 RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| As always you have two sides. One side is the consumer and the ride he will be taken on with out local oversight, and the other is the provider and the money to be made by having only one point of contact and the FCC "one address per zip code" mentality.
And on DSLR we have people on both sides.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|  | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by RayW  :One side is the consumer and the ride he will be taken on with out local oversight Local "oversight" generally stops once the franchise agreement is signed. Small LFA's are generally quite poor at enforcing any customer service provisions. This is counterintuitive to many, but local franchising actually hurts, rather than helps, the cause of consumer protection.
Good to see some states at least trying to get it right. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by SD6 :said by RayW :One side is the consumer and the ride he will be taken on with out local oversight Local "oversight" generally stops once the franchise agreement is signed. Small LFA's are generally quite poor at enforcing any customer service provisions. This is counterintuitive to many, but local franchising actually hurts, rather than helps, the cause of consumer protection. Good to see some states at least trying to get it right. Maybe in your town, or with the provider you have. I work with the mayor of one of our towns (no, he did not get a swimming pool) and he/his town is having trouble with the cable company not living up to the service agreement. Come next year, that cable company will have to show cause why they should keep doing business, unless of course the attempt to get us on a state franchise goes through. Then screw the people, no more oversight (not that a city has much power anyway except at franchise renewal).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by SD6 :This is counterintuitive to many, but local franchising actually hurts, rather than helps, the cause of consumer protection. Good to see some states at least trying to get it right. So you're saying it's better to have no local franchise at all, thus no possibility of oversight? | |
| | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by SRFireside :said by SD6 :This is counterintuitive to many, but local franchising actually hurts, rather than helps, the cause of consumer protection. Good to see some states at least trying to get it right. So you're saying it's better to have no local franchise at all, thus no possibility of oversight? I am saying "consumer protection" is not a good reason to have local franchising in small LFAs. They simply don't have the resources to support a consumer protection office. If you want consumer protection, your best bet is a good (and "good" is the key) statewide regime.
Unfortunately, some people can only see this as a black/white - your on one of two sides kind of issue. Not true, there is a lot of gray area here. I am in the gray area. | |
| | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
·Speakeasy
·Comcast
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by SD6 :I am saying "consumer protection" is not a good reason to have local franchising in small LFAs. They simply don't have the resources to support a consumer protection office. If you want consumer protection, your best bet is a good (and "good" is the key) statewide regime. Unfortunately, some people can only see this as a black/white - your on one of two sides kind of issue. Not true, there is a lot of gray area here. I am in the gray area. That's all well and good as an observation. However as an argument to pass state laws abridging local jurisdiction regardless of size or capability, it seems to be a bit deceptive.
If the problem is "Small LFA's", then evidence of the same should be able to be collected to justify legislation that addresses only the problem areas, and doesn't "throw the baby out with the bath water".
But you went on to say "local franchising actually hurts, rather than helps, the cause of consumer protection". That is a sweeping generalization, and it's based on nothing more than the mere suggestion of a problem of a far more limited scope. For someone who claims to be "in the gray area", you're mighty quick to support one "black/white" side. And IMHO the argument for doing so is lacking, to say the least.
I don't mean to pick on you personally. However the faulty logic behind the argument which you make warrants close examination, considering the stakes. | |
| | | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by Time4aNAP :said by SD6 :I am saying "consumer protection" is not a good reason to have local franchising in small LFAs. They simply don't have the resources to support a consumer protection office. If you want consumer protection, your best bet is a good (and "good" is the key) statewide regime. Unfortunately, some people can only see this as a black/white - your on one of two sides kind of issue. Not true, there is a lot of gray area here. I am in the gray area. That's all well and good as an observation. However as an argument to pass state laws abridging local jurisdiction regardless of size or capability, it seems to be a bit deceptive. If the problem is "Small LFA's", then evidence of the same should be able to be collected to justify legislation that addresses only the problem areas, and doesn't "throw the baby out with the bath water". But you went on to say "local franchising actually hurts, rather than helps, the cause of consumer protection". That is a sweeping generalization, and it's based on nothing more than the mere suggestion of a problem of a far more limited scope. For someone who claims to be "in the gray area", you're mighty quick to support one "black/white" side. And IMHO the argument for doing so is lacking, to say the least. I don't mean to pick on you personally. However the faulty logic behind the argument which you make warrants close examination, considering the stakes. 1) Mine was not an argument to pass state laws abridging local jurisdiction regardless of size or for anything other than "customer protection". Statewide franchise legislation can, like was done in Virginia or proposed in some states, streamline the process (benefitting both franchisees and LFAs) while leaving local jurisdiction over many truly local issues intact.
2) Evidence? Most of the evidence was compiled at the time of the 1992 Cable Act. Some more current information was collected by the FCC for its recent order. Many of the small LFAs don't even have an active CATV Commission with a customer service enforcement department to enforce these much vaunted "you must answer a phone call within 1 minute" consumer protections. How about empirical evidence? Look at a large LFA with 1 million people - Montgomery County, MD. They have among the most activist, most consumer oriented, most well funded, CATV regulations in the country. They also have some of the worst customer service in the country. A small LFA with a few thousand people just doesn't stand a chance against Verizon and big CATV companies. Everyone professionally involved in this issue knows it.
3) Franchise fees, PEG, deployment are the true local issues. On the other hand, IMHO "consumer protection" is just a piling on, populist, red herring argument made by those black/whites who are already against statewide franchising for other reasons. | |
| | | | | | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by SD6 :Franchise fees, PEG, deployment are the true local issues. Along with franchise fees, I would add in I-Net support and PEG support fees as to critical "fee" issues.
On the PEG issues, I think interconnect (covered well by the state laws) and consolidation (covered poorly by state laws) are the two main issues. A public access channel is not that useful if AT&T decides to implement one consolidated channel and one studio for the entire state. Consolidated government access makes it difficult to impossible to show live meetings. And education channels are already heavily consolidated as it is.
Deployment is clearly an issue, and one dealt with very poorly by the model laws. One aspect that is never covered is "how much should an install cost?" What good does it do to place statewide level buildout requirements when there are no specifications about distributed costs? Is it 100% buildout when a company is willing to deploy at full cost anywhere in the state even if that means $20k and up for most households? Does the consumer who forks over $25k to get a cable connection get a refund when others connect in the same area? These questions are covered in local franchise agreements but not state agreements. There needs to be a new model that allows locally developed buildout plans even if all other levels of local control are gone.
I would disagree about the consumer protection aspect. I see two areas where the "consumer protection" aspect of LFAs is very important yet the model law for state franchises strips out these proections:
Basic tier. The current state franchise law model strips basic tier regulation powers from the LFAs and the state. This means that there is no longer an institution to appeal basic rate increases to the FCC.
Equipment regulation. I have yet to see a state law that implemented any form of equipment regulation, whereas many local ordinances do. This would cover issues like system power, maintenance of the plant (including leakage sweeping intervals), and rental costs for analog converters as well as issues of whether or not digital converters can be required or the analog tier can be dropped.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: As always you have two sides. Marigolds,
What model law are you referring to?
I lump basic tier analog costs in with PEG issues rather than as a consumer protection.
I don't see many local ordinances on equipment regulation. Maybe they are more prevalent on the west coast. I don't see any state laws on it either. But doesn't it make more sense to do it on the state level? | |
| | | | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by SD6 :Marigolds, What model law are you referring to? I lump basic tier analog costs in with PEG issues rather than as a consumer protection. I don't see many local ordinances on equipment regulation. Maybe they are more prevalent on the west coast. I don't see any state laws on it either. But doesn't it make more sense to do it on the state level? I'm not sure where the law is coming from, but if you look at the bills recently proposed in Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina (but not Illinois, since it has to deal with the level playing field clause too), the language is very similar in all of these bills. There is obviously a model law being pushed from somewhere.
The state level makes less sense for equipment regulations because different communities will have very different needs in that respect, but that still does not give reason to not include equipment language in state laws. Equipment clauses are common on the east coast and in the midwest. I am not as familiar with the laws on the west coast.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
·Speakeasy
·Comcast
edit:
April 30th, @04:13PM
| said by SD6 :1) Mine was not an argument to pass state laws abridging local jurisdiction regardless of size or for anything other than "customer protection". Statewide franchise legislation can, like was done in Virginia or proposed in some states, streamline the process (benefitting both franchisees and LFAs) while leaving local jurisdiction over many truly local issues intact. But that's precisely what the proposed state laws do! I don't see you proposing any "gray area" solutions, and it does appear that you support the mega-Bell's position on the "black/white" legislation. Do feel free to clarify your position.
2) Evidence? Most of the evidence was compiled at the time of the 1992 Cable Act... It's 2007, not 1992, and it's an entirely different issue.
3) Franchise fees, PEG, deployment are the true local issues. On the other hand, IMHO "consumer protection" is just a piling on, populist, red herring argument made by those black/whites who are already against statewide franchising for other reasons. Well, that's an ad hominem argument, if I've ever seen one! It fails to convince me. In fact, that kind of invective tends to be indicative of the other guy being the one who I'd want to back. | |
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by SD6 :If you want consumer protection, your best bet is a good (and "good" is the key) statewide regime. Provided the state level "protection" franchise doesn't interfere with local interests. The whole reason for local franchises to address the community's needs (local stations and public access, rights of way, location of operations, etc). Statewide franchises don't normally address any of that, which is why I don't agree with it. | |
| | | | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: As always you have two sides. said by supergirl :Maybe the state franchise should just say, "If a company wishes to serve a county on any of their services, all said services shall be available to every residence and business. Companies have one year to make all said service offerings available. Fines may be imposed for each day afterwards." Well, I don't think you can fiber an entire state in one year. Moreover, Verizon at least does not like to be required to provide FIOS to businesses. (I think they want to offer higher priced services to businesses.) | |
| | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
·Speakeasy
·Comcast
| Re: Players said by supergirl :If they are going to allow them, then Cable should get to play too. I'd take the next step, and open it up to any monopoly utility with a right of way, as well as others who can show the ability to deliver service equally well.
Let's not forget that AT&T was granted certain privileges (and responsibilities, too) because they were putting down the copper infrastructure for telephone service. Let's also not forget that a lot of that copper was paid for with taxpayer dollars. Now the reconstituted "mega-Bell" ILECs want to compete against cable companies in video and Internet delivery, using the same copper that was bought and paid for under different rules.
The way I see it, if the mega-Bells want to engage in competitive business as well as hold monopolies, they have every right to do so, as long as they do it using a separate infrastructure. If they can do it using only the property that they already have, and without disturbing any existing copper, then fine. But the privilege of eminent domain doesn't apply to this new venture. They must rent or buy, just like any other private business.
When it comes to using the copper that a nation of taxpayers has invested in, and has certain rights to, for this new extra-telco business, then they're going to need more than the old telco tariffs to be able to do so legally. IMO the bare minimum requirement to grant such a privilege is to reinstate free and open access to all telco-owned copper to the competition at cost. I also think that it's about time that the NANC starts working in a way that supports the operation of CLEC and VoIP COs. That will support a plan for the ILECs to provide tandems to give competing telcos equal access to the PSTN.
In other words, the price that should be paid for the privilege of using monopoly copper to launch a competitive business should be providing other competitive businesses equal access to monopoly copper. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Local pols and the few public access viewers will lose ... said by TK Junk Mail :... in the lobbying game. Most people don't give a darn about the subject and the state politicians know it. And the money funneled to them for their re-election campaigns will carry way more weight than the largely ineffective campaigns by a few disgruntled local pols. That is a big pot of money moving up to the state level. Plus, as you say, the locals no longer have any weight on complaints.
I guess I could say I don't care since I do not have cable, but the thought of the politicians up at the state capital getting richer at the expense of my neighbors does not sit right, although I live in a neighborhood that has a state congress critter nearby, so they may not suffer.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by TK Junk Mail :... in the lobbying game. Most people don't give a darn about the subject and the state politicians know it. And the money funneled to them for their re-election campaigns will carry way more weight than the largely ineffective campaigns by a few disgruntled local pols. Of course, you leave out the much more numerous educational access viewers and government access viewers who will give a darn about the subject but will not realize what is happening until it is too late.
But that cost will be absorbed seamlessly in increased educational fees and out of sight government meetings.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| The thing is if those state politicians continue to disregard their constituents they end up not being politicians anymore. Keep that in mind next time it's time to vote and you see your local guy bend over for telco money. Bye bye political power and prestige. Bye bye lobby money. | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Local pols and the few public access viewers will lose ... said by SRFireside :The thing is if those state politicians continue to disregard their constituents they end up not being politicians anymore. Keep that in mind next time it's time to vote and you see your local guy bend over for telco money. Bye bye political power and prestige. Bye bye lobby money. Most of their constituents don't care at all about the subject. BBR readers are not most constituents.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Local pols and the few public access viewers will lose ... If the politician plays patsy to the phone company I bet they do the same for other issues. People eventually get tired of eating crap and being told it's ice cream. | |
| | JohnSJ
join:2004-08-14
Lafayette, LA
| Just for the record:
It's not just re-election money, as important as that is, that causes state politicians to see an advantage to themselves in pleasing the cable companies.
It's also that they fear that they won't get good prices during campaigns. Cablecos can charge any price they want to a customer and can, if they want, charge your opponent a fraction of the cost they charge you. If you can even buy ads.
Refusing to sell ads to those they don't like seem unlikely to some on this board. But no Cox sales representative would return the call of Lafayette's local citizen's group during the runup to Lafayette's fiber referendum. (Fiber won...resoundingly...with no pro-fiber ads running on the cable-only channels and Cox promos with faux cajun accents running in endless rotation.) Since cable ads are the cheapest per view advertising available that is a real fear and with cable penetration running at 65% percent nationally the local cable monopolies certainly have the power to exert a chilling effect on the discussion of things like a state-wide video franchise.
And they use that power...never doubt it. | |
| 
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Yahoo
| A Compromise? Being from Ohio, and currentely living in the state capital, Columbus, I have this to say. There needs to be a compromize on statewide franchises. It needs to be writtin in law that the money the state will collect, that 50% of it is distrubited to the cities, based on actual subscriber count of that service. With the remainder going education. This state is allready in trouble with school funding not being consitutional, and the tv providers are allways saying they are proud members of the community. Whell this would be a win win for both sides. Any new entrant would have a one stop (Read: AT&T), And the local communities will still get to suck off of the nipple that most survive on, franchise fees. And yes my bill would have build out requirements with deadlines that would be enforceable by law. I.E. you havent deployed to the top 75% in population cities in this state by 2008, then you would either be fined, or subject all of your equiptment (52B Boxes) to being taxed for using public land/right of ways and not delivering. | |
| | SD6
join:2005-03-26 | Re: A Compromise? Not bad. Most people wrongly assume that statewide franchising means that localities must lose revenue. In fact, it's possible to have statewide franchising legislation that is revenue neutral. | |
| | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
edit:
April 30th, @02:51PM
| So you vote to basically keep the status quo, which basically protects the local cable monopolies with a high bar for market entry. | |
| | |
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: A Compromise? no, notice how i said provide the funding the state recived to the locals, but the local franchise authorities would cease to exist after statewide franchising takes place. remove the local pigs that place demands like buy us a rec center, pool, ect... on top of everything else. | |
| | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: A Compromise? buildout requirements are a significant barrier when you are going to be competing against an entrenched competitor. And it gets worse when you want to penalize a company for not completing the buildout in the required time. This alone is enough to keep everyone else out of the market. | |
| | | | |
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH | Re: A Compromise? so your saying you'd rather there not be a new entrant, than to erquire a new entrant to at least deploy on a level playing field that the cable co had to do years ago | |
| | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: A Compromise? said by RIRWIN1983 :so your saying you'd rather there not be a new entrant, than to erquire a new entrant to at least deploy on a level playing field that the cable co had to do years ago
I am saying, given those rules, there would not be a new entrant as the risks are too high.
It is impossible to have a level playing fiend when it comes to a buildout requirements. Cable had a build out requirement, but did not have any competition. But you want to saddle a competitor with a buildout requirement when there is entrenched competition. This is not only not a level playing field, but it only helps maintain the cable monopoly. | |
| | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: A Compromise? said by cwh :Cable had a build out requirement, but did not have any competition. But you want to saddle a competitor with a buildout requirement when there is entrenched competition. This is not only not a level playing field, but it only helps maintain the cable monopoly. I say have an infrastructure built that doesn't provide content. Only provisions the lines to the homes, businesses, etc. Then content providers (Cable, Telco, whatever) can lease the lines and provide content. NOW you have a level playing field where anybody can come in and compete on equal terms. Yeah it's a pipe dream all things considered, but if you ask me that's what we need. | |
| | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| said by RIRWIN1983 :remove the local pigs that place demands like buy us a rec center, pool, ect... on top of everything else. The FCC's March 5 Order did in fact remove this and other unreasonable demands from the local franchising process. | |
| | | | |
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH | Re: A Compromise? yes, but we dont have a federal franchise process, let alone most states dont even have a statewide one. so i dont see how much impact it can have. | |
| | | |
|
|
Bells' Franchise Push Getting Tougher
·
Local pols and the few public access viewers will lose ...