dslreports logo
 story category
U-Verse, Lawsuits in Milwaukee
Wasn't avoiding franchises supposed to make the process easier?
With a tenuous agreement in place, AT&T launched U-Verse in portions of Milwaukee this week, though local lawmakers have been fighting the company's decision to avoid paying franchise fees since December. AT&T states that because their system isn't cable, it isn't governed by traditional video franchise rules -- a position which led Milwaukee to sue the telco. In other locations, AT&T has sued towns or cities if they disagree. The Regional Telecommunications Commission says AT&T's use of easements without a franchise violates the law.
view:
topics flat nest 

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

Franchise - Good or Bad

Guess it depends on which side of the tracks you live on. Many years ago the cable company wanted only to service part of the town I lived in, the folks over on "the other side of the tracks" were not included. The city said no service no deal. There was a big stink, I recall the ads to contact your city council from "people for choice" or some such garbage. Oh well, back then the cable company was not so powerful, so they had to service the entire town or someone else would do it. (don't ask for details, this was back in the 70's and I have slept a couple of times since then).

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

If they are sending video, then it's franchised

The point is they are sending video. If the cable company provides VoIP, then they are held to voice regulations. I fail to see how AT&T can say 'well, it's data'. Technically, a cable channel is nothing more than analog data.

Yet another example of a megacorp thinking the law doesn't apply to it. It's time to step in and nationalize all the cable/telco companies, and provide REAL service to everyone.

NowVOIP
In the beginning there was POTS
join:2006-03-05
Round Lake, IL

NowVOIP

Member

Re: If they are sending video, then it's franchised

If it walks like a duck!
johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL

johnh123 to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

The point is they are sending video. If the cable company provides VoIP, then they are held to voice regulations.
Actually, the cable companies voip products are not under state regulation. This is merely the shoe on the other foot.

odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL

odreian615

Member

Re: If they are sending video, then it's franchised

@ john123
Exactly
Cod2
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC

Cod2 to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

The point is they are sending video.
I suppose Youtube should also have to get a franchise agreement too?

jslik
That just happened
Premium Member
join:2006-03-17

jslik

Premium Member

Re: If they are sending video, then it's franchised

If YouTube starts stringing up cable in the right-of-way, then yes.

DaSneaky1D
what's up
MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

DaSneaky1D to karlmarx

MVM

to karlmarx
That arguement would be better served if it were based off of AT&T selling video service. Trying to franchise them based upon them providing video data could get sites like Youtube in trouble.

The fact that AT&T is providing a subscriber television service meant to compete against other subscriber television services should be the point.

Also, cable companies are changed taxes based upon their phone service.
TheGhost
Premium Member
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

TheGhost to karlmarx

Premium Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

If the cable company provides VoIP, then they are held to voice regulations.
I didn't think the VOIP providers had to follow all the same regulations that the ILECs did. I tend to support Milwaukee in the ROW aspect of their argument, but fairness should apply to all.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to karlmarx

Premium Member

to karlmarx
is it video or is it data? if its digital then in any tech paper it would be data.
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
Hi,

When/Where does cable company voip fall under voice regulations?

There is a reason Comcast has a product called Digital Voice and one called Digital Phone.
said by karlmarx:

The point is they are sending video. If the cable company provides VoIP, then they are held to voice regulations. I fail to see how AT&T can say 'well, it's data'. Technically, a cable channel is nothing more than analog data.
If I recall correctly, it is because cable company voip service doesn't fall under telephone regulation that SBC is arguing that it their product isn't video. It's an "information service".

Back to the original question:

When/Where does cable company voip fall under voice regulations?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Telco lines are already taxed to death

The telephone lines are already regulated and taxed to death(just check your phone bill to see how much in taxes). The states and localities should just leave well enough alone and be happy with the taxes they are already collecting. They are just being piggish by demanding an even bigger slice of the pie.

DaSneaky1D
what's up
MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

DaSneaky1D

MVM

Re: Telco lines are already taxed to death

While taxes are the end game for the local counties looking for franchise agreements, at least those agreements should lead to equal service for all people in the county.

MrMaster
Rum Connoisseur
Premium Member
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI

MrMaster

Premium Member

AT&T is evil

Milwaukee has huge swaths with very high crime and unemployment rates while other parts, like other cities, are quite nice. Is it really fair to allow AT&T to cherry pick in the city when they specifically couldn't before?

I say bring on the lawsuits against AT&T.

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

footballdude

Premium Member

Re: AT&T is evil

said by MrMaster:

Milwaukee has huge swaths with very high crime and unemployment rates while other parts, like other cities, are quite nice.
How the hell is that AT&T's fault?

If you were installing cable, wouldn't you like to avoid the areas with very high crime?
carpdiem7
join:2001-02-11
Cedarburg, WI

carpdiem7 to MrMaster

Member

to MrMaster
you're in Austin. How do you one, know where the huge swaths of crime are and two, know where AT&T is deploying the uverse service? If you're unhappy with a company for whatever reason, that's fine, but make sure you have your facts straight about a topic that probably doesn't have anything to do with your frustrations with a company.

hdman
Flt Rider
Premium Member
join:2003-11-25
Appleton, WI

1 edit

hdman to MrMaster

Premium Member

to MrMaster
I was born and raised in Milwaukee, and you certainly have no clue what Milwaukee is like. The crime rate in Milwaukee and cleanliness of the city are lower than most other cities of the same size and diversity.

Be that as it may, the real issue is this: First of all, the City of Milwaukee will do nothing with this lawsuit other than stiffle another form of broadband for the residents, and thats just plain WRONG. This is the basic premis behind WHY the US is so far behind other countries in broadband deployment. Furthermore, guess what happens to the "franchise fees" that Milwaukee is looking for? Yep, they get tapped right onto YOUR bill as a line item. I negotiate these contracts for my local municipality and any company I talk to is perfectly willing to pay the fees, and the come right back and tell me that the fees are simply assessed to the local subscribers. Little, if any of that comes out of the pockets of AT&T. This is why I DON'T and WON'T charge access or franchise fees. I would rather ALL suppliers come in, uninhibited, free of charge, and create a "bidding" atmosphere for the residents. Who wins? They do.... Who loses? The guy who charges the most for the least....

Bottom line is that Milwaukee should let any and all providers in, without fees.....

HDMan
carpdiem7
join:2001-02-11
Cedarburg, WI

carpdiem7

Member

Re: AT&T is evil

I'll leave your comments about my level of cluelessness alone as again they are without facts. I completely agree with your way of handling or rather lack of handling franchise fees in your municipality...Good Job!!! As I don't do what you do with negotiating contracts for a city; I'm only stating here what I've heard and that is those fees are definite sources of revenue/income for the cities. I've also heard a lot of the franchise agreements have expired, although the cable companies are still paying them. Take them away from the cable companies and future entrants into the Video market and that revenue stream is lost. I still agree with you in broadband deployment, but people need to realize it's not black and white. There are really strong arguments on both sides. Just a guess but I would think if there was no franchise fee revenue coming in property tax or some other form of fee would be implemented by a municipality to make up for that. In Milwaukee's case because of the number of residents they have I would think it would be millions to make make up. Have a good one HD.

hdman
Flt Rider
Premium Member
join:2003-11-25
Appleton, WI

hdman

Premium Member

Re: AT&T is evil

My comments about being clueless were directed at Mr. Master as he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to Milwaukee. You do, I am sure, since you are from Cedarburg....

I have toured the winery many times......(the samples are great!)

HDMan

jslik
That just happened
Premium Member
join:2006-03-17

jslik to hdman

Premium Member

to hdman
Then why did the cable companies raise HSI fees 5% or so after cable franchise fees were taken off in 2002? The companies figure in the fees in their price points, so you pay that 5% no matter what.

Andypro
@mindspring.com

Andypro to hdman

Anon

to hdman
Hi,

Good points, however in this specific case franchise fees will not cause either TWC or SBC/AT&T to leave Milwaukee. They've already built the infrastructure, and both will be servicing the area. This lawsuit will just determine how much more AT&T will have to pay for that privilege.

I hate most of the ISPs in our area and I certainly think U-verse is a poor attempt compared to Verizon's FIOS, but now that U-verse has been deployed here I will hope to see some of Time Warner's more competitive speed tiers. Here's hoping!

ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI

ArgMeMatey to hdman

Member

to hdman
The question is: From whom should money be taken, and to whom should it be given? In this case, money is taken from cable TV subscribers and, although some would choose different words, given to everyone who uses city services.

I've opined elsewhere that I wouldn't mind paying an extra $20 or so a year as property taxes, because I already pay the franchise fees anyway. However, there are some people out there who are not cable subscribers, and they might disagree.

How about the suburbanites who drive on lighted, plowed, patched, painted, signed streets in the City of Milwaukee? Or the suburbanites who visit Milwaukee County parks? Should they be somehow taxed?

No politician wants to lose access to a taxable commodity sold to captives, because it means another potential voter will have to pay more.
mindadapanda
join:2006-08-03
Arcadia, CA

mindadapanda

Member

Re: AT&T is evil

ook AT&T is evil because out here in cali it sucks.

but i remember in milwaukee they had really nice service and good tech support.

living in milwaukee back like a few years ago the crime was pretty high because i'd walk out of ht estreet and a person would try to sell my drugs. thats how mesed up it is. i hope the u-verse goes to suburbs around milwakee which are really nice, places like brown deer, shorewood, white fish bay and all those other rich communities which AT&T can pick pocket from.

i wish they had u-verse in cali then i can oogle at the 1mbps upload
Expand your moderator at work

wallygoesdown
@charter.com

wallygoesdown to mindadapanda

Anon

to mindadapanda

Re: AT&T is evil

how did they get your drugs, and then try and sell them back to you? weird.....

hdman
Flt Rider
Premium Member
join:2003-11-25
Appleton, WI

hdman to ArgMeMatey

Premium Member

to ArgMeMatey
said by ArgMeMatey:

The question is: From whom should money be taken, and to whom should it be given? In this case, money is taken from cable TV subscribers and, although some would choose different words, given to everyone who uses city services.

I've opined elsewhere that I wouldn't mind paying an extra $20 or so a year as property taxes, because I already pay the franchise fees anyway. However, there are some people out there who are not cable subscribers, and they might disagree.

How about the suburbanites who drive on lighted, plowed, patched, painted, signed streets in the City of Milwaukee? Or the suburbanites who visit Milwaukee County parks? Should they be somehow taxed?

No politician wants to lose access to a taxable commodity sold to captives, because it means another potential voter will have to pay more.
Arg, I'm not sure what your point is. The real question, WHY SHOULD MONEY BE TAKEN AT ALL??? If you can site a COST that a municipality has as it relates to cable franchises, then I could see a fee to recoup those costs. Having been in office for 10 years, and running a business, I run things that money in needs to equal money out. Having cable TV, phone companies, etc. all wanting to come and service my residetns will cost me NOTHING. Therefore, WHY would I want to charge a franchise fee that simply gets put back on my residents. The problem is that municipalities see this as a revenue stream of positive cash flow that is simply a creativly hidden tax directly on the people. If I, as a municipality, charge each resident for the ability to have cable TV it is a tax. If I charge the cable company a franchise fee, which they in turn pass down to the subscriber as a fee, then it is fee. In reality, in my book, it is still a TAX. the culprits here are the municipalities. I currently have Charter servicing my town, and have just invited another provider to see what they can do for us. I will invite as many as I can find, and I won't charge them a DIME in fees. Nor, will I charge them permit fees to bury cables, etc. in Town right of ways. My contracts plainly state that they WILL return the area back to the way it was beofre they started, and they all do that anyway. I will NEVER sign restrictive contracts or exclusive ones. I welcome them ALL. Why? Because we are a very rural community and my people want broadband, cable, DSL, etc. Why would I try to make it DIFFICULT for providers to service us?

Hope that answers your questions....

HDMan
hdman

hdman to ArgMeMatey

Premium Member

to ArgMeMatey
said by ArgMeMatey:

No politician wants to lose access to a taxable commodity sold to captives, because it means another potential voter will have to pay more.
You are VERY wrong here. I am a politician, I guess. Since I am elected, and have to be re-elected, I think that sort of makes me a politician. However, I have been re-elected 5 times. Anyway, I don't see this as a taxable commodity. I see it as a service people want, which doesn't cost me (as a municipality) one stinking dime. If I want it to come, WHY TAX IT?????

HDMan

answerit
@charter.com

answerit

Anon

Re: AT&T is evil

so, in inviting at&t to "your" town and not charging franchise fees, will you then wave the charter fees so its an equal playing field for both companies, or are you on at&t's bankroll?

hdman
Flt Rider
Premium Member
join:2003-11-25
Appleton, WI

1 edit

hdman

Premium Member

Re: AT&T is evil

said by answerit :

so, in inviting at&t to "your" town and not charging franchise fees, will you then wave the charter fees so its an equal playing field for both companies, or are you on at&t's bankroll?
....I never said I was charging fees to Charter.....
Now, again: I CHARGE NO FRANCHISE FEES TO ANYBODY
Got it?

HDMan

Wallygoesdown
@charter.com

Wallygoesdown

Anon

Re: AT&T is evil

Moron? Hmmmm typical politician, when the going gets tuff, call people names, so your saying New London has no franchise fees paid by Charter subscribers? Is that a dictatorship over there? No city council or anything? Seems like you are the big wig and everything you say goes?

hdman
Flt Rider
Premium Member
join:2003-11-25
Appleton, WI

hdman

Premium Member

Re: AT&T is evil

said by Wallygoesdown :

Moron? Hmmmm typical politician, when the going gets tuff, call people names, so your saying New London has no franchise fees paid by Charter subscribers? Is that a dictatorship over there? No city council or anything? Seems like you are the big wig and everything you say goes?
Ah ha....assumption....the root of all problems for trolls who don't bother to do their homework. Not in New London son. New London DOES have franchise fees, but my municipality is NOT New London Mr. Troll. I do have a board, thats a fact. But we all agree that franchise fees cause issues that may impede progress in getting SERVICE to the residents Mr. Troll. Not a big wig by any stretch, just somebody who knows that if you charge franchise fees, its the same as placing a tax on people who live in the community because the cable providers pass it right on.

I probably shouldn't have called the first person a name, you are correct, but I NEVER said I charged a franchise fee to Charter as THAT troll assumed. However, I do now have a home for the name I used, thats for sure....

Indigo-Delta-Ten-Tango

HDMan

ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI

ArgMeMatey to hdman

Member

to hdman
said by hdman:

...I don't see this as a taxable commodity. I see it as a service people want, which doesn't cost me (as a municipality) one stinking dime. If I want it to come, WHY TAX IT?????

HDMan
I am not disagreeing with you, just providing my own perception of reality in my world. New London is not Milwaukee, and since Milwaukee probably has more income disparity, more infrastructure per capita and more anomie, you probably do not have the same budgetary challenges, or as much crime or poverty there.

Who ever said consumption taxes have to go toward defraying a particular expense borne by government? Should income taxes go exclusively toward government expenses related to providing that income, especially if that income is earned in another jurisdiction? Maybe in a perfect world, but not here.

You may not see TV as a taxable commodity, and that's perfectly defensible. But the money has to come from somewhere, and if you pass the hat, you're not going to get what it takes, you're going to get what people think it's worth, after they pay for everything else they think is worth something.

Have you heard from anyone who thinks their income, or their land should not be taxed? People who don't think they consume enough of what government offers to justify paying? They are out there, too.

Everyone has an opinion on what is more equitable: Property taxes, income taxes, consumption taxes. Around here we pay all three in different proportions. If I gotta pay, I'd rather pay property taxes because at least part of that amount reduces what I pay to another tax collector. Can't say the same for sales tax, franchise fees, or of course income taxes.

Here's an overly simple illustration:

There are 100 households in town. 49% subscribe to cable and would whether or not there were a franchise fee. 51% do not subscribe, and would not subscribe even if there were no franchise fee. One person votes in each household at each election.

100 * 49% = 49 households subscribing
100 * 51% = 51 households not subscribing

49 cable subscribers * $24 annual franchise fees = $1176
51 non-subscribers * $0 franchise fees = $0
Net income to the town = $1176

So 51 households are getting $1176 worth of street plowing, library hours, street lighting, trash pickup, whatever, for nothing.

If there were no franchise fee, then everyone in town would have to make up for the lost revenue:
$1176 / 100 households = $11.76 per household

So now 51 households are out $11.76 each and 49 households are paying $12.24 less each. If the mayor won the last election with 51% of the vote and this were the only issue, he would be out of a job in the next election. Especially when the cable company sees the franchise fee has gone away and they can now raise their rates a bit and pad their profits another $1 or $2 a month per subscriber.

If you've gotten elected five times, more power to you. There can't be too many reasons to change what you're doing there, but don't assume that what you do is what's going on here. Maybe it should be, but it's not.

Have you considered moving to Milwaukee and running for office? I rest my case.

hdman
Flt Rider
Premium Member
join:2003-11-25
Appleton, WI

hdman

Premium Member

Re: AT&T is evil

said by ArgMeMatey:
said by hdman:

...I don't see this as a taxable commodity. I see it as a service people want, which doesn't cost me (as a municipality) one stinking dime. If I want it to come, WHY TAX IT?????

HDMan
Have you considered moving to Milwaukee and running for office? I rest my case.
I was born and raised in Milwaukee actually. One of my former high school buddies is the head of the city common council, Willy Hines. He wasn't a screaming liberal in high school, but I see that he is one now. Milwaukee isn't ready for a guy like me in office. I am a black & white, engineering person. There is no grey area with me, and that kind of politics in Milwaukee would kill me....

Oh well...take care Arg!!!

HDMan