippy25:Correct me if I am wrong on this but I believe I just read an article that "Digital Phone" is a marketing buzzword used by cable companies for their VOIP. In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. Here in NC, Time Warner offers digital phone service and it is NOT VOIP. I am not sure about Cox, Comcast, etc. | |
| | | | | | | mishaqPremium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX | No, I believe digital phone is different. VoIP uses internet data to make the phone call, while digital phone through a cable company just uses some reserved bandwidth on their cable set for phone conversations (another service provided by the cable company, so Im assuming you use their equipment or something)
--
Damn you FCC! | |
| | | | | | |  pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | said by Skippy25:In essence, VOIP and Digital Phone are one in the same from what I gathered. Most people have heard of the words 'voice' and 'over', but what the hell is IP? Does it have anything to do with watersports? I hope not. Digital Phone sounds better for most people.
Usually the cable companies has complete control over the equipment from the customer's premises to the POTS interface with their version of VoIP service. Vonage and the 10,000 other providers usually depend on Sprint, AT&T, Level(3), UU Net and whatever else is in between the customer and the POTS interface.
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 | |
|
| | | | | KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | Digital Phone and they just recently launched Digital Voice. | |
|
| | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
2 edits | No, Cable companies had to get CLEC approval in every state they offer phone service in.
Right now cable companies are locked in a fight over the rule that says a cable company is excluded from the rule that says a Telco with a network has to upon request offer their network and elements of to other telcos at TSLRIC rates.
The rule was over turned by the US Federal courts and now in the US Supreme Court. If the ruling is upheld by the US Supreme Court the the next logical step would be that a Telco entering into what is called a cable broadcast setup then the would have to follow the rules for a cable company.
This is going to be a big mess that the FCC created by saying a cable company can get CLEC approval but does not have to offer any network elements to other telcos. | |
| | | | | Bravo dcurrey,
I think you nailed that one !!
The FCC and govt agencies are willing to approve mega mergers within the industry, but are not willing to improve competition between the behomeths within the voice, video and data markets?? Go figure.
| |
|
| | | I agree Verizon should be given some slack here. The sooner they get their product to the mrket the better we all are. But they should still be required to allow local access and set up local access studios in some areas etc. | |
| | | | Cool. I learned the difference between Digital Telephone and VOIP in this thread! Thanks! | |
| | | | Lets make a deal, unburden Verizon from the fcc and other taxes and surcharges on voice lines that switch over to fiber, so they can compete with voip service in exchange for a 3-level community standards: ie liberal, centrist, and conservative bases on the geographic/political regions standards and states have no veto power with one small caveat: QOS standards
Right now verizon is stuck between two firewalls for triple play: fcc taxes/surcharges on POTS over fiber, and cable content providers with their eyes on all that former MA-Bell revenue from years past (a mighty war chest if you ask me)
Once these two hurdles are overcome verizon can compete on a semi-level playing field.
Verizon should be given some regulatory relief from the obligatory taxes/surcharges for services delivered over fiber. I can't see paying $70-90 for a converted POTS copper line that only runs when you power it the same way you power a cordless phone. In my eyes, thats what you pay all those taxes and fees for (most of it anyways-- some are manditory such as 911, usf, etc) Its a trade-off some customers will not want to switch without some incentive... and holding a bundle discount hostage is not an incentive (if they actually would do that- I'll have to check on that one)
For verizon to compete with services delivered over fiber, the prices have to compete, and the only one that can blow away the competition right now is broadband, that's all folks, and until something changes, verizon will be relegated to AOL status in the hoopla dialup days in 1995... so I hope this is not where they end up.. they need to be able to compete with lowest pried of triple play packages from cablevision and not the highest cost cable provider such as time warner, cox or comcast.. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Ivan should have called FiOS TV something else I could understand why cable MSOs didn't get much grief in providing VoIP, as it's currently still considered an Internet application rather than a telecom service.
Now how does Ivan expect Congress not to believe that Verizon isn't deliberately stepping on MSOs toes by rolling this out in already franchised markets?
This is the sort of competition that cable operators need so they stop raping customers with ever increasing monthly fees, but it's gonna be tough to convince already reluctant incumbents in each market. | |
| | | Franchise = graft Franchise agreements aren't agreements that often benefit the community that signs them. Rather, they're a perfect example of legal graft. The politicians benefit, the cable company benefits (through the usually-exclusive franchise), and the customers lose through lack of competition. What's the "community" get? A few community channels on the cable system. Or, in Philadelphia, an agreement for a few community channels which the cable company doesn't bother fulfilling. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | No! As long a Verizon and the other Telco's continue in their efforts to kill Muni's they should be forced to deal with markets the way a cable system does. | |
| johnsp
join:2001-02-07
Syosset, NY | It's all about the money Don't forget the franchise fees you see at the bottom of your cable bill. DO you think you're local town wants to give that up? | |
| | | | Re: It's all about the money This would be just an added taxable service at the going telephony rate, which is a higher rate than the franchise fees applied to the cable industry. | |
| | | | Verizon is happy to pay the franchise fees. The issue Verizon has is meeting with every single city council to get approval. Plus Cable Co's go to these meetings to try and stall the process. The process is all very unnecessary. Let Verizon pay the fees and move on with offering video. | |
|
1 edit |  Re: Rules Schmules
| |
| |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | Re: Rules Schmules Should they be allowed to build whereever they want on public property to provide those services? | |
| | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Rules Schmules Is that the issue here? I didn't think adding IPTV would require any construction on private land. As someone above pointed out, any optics that have to be layed are going on existing poles and conduits, and Verizon is already laying fiber for broadband purposes. The issue is what kind of content Verizon is allowed to provide over their network. | |
|
| marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | I was responding to Buttset's contention that we should allow any company to build infrastructure to offer any service they are willing to invest in.
Not to the specific situation of Verizon.
Verizon obviously wants to play by "telephone rules" because local governments have no leverage under those rules. Phone franchises are automatically extended and cannot be refused by a local government.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
|  gwionwild colonial boyPremium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
3 edits | A letter from the front lines... For years, cablecos have pushed... hard... for exclusivity in their contracts. That's all the franchise rules are, contractual provisions in the franchise agreement that grant exclusivity... I've opposed these contracts of adhesion for years. I've actively negotiated, on behalf of municipalities, most of whom would, without specialized advice, quite literally sign whatever the existing cableco shoved in front of them, rather than negotiate to remove exclusivity clauses, and to (wherever possible) exercise options to renew old, less unconscionably one-sided contracts, wherever they exist, rather than sign (through the 90's... this was seen coming, and most cable outfits raced to tie up loose ends in the middle of the decade) new contracts. I have and admit an inherent bias, but I know the game, and my bias precedes my opinion, and is based on analysis from the municipalities' and citizens' perspective, I worked for them, not the telecoms or any other commercial interest.
My feelings are clear cut. Wherever an entity, cable or anything else, sews up a territory and bars all effective competition, the prices soar, service degrades as plant obsolesces, and plant is improved literally only when it's reached the deadest dead end of its useful life cycle. Remember, these things are phrased to ban all competing cablecos, not just telecom run ones. The result is a one-provider monopoly. And the municipality and the consumer suffers.
In the early days, some providers begged for exclusivity as a way of protecting their initial investment in plant. Cable was a new and very tentative idea. Nobody agreed on how well it would fare against broadcast TV. The plants were expensive, and it was hard to find financing to build them without some guarantee of a revenue stream. That's 35-40 years ago. Cable is a monolithic industry, now. The old plants are paid off. Financing is available for new ones. All these concepts of monopoly do, now, is impede technology and progress, stifle new solutions, and stymie free market competition, from which new, better ideas and business models emerge to make long term improvements for everyone.
I've seen communities free up their franchise model to allow multiple franchises, and I've seen communities where two or more franchises have been granted. In almost every case, the dire predictions of the old cableco that the competition would kill them, that it would have an adverse long term effect, and so forth have been proven self-serving and false. In almost every one of those areas where I've seen two or more cable providers emerge, prices have declined or remained at a reasonable level, service has improved steadily, along with QoS from both providers...
Competition is a good thing. It's at once the carrot and the stick, without which there's virtually no incentive to provide the best service at the fairest price. I've also seen the captive markets. Service improves slowly, if at all. New technologies are slow to emerge. Prices skyrocket. Cableco profits rise. Consumer satisfaction plummets. And there's no choice for the unhappy consumer (at least, until satellite emerged; but to some, especially the most vulnerable, seniors and those with limited means or limited tech savvy, satellite is still more or less "not an option," anyway)...
More power to Verizon. However any of us might feel about some of their other positions, this one's the "good fight," and it's beneficial to us all for them to prevail. I'm behind them, speaking for myself, 100%. Godspeed and best wishes.
In the Spirit of one of my many philosophical mentors, Mr. Roosevelt, the first... that's Teddy for, reference, the old "hero of San Juan Hill" and the trust-buster extraordinaire... I can only say... "Bully!" 
PS- I haven't discussed an important part of this issue, the waiver process required for an ILEC to service CTV in their territory. This isn't an omission, it's a simplfication... I feel the same about that... largely, those regs were passed as a sort of compliment to most states' common carrier regs out of concern over "cross-subsidization." I've always considered the FCC regs duplicative and phrased in such a way as to evade the real concern, and simply provide a "preferred status" to the cablecos... in other words, I regard them as being little more than a cable lobbiest's dream come true. If you want to prevent cross-subsidization, say so, and set up reasonable regulations on bifurcation of business operations to reach that end. If you want (in reality) to help the cable industry maintain monopoly status in its service areas, play things the way the waiver regs are (were? Or do the rules even apply in an IPTV scenario? That wasn't an option, yet, when I was active in these things... I would have to do some serious research on current regs, I haven't done this in several years, now) phrased. Technologies and business models change; so must regulations, to reflect progress and prepare us for the future, rather than tether us to the past.
--
Semper Eadem
-"Tewdor Thunder"- | |
| | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | Re: A letter from the front lines... As posted elsewhere, franchise agreements rarely give a cable operator exclusivity, as witnessed by the multiple providers in many larger metros (I have a choice of RCN or Comcast for example).
Whats a stake here is the clause that forces Verizon to provide UNIVERSAL coverage in the towns they deploy to.
noz | |
| | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | quote:
That's all the franchise rules are, contractual provisions in the franchise agreement that grant exclusivity...
I don't follow. I have seen/heard of few franchise agreements whose primary function is to grant exclusivity.... | |
| | gwionwild colonial boyPremium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
3 edits | If you read the fine print, most of the franchise agreements negotiated with the small and medium sized municipalities prior to 1993 have an exclusivity provision -- and an option to the provider to renew. Larger cities tend to have better solicitors and real law departments, so they had this advantage before 1993. They also tend to be more aggressive. My experience was largely with boroughs and townships, not cities... and, in many... not all, I grant... but many cases, and you had to look for them, they slipped in a provision stating that the franchise was a grant of an exclusive right to provide cable services in that community.
There's a reason more recent contracts don't have these provisions, and it's not cableco fairness... During the early 90's, these provisions were common, albeit sometimes buried in the boilerplate of a twenty page contract. That was probably because they anticipated the Cable Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1), which stated, in relevant part, "a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise." --- actually, now, the shoe's on the other foot -- and the options to renew are granted to the cableco, if they can get their way. And the typical franchise is prepared by their lawyers, not the community's lawyers or representatives. And it usually contains, again, if they get their way, a "most favored nation" clause (more on that, below).. Most of the agreements are for ~10 years... often more; sometimes decades. Hence, what it was was a rush to the door before it was locked, in anticipation that the Cable Act would pass. For a nicely written Sixth Circuit opinion elaborating, see: »caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g···=950003p But see also Preferred Comm., Inc. v. City of L.A., 754 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding exclusive cable franchises unconstitutional), aff'd on other grounds, 476 U.S. 488 (1986)
I said I hadn't done this in a while... -- it takes me a while to refresh my somewhat foggy memory and synthesize all this new info. I probably should have addressed the ILEC provisions, since that's more relevant than the newer agreements, but remember that a lot of the current agreements in the smaller communities are grandfathered, optioned renewals from 1990 or before. Curiously, a lot of the really old agreements, from the 70's, didn't have exclusivity clauses, and were very favorable to the municipalities. Whether for marketing purposes to get a foot in the door or whatever, didn't matter, it was highly desirable, usually, to find a renewal option in the community's hands and use it, on those, wherever possible. That usually infuriated the CTV co GM's and lawyers.
Now, here's the question left in my ever-devious mind ... is IPTV "cable service", within the meaning of the FCC's definition, and the terms of the franchise agreements in force?
And in another musing, if it is, would it be subject to the "most favored nation" clauses, that require essentially the same terms as in the favored provider's franchise in all subsequently granted franchises?
Finally, assuming the question's open regarding whether it's "cable" or not, would the FCC's ILEC waiver process be required to provide such services in Verizon, or any ILEC providing broadband's, POTS service areas?
There are a lot of questions that cross my mind, and, as I say, I'm rusty... there's a lot of regulation and material on these issues, and a lot of various contractual provisions are in effect in various areas. Most of the big cablecos inherited franchises, to complicate matters, as they absorbed all those small operations that used to dot the landscape, back in the early days of cable. Meaning the big operators don't necessarily have "one" contract with all their areas... and some towns have more leverage than others, and negotiate new agreements, others sign whatever's offered, others exercise renewal options. Where we are right now is on relatively new ground. The line between cable and internet services is slowly eroding. What I'm in favor of is as much competition as possible, everywhere it's feasible. There will probably always be de facto monopolies, in this "best of all possible worlds," simply because some areas are so small or so poorly saturated with subscribers per mile that -- being brutally frank -- they're lucky anybody serves them at all... but for the rest of America, not all of whom live in NYC or Pittsburgh or Boston or LA or even Peoria, where there are negotiated options and multiple competing providers, and not all of whom have the skill or the resources to follow the lead of those urban centers, an option to have delivery via telco fiber, whether it's provided by the ILEC or another provider (I don't care; long as it's available, who provides it isn't an agenda of mine - like I said, above, I've never been in the employ or biased towards telcos or any other commercial enterprise, in this, just municipalities and citizen groups) is a positive step towards the future of technology and a positive step for competition.
... and I didn't even have time or space to address the issue of those poor sods who live three miles out, on the edge of town, 1.2 families per linear mile, and can't be served under the franchise terms  -- but they may just have broadband or fiber... well... next time... 
PS- yes, that universal service catch... but that's a common carrier concept. There's a raging debate over this, right now... the big RBOC's want services provided by internet over telephone lines via telco provided DSL to be treated outside of the common carriage rules, in effect, be saved by deregulation - the smaller telcos, cablecos and others want to be, as one commentator put it, saved "from" deregulation... common carrier regs are meant to serve a number of purposes. I've never really thought that they should be applied to non-POTS services, myself. Not on a philosophical reasoning, but on a legislative intent reasoning... they never contemplated these services in writing the common carriage provisions. Ironically, I'm echoing the RBOC argument. But for a different reason. I think the communications act is a lot like the tax law. It needs tossed out the window and rewritten, top to bottom, to reflect the new era in communications, not convoluted to make it fit the new era. It was written for an era when cable was cable, POTS was POTS, and consumer high speed internet over cable or phone lines wasn't even a twinkle in somebody's eye. With convergence come new issues; and it's now predictable that any number of concurrent services can be provided over these systems.
And when fiber becomes universal... and it will, it's not an internet technology, it's a carrier medium, and the future of communications... a lot of these growing pains will be mooted. The future of communications is convergence. The end game is whose lines it converges over. My money's on the telecoms. They simply do this stuff better, as a general rule. But however it works out, the simple reality for the next decade is that copper is dead. Fiber's obsolesced it, for all practical purposes. Barring a major tech development and shift, it's not whether, it's when.
Enough of my rambles... and we're just scratching the surface... this has already become a little on the ... ... long and boring side ... sorry. Just that I'm really thinking it out, right now, myself, and it's really not a simple analysis, at all, as I see it.
PPS - wow... and I should have said "early 90's and late 80's," above... ye gads, time flies. Seems like yesterday morning, sometimes... amazing, though, how far we've come. Back then, we just dreamed of having problems like these... because that meant things were progressing... always look at the bright side, right?
--
Semper Eadem
-"Tewdor Thunder"- | |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | The issue will be moot soon Once the bandwidth is there (within 10 years) this will all be moot. Our problem right now is that for IPTV to work as well as we want it, one requires lots of bandwidth. That type of bandwidth is more readily available between the end user and the cable company's head-end (or between the end user and the CO) than accross the entire internet. Once the bandwidth is there TV stations (and anyone else) will be able to stream theitr HDTV-quality signals over neutral networks to your home. It's similar to how now, I can go to my local TV affiliate's website and watch a low-quality RealVideo stream of what they're showing. Content needs to be separated from the network for anything to be fair. | |
| | | ToIP should be de-regulated... Let me first say that I didn't read any of the other posts or the article because I am busy and should be working. Verizon should just call its services Television over IP or ToIP or maybe TVoIP for TV over IP or possibly T+VoIP for Television + Voice over IP and then ask the FCC to declare that it can't be regulated by the municipal governments. | |
| bronkx1
join:2001-04-05
Warminster, PA | Well... If they were going to cover entire areas and not just the hi rent areas I think they would have an easier time.They are not installing the new plant over old.They are trenching for conduit all over the place.I have seen first hand the damage they are causing.I also watched a house burn to the ground after they hi a gas line.I see the utility commission going after them for not following the rules.Here in PA we have laws about under ground construction and they are not being followed.I would love to see them install this in every township and offer it to compete with comcast but it seems to me they only want the rich areas around here and I think that is discrimination. | |
| Sumeet0
join:2000-12-01
Chantilly, VA
1 edit | Verizon is right in this case I hate to say this however I think Verizon is right in this case as counties/munis are trying to have it both ways IMHO. Verizon already pays franchise fees for the phone services and if you add video franchise service fee to that, it would mean higher prices for the consumers and less price competition. Cable companies are not required to pay additional fee to provide phone services so why should Verizon be singled out? More taxes and fees means more spending by the local governments and I hate to say it but all of them have a dismal fiscal record (pretending to look at my property tax assessment ...grrr). I hope the neo commies in the local boards will allow the competition to flourish and not take sides. | |
| | | | Re: Verizon is right in this case Lets just say once u see franchise fees on fios u will know but for now its to early to tell since fios is still beta.. | |
| | | | | Re: Verizon is right in this case Lets think about this for a minute. The phone company doesn't want to go by the same rules. Without a franchise agreement they can do what they want.
They don't have to build I-Nets like the cable company does. How much fiber is Verizon giving the muni like the cable conpanies have to.
If you live in a lower class of town and Verizon doesn't see the profit in the area to wire it they won't wire it. In cable TV franchises there are stipulations that all areas have to be wired and done by a certain time. Where is Verizon's schedules to do your area? What if they don't want to do your house because the profit to run the fiber isn't there?
If your picture is bad guess what. Verizon gets to tell the franchise area to go to hell we don't have to follow those same rules you wrote the cable company. And what if you want a local channel and Verizon doesn't want to carry it. Out of luck again. Those pesky FCC rules don't apply to Verizon.
And Verizon doesn't pay franchise fees for cable tv. Then the cable companise will sue and say they don't have a fair playing field. Who pays for that litagation. You do from higher calbe bills and higher taxes. Do you think that Verizon will pay franchise fees for their High speed internet traffic or VOIP when they offer it. I don't think so.
Why do you think they picked all the places they have so far?
Why do you think you can get fast DSL in some areas and in some areas you can't. It isn't because your too far from the CO. It's the phone company that doesn't want to upgrade their plant or place a CO closer to give it to you.
Why is it that all of the sudden the phone companies are these great guys coming to the rescue of the lowly consumer?
JT where are you on this subject. Or do you just hate cable companies. | |
| | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Verizon is right in this case I'm right here, watching intently.
I don't hate cable companies - in fact, I've heard pretty good things about Starpower, and would probably be willing to try 'em. But alas, franchise agreements aren't the iron-clad guarantee you seem to think they are, and Starpower reneged on theirs.
Franchise agreements don't require cable companies to "give" anything to the community. In fact, when I was a cable subscriber, there was a line item on my bill for the franchise fee. All the cable company did was collect the fee from me, and pass it on to the franchise authority. The franchise fee doesn't affect cable company costs or pricing.
There was a separate line item on my cable bill for the INet too, and a line item in our county budget for the INet. In 2004, my community spent over $3 million dollars on the INet.
I don't consider the franchise fee or the INet "gifts" from the cable company. That would be like saying property tax revenue is a "gift" from the developer.
Verizon already has access to the ROW, which is what a franchise agreement grants to the franchisee, so it seems to me Verizon has a good argument.
The only requirement I hope Verizon is held to for TV, is broadcasting our PEGs. | |
| | | | | SSLSTL
join:2004-12-09
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Verizon is right in this case I disagree. Let's try another example here.......Verizon (and other ILECs) claim that are already in the ground as telcos and therefore should not have to pay more tax or fee to local government on expanded services and video even though they are using public property to make more revenues. Cable ops make the same argument about alrady doing video and their new phone services are no additional burden to the streets....
"Burden" in not the point......although a superfically clever sound bite by corporations than have never wanted to carry their fair share of federal, state and local taxes....
or pay fair rates for commerical use of public propoerty for private profit.
What if I am a mall owner and I rent a storefront to someone who wants to sell shoes...we sign alease (franchise agreement) that rent will be 6% of his sales.
A few years later, the store decides it wants to sell socks....but claims that he doesn't have to pay 6% of his sock sales as rent because when he rented the realestate he was only selling shoes and the socks aren't taking up any more space......
Meanwhile the store owner selling pantyhose and stockings a few yards down the mall is having a fit because HE pays 6% rent on his stocking sales......
What if I wanted to build a stand and sell hotdogs in the city park. But I don;t want to pay rent for that and my reason is that because it would be so convenient for people to be able to buy food without leaving the park that the city should give it to me for free in the public interest of "food accessibility"
if everyone offering telephone services using PROW pays the same telephone tax rate, and everyone offering video using PROW pays the same fanchise fee rate, there is no competitive harm....it is a level playing field. And the owners of public property (you the citizen) are compensated fairly by the private entities who are using that public properry for commercial profit.
As to the issue of "pass-throughs" to consumers - don;t blame the local govt's...it was the feds and the states who allowed that little gem.....
As to the "exclusive" franchise argument.....
my City's Charter (circa 1916) forbids exclusive franchises of any kind.....in 1984 when we tried to offer two cable ocmpanies city-wide franchises, both refused to sign unless the city was split into 2 separate franchise areas and each company only had to serve one area.....
In a town in one of the Carolinas (Charlotte perhaps ?) two companies were given city-wide franchises and told that both had to build the whole town. They did - then found enough of a loophole that Company #1 served the lefthand side of the street and Company #2 the right hand side....a little collusion goes a loong way....an unanticipate-able loophole they drove a truck through. Local government - fortunately or unfortunately - does not tend to think in the same devious ways as some of these providers. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
