 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
edit:
December 12th, @05:50PM
| Hmmmm..... Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies....
and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings.....
--
BlooMe | |
|  | 
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Hmmmm..... said by woody7  :Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... True, but lawsuits sure make the lawyers some money though.
Come on, we have to save the starving lawyers so they don't go hungry this Christmas  | |
| | | | | ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Hmmmm..... Bravo,
It was good enough for cable companies to be able to offer telephone service without applying for additional licenses/franchise agreements. VZ and ATT own the poles and/or right of way with existing services provided. I appreciate VZ's stance on compliance, because ATT could be in for a world of heat if they don't win. | |
| | | | 
john Qwest
join:2002-05-24
Fishkill, NY | Re: Hmmmm..... The poles belong to the power utilities, as without them everything else needs batteries which are not included. | |
| | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| said by woody7 :Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... So does anyone who does streaming video also need franchise agreements? | |
| | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Hmmmm..... said by vpoko :said by woody7 :Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... So does anyone who does streaming video also need franchise agreements? No, streaming video is generally not a closed system. Anyone on the internet can subscribe.
--
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 | |
| | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Hmmmm..... said by marigolds :said by vpoko :said by woody7 :Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... So does anyone who does streaming video also need franchise agreements? No, streaming video is generally not a closed system. Anyone on the internet can subscribe. So if the carriers let anyone subscribe it would be OK? Of course the quality would be unbearable for anyone not close to the "head end" (IPTV server) because there isn't enough bandwidth on the internet backbone, but I'm sure Verizon and AT&T would be happy to sign you up... | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by woody7 :Bwaaaaaaaaaaa...what a bunch of crybabies.... and how is this good for the customer? like we will see any savings..... Everything you said is irrelevant.
Bottom line is, and yes, Oliphant - hear it here, if Telco is going to offer IPTV services, the city has NO business standing in their way with franchise agreements.
This is not "cable television" like what comcast, TWC and the likes offer. Just as cable modem service is an informational service, so is IPTV. It's pure data transport over an IP backbone, therefore, under the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, this is an informational service.
Who is the city of Walnut Creek or anyone else for that matter to stick their forks in the telco company for hostage money?
To this day, there still remains a PHONE company and a CABLE TV company. They can call them selves COMMUNICATION companies or BROADBAND companies, but by all definitions, one is a TV company running over hyb.fiber-coax that offers alternative types of services (HSI and Telephony) and the other is a PHONE company running twisted pair (mostly) and offers HSI and now possibly a service which is like television service..
One has to play by franchise rules, the other is regulated by the PUC.
Governmnet, GO AWAY! | |
| | | 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: Hmmmm..... This argument coming from a company that has insisted that cable is its primary competition and has bitched incessantly about a level playing field between cable and the bells and the unfair nature of a different regulatory treatment between the two.
Now they come back trying to play with the technicalities of regulatory definition to gain differential treatment, precisely the kind of regulatory BS a level playing field should mitigate.
Then they go back to funding astroturf orgs supporting voip companies paying into usf.
blech. | |
| | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by fiberguy :Who is the city of Walnut Creek or anyone else for that matter to stick their forks in the telco company for hostage money? You are familiar, perhaps, with the concept of government? All money is theirs except a little which they let you keep.
And, really, is anyone surprised that some place in California would demand special treatment? | |
| | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Well, the critical distinction will be whether or not the system is a closed video service.
If the telephone company is providing closed video services using public right of ways, then the city probably does have an argument that the more restrictive video franchise may apply to that telephone company.
Telephone franchises meanwhile are less restrictive and issued automatically, part of the reason the reverse argument over VoIP does not fly quite as well (but still could be applied, just not by the city because of how phone franchises are granted).
The exact language is generally "cable, fiber, or other wires or lines that are within the public-rights-of-way" so twisted pair would be covered just as well as hybrid fiber-coax. It is the common carrier status of telephone companies that actually causes complications, not the manner in which they provided their video service, but when the video is retransmitted directly to video subscribers, I think Title II exemptions of the Cable Act may no longer apply.
--
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 | |
| | 
YOUR_UGLY_VT
Windows Is Crap
join:2001-09-27
Hoover, AL | I love lawsuits, it is sooo exciting to take people to court.:) GO ATT!
--
Verizon Wireless "Nation’s Most Reliable Network" | |
| | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: Possible federal law could make this issue moo said by TK Junk Mail :A bill winding its way thru the Senate will make this whole issue moot. It is S.1504( » thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z···s.01504: ) and it would authorize national TV licensing rights that no community could override. » www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_a···_E_36552It is not clear whether comprehensive telecom reform proposals can achieve passage, given the contentious issues raised by any wide-ranging legislation, leaving narrowly focused bills as the most likely candidates for enactment. Senator Ensign (R‑NV) touched on the question of the most appropriate legislative approach at a Capitol Hill forum on October 25 in extolling the benefits of S. 1504, his Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act (discussed in the October Bulletin). He focused on one provision of the bill that would enable carriers to obtain national video service franchise rights. Although he indicated that he is anxious to have such a policy enacted, he is not inclined to separate that provision from the rest of the bill in an attempt to push it through Congress faster, noting that Senate floor time is at a premium. Hope it passes...Regardless of the anti-telco pundits, the bottom line is it would mean more competition which in the end is better for consumers. | |
| | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Possible federal law could make this issue moo said by Cod :Regardless of the anti-telco pundits, the bottom line is it would mean more competition which in the end is better for consumers. It would mean more competition if you live in a highly profitable area capable of supporting multiple buildouts.
If you even live on a block that does not match a profitable profile, not only could you not see competition but you could see reduced services from your existing provider (e.g. they could decide to offer only 256/256 data services and digital only tv with a family cable base package).
--
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 | |
| mekaleka
join:2003-01-15
Littleton, CO | Good for the consumer... Why would anyone NOT want IPTV and competition for the local cable/phone provider? | |
| | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: Good for the consumer... said by mekaleka :Why would anyone NOT want IPTV and competition for the local cable/phone provider? Graft, umm, Taxes, umm, Franchise Fees...  | |
| | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Good for the consumer... said by J D McDorce :said by mekaleka :Why would anyone NOT want IPTV and competition for the local cable/phone provider? Graft, umm, Taxes, umm, Franchise Fees... And control over where the services are located and how they are located.
Without a franchise, IPTV can be redlined and phone companies can install the equipment in the right of ways without compensation or review.
--
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 | |
| | | 
Geminimind
Premium
join:2003-12-20
Sacramento, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| Re: It is an Internet Service Seems like the lower case letters are a lot more arrogant than the capital letters. AT&T I mean "at&t" is throwing their power around already. I would seriously sign up for IPTV though, something different and new would be good for customers. They can't say it isn't internet Hello! "IPTV" | |
| | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
·Comcast
| said by r81984 :All ATT has to do is offer their IPTV over any internet broadband connection(meaning competitors) that can handle it and there is no way for anyone to say that it is not an internet service. Yeah, I'm sure Comcast will love that.
If it ever happens, watch broadband ISPs (Cable especially) start to screw with IPTV packets just like some of them are doing with VOIP.
Rather than all this mess, I would like to see networks offer their feeds over the net themselves so we can cut out the middleman (and so we can really vote with our checkbooks)... | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by r81984 :As long as it uses tcp/ip and they can prove it is an internet service, there is no way to dispute it. All ATT has to do is offer their IPTV over any internet broadband connection(meaning competitors) that can handle it and there is no way for anyone to say that it is not an internet service. More specifically, it would be a subscription open video service.
Thing is, that is not what AT&T plans to offer.
--
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 | |
| 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Simply deny permits... If they want to play that game, they'll just find the city harassing them every 5 seconds with fire inspections and the like.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: Simply deny permits... Part of the argument, not an inconsequential part, is that they don't have any physical facilities - just an IP network strung on telephone poles or other public right-of-way. Gone are the days when wired television meant you had to have a cable headend in the locality with big satellite dishes using rf spectrum. | |
|
denyignoredeny
| Not a good strategy, recent court precedent says that telcos wishing to provide cable tv channels (content) over any IP infrastructure have to deal with local municipalities in respecting community standards (pornography and decent/indecent material) and to pay franchise fee right of way, NO MATTER THE MEANS by which those signals get to the consumer, and YES that means satellite, potentially too.
Its just a matter of time before it catches up with them! | |
| | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
·Charter Pipeline
edit:
December 12th, @07:51PM
| Re: Not a good strategy, said by denyignoredeny :
... and to pay franchise fee right of way, NO MATTER THE MEANS by which those signals get to the consumer, and YES that means satellite, potentially too. ...and who actually pays those fees?...you my brilliant friend! (certainly not the providers)
Yeah...stick it to 'em -- and bend-over while yer at it! | |
| | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | not true ATT already has permision in Texas to do IPTV state wide. | |
| 
JoeyDee
Premium
join:2004-07-23
Las Vegas, NV
·Comcast
| YEAH! An alternative to a force fed cable agreement foisted on me by politicians and Comcast, neither of whom I trust. Go AT&T!!!
Why should there be only one way to get the programs you want?
I like it. Don't ask permission or forgiveness. | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO | Re: YEAH! So, that means you are volunteering to let retransmission facilities be located on your property without review, restriction, or compensation?
No permission, no forgiveness after all. | |
| | | SD6
join:2005-03-26 | Re: YEAH! For the most part, there are no retransmission facilities located on anyone's property in either IPTV or Verizon's FIOS. | |
| 
rovernet
Premium
join:2004-02-11
Richardson, TX | Little House on the Prairie? I'm not kidding, I thought it was something taken from that TV show....  | |
| x0lliex
join:2001-08-21
San Jose, CA | Walnut Creek is Awesome! Yeah I love Walnut Creek, stick it to 'em!
...no but really, I do love Walnut Creek, nice little town, lots of good restaurants. | |
| 
GoodyearMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Goodyear, AZ | as long as we're losing focus here Don't forget the Apple store... | |
| 
EGeezer
Freezin' Season
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country! | The two edged sword That's an interesting position. So, if thee is an interactive service, then it isn't cable. So laws that forbid theft of "cable" services wouldn't apply to this type of service? | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: The two edged sword said by EGeezer :That's an interesting position. So, if thee is an interactive service, then it isn't cable. So laws that forbid theft of "cable" services wouldn't apply to this type of service? Interesting tact, but yes, theft of cable services laws would not apply.
I am sure there are some other laws that could be used, but the theft of cable service laws exist because it is extremely difficult to use other laws to prosecute.
--
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 | |
| | | |
|
|
AT&T Sues Walnut Creek
Possible federal law could make this issue moot