 
johndoe303
join:2003-01-01
Boca Raton, FL | Give it up ATT! FTTH FTW The title says it all. | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | TV isTV ...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house! | |
|  | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax.
Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS.
And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | PastTense5
join:2007-05-15 | Re: TV isTV The fact of the matter is that virtually nowhere is new cable competition coming in against existing providers. The existing regulations (build-out, etc) are a significant part of this problem. | |
| | | | TheOtherPete
join:2001-06-28
Boyds, MD | Re: TV isTV Huh, what do think VZ/FIOS is doing? | |
| | | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: TV isTV Not to get technical, but they are replacing existing lines with fiber...which just happens to also be able to handle CATV. While it is a new roll out, it's not exactly in the same realm of a new CATV upstart going into an established area with completely new lines.
--
Go Colts | |
| | | | | | 
DaBavarian
Premium
join:2006-02-22
Saginaw, MI | Re: TV isTV UVerse is TV but VOIP from the Cable ISN'T Phone Service???? To get any real choices in market the government needs to lay off these new service such as Uverse and VOIP. | |
| | | | | | | 
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | Re: TV isTV Last I heard VoIP providers were being forced to cough over fees too... | |
| | | | | | 
buckingham
Buckingham Pa
join:2005-07-17
Buckingham, PA
 ·Vonage
| said by cdru  :Not to get technical, but they are replacing existing lines with fiber...which just happens to also be able to handle CATV. While it is a new roll out, it's not exactly in the same realm of a new CATV upstart going into an established area with completely new lines. My township, unfortunately, is treating it just like a new cable TV service and trying to impose major build-out requirements for FiOS in addition to all kind of right-of-way/permitting fees. So VZ left the township relative to FiOS deployment, leaving the fiber on my poles dark. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: TV isTV Ok... so it's dark. So you would have gotten it, but what about people a mile down the road? Would you be pissed if they weren't getting it while you're in your home watching it?
(My guess is you'd not care at that point)
The way to wire America is not to allow a company to choose who they will service with out oversight.
Cable services the areas they do because of the franchise agreements. I guarantee you that cable would be less likely to service some smaller areas if the franchise auth didn't make them.
So I agree.. as long as Verizon is FA free, no fiber for them for you.
Verizon of all people are NOT saints. I could care less about their fiber. They screwed the taxpayers of one state out of enough money to chose them all. They come in and wire up areas with fiber and cut the copper to that house so they can shut out the competition based on their non-regulated service. They are, however, keeping their ILEC status in that area. TOTALLY wrong. That Fiber is unregulated. The moment Verizon cuts homes off of the regulated service, that home now has no oversight or protection from the government to ensure quality and reliable phone service.
Is this what you want in the name of being able to have fiber lit up on your pole?
BAD idea.
What I'm glad to hear is the amount of money VZ has lost by hanging that fiber in the first place.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | AlfredEN
join:2007-08-19
Santa Rosa, CA
| Re: TV isTV First of all. What makes a CATV provider a CATV provider? Traditionally, the bandwidth they use, and the channel designations that they present.
CATV Franchises were traditionally petitioned for, and / or granted since CATV has traditionally been a purely luxury service.
Now, Here's a rub. For YEARS telco has been seeking to provide video services to their customers. You folks do know this, right? Since ooooooo what was it 1990 or so? the telco companies have been exploring different ways to present video services to residential locations.
Yeah, the technologies they've been trying have bombed, and bombed again. Until Uverse. Now that telco has a viable delivery, people are wanting to either slow down the launch / deployment, or otherwise halt this form of competition. OR they are wanting some of the kickbacks and perks that the CATV companies have been handing out to be allowed to run their service through the cities / counties / etc. Some of the perks that have been granted by cable companies are: fibreoptic runs solely for the use of a particular city, proprietary data over cable services (aka cable modem type service). One city that I know of, as part of a franchise agreement, had the cable company run a fibre optic bundle from their city hall / police department to their corporate vehicle yard just to be able to link a single remote video camera per fibre, so that they could pursue video surveilence of their corporate yard w/o paying the phone company for a data line. The irony of this is that a single fibre was being used per video camera, where one fibre could have been used to link over 50 cameras.
Why do CATV companies have to be regulated? Well, for one they use some of the same frequencies as a couple of trivial (heh) services..... Air Traffic Control, Aeronautical Distress, FAA Crash Alert, Police bands, Fire Response Bands, ummmm.... the list of "trivial" services that they co-habitate with is quite long. It'd be kinda tragically amusing to be getting CATV CH14 on the aircraft radio of an aircraft that was in distress, no? Hey, they'd be getting the cable channel service for free, right? So what if they didn't want it.........
Now, here's an interesting fact that many people are conveniently overlooking. Uverse IS regulated. What?? How is it regulated?? It's not regulated under cable TV franchising and FCC!!!! Well, no, you're right, its not regulated under either of those aspects. It IS regulated under Public Utilities Commissions. The correct venue to pursue regulation of this service, is through the PUC's. Which, I suspect, it's already regulated to some degree by the PUC's.
Alot of the FCC rules and regs that MUST be applied to CATV system plant simply do not apply to video over IP. Yeah, now that CATV systems are USING different aspects of their bandwidth, its now imperative upon them to maintain their systems for their own purposes.
The one regulation that's being applied to CATV that I'm not sure is being voluntarily applied by at & t, is the emergency alert. That's when you get an emergency alert on all stations periodically, usually just a test. Sometimes it's an actual emergency. Amber Alerts are generally broadcast over this feature. Generally the tests are done after 1AM local time.
Personally, by attempting to push Uverse under a franchising license / agreement, its more likely to stall / halt deployment of this service, than to ensure quality. I know of several small communities that were left w/o CATV service because it was not economically viable to install the system plant. I've seen locations that are within 3000 feet in 3 directions of CATV plant, that have such a low house per mile count, that its highly unlikely that they will see CATV service until the local CATV company is just looking to throw $$$$ at some project, just to spend the $$$$ out of the budget. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: TV isTV said by AlfredEN :The one regulation that's being applied to CATV that I'm not sure is being voluntarily applied by at & t, is the emergency alert. That's when you get an emergency alert on all stations periodically, usually just a test. Sometimes it's an actual emergency. Amber Alerts are generally broadcast over this feature. Generally the tests are done after 1AM local time. That emergency broadcast system is a joke. When we were under attack on 9/11 they remained silent. Just one example of government regulation that costs money and produces nothing. | |
| | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by bmn :Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax. Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS. Just playing devils advocate here...
What makes a CATV provider a CATV provider and not a data provider? If any type of television programming is transmitted, shouldn't satellite providers also be bound by franchise agreements? If it's because the CATV lines run through the city's right aways, isn't the city double dipping on those same wires for both phone and catv franchise fees? If the data is coming across as IPTV, why wouldn't YouTube also be subject to the same requirements? It's just as much streaming video as IPTV. We're all for net neutrality and treating a byte as a byte regardless of where it comes from. If we are going to tax one byte coming from an IPTV video provider, shouldn't we tax all bytes from video providers?
That being said, heck yeah U-Verse should be subject to a franchise. They are a cable company no matter how they get their data. It doesn't matter though because ultimately they are going to pass on the franchise fee and any other costs to the consumer. Now that the deathstar is back and bigger then ever, that whole issue of limiting competition doesn't matter much.
--
Go Colts | |
| | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: TV isTV If it needs right-of-way, there needs to be an agreement with the individual who's property controls the right-of-way. The only way to bypass the individual is an agreement with that individual's government that will force him to give it up, or just go on public land and get right of way there. I think whether it is coaxial cable or fiber is irrelevant.
The primary question here is whether existing franchise agreements with cable operators block ATT or not... I'd say they do, a cable is any physical wire as far as I'm concerned. If you can recieve video broadcasts on it the its a television cable. The secondary question is, how are ATT and Verizon going to get right-of-way if they can get around the franchise agreement.
I think franchise agreements as they exist are stupid, the people they effect get little input on them. If they had a shorter renewal term it would be better, then politicians could campaign on promises to change the agreements when companies were flaking on them. | |
| | | | | Answer Guy
join:2006-07-28
Grass Lake, MI
| Re: TV isTV Actually, the individual does not control the right-of-way. The township, village, city, county or state controls the right-of-way. On paper it may appear that you have control, but these entities have complete control of what goes on in the right-of-way.
The franchise agreements without a doubt do not block AT&T or Verizon from placing cable or equipment. The cables and equipment they are placing are for a telecommunications service and is something they are required by law to build in their assigned areas. Now with that being said, these cables will also provide additional services. The real question is "can the franchise agreements block them from offering TV or IPTV"? Lets not forget, the franchise was setup to control how these CATV companies operated in the right-of-way. One of AT&T's arguements is that they don't need to be controled in the right-of-way under the franchise agreements. They are already fully controled by each states Public Utilities Commissions. The Public Utilities Commisions have no control of the CATV companies, hence why the franchise agreements were needed.
| |
| | | dmconwa
join:2007-04-19
Albuquerque, NM
| You want a valid argument? I would say that MSO's have been able to go into the telephone market without the regulations that the ILEC's have.
Why should it be any different when the ILEC's want to go into the MSO's business?
The justification has always been that the incumbent provider takes on the regulations. In this case the MSO's are the incumbent providers of pay TV services.
The ILEC's should be able to have the opportunity to build their business and if they take a large enough share to negate an MSO's status as the incumbent provider then they should be regulated accordingly. | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV said by dmconwa :You want a valid argument? I would say that MSO's have been able to go into the telephone market without the regulations that the ILEC's have. Sorry, they have the same regulations... Five nines, 911, etc.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: TV isTV How many internet connections did Cox have to resell to Covad? Smoke Signal? Okay... well then certainly if I live in their territory and want service they'll run a line to my house even if their nearest tap is 2 miles away and I won't have to pay for it, right?
They don't have the same regulations. Never did. | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV Interesting... But I don't remember any cable companies offering phone service back in 1996 with the negotiations that the telcos agreed to that allow resellers on the network came into being.
The Telcos agree to resellers being on their network to offer something they otherwise couldn't.
That of course doesn't mean that they should be exempt, but that is WHY they are exempt.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: TV isTV Of course they weren't in the negotiations because they weren't trying to be ILEC's then. Since then they've gotten into the market and have demanded that they not be subject to any prior regulatory agreements. The cable companies don't need to consent for regulation to occur. | |
| | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV said by bogey780 :Of course they weren't in the negotiations because they weren't trying to be ILEC's then. Since then they've gotten into the market and have demanded that they not be subject to any prior regulatory agreements. The cable companies don't need to consent for regulation to occur. Then the FCC needs to act. Lack of FCC action to regulate them isn't a reason that the rules should not apply to ATT's video service the same way as it does to Cox or Comcast's.
Sorry, ATT's video should be regulated the same way as a cable providers.
And since no one has asked what my thoughts are on phone service, only stated their side, I agree that cable should have the same rules as the telcos WRT telephone service.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | | | | AlfredEN
join:2007-08-19
Santa Rosa, CA
| Re: TV isTV The FCC Regulates CATV companies because of HOW CATV uses RF frequencies.
I'm not sure if at & t is using any regulated frequencies. If at & t is not using any FCC regulated frequencies, then FCC is not the entity to regulate them.
If at & t IS using regulated frequencies, then, FCC does have some say in how at & t uses them.
Otherwise, as I already stated, if at & t is not using regulated frequencies, then FCC has no jurisdiction. Which would then mean that if at & t's service was to be further regulated than it already is, those new regulations should go through PUC.
BTW, you should thank your lucky stars that the FCC HAS regulated the cable companies as to how they use the frequencies that they do.
One thing that I cannot help thinking about, is that as technologies advance, CATV and telco will become more and more similar. AKA the end services will become more and more alike, but, the delivery will still be different.
One other thing..... Something to think about..... Just how IS it that CATV VoIP is travelling across the country? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm.... | |
| | | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Comcast
| said by bmn :Thanks you. ATT and the other ILECs want special treatment for the their service when it is not warranted. TV service is TV service, whether it is IPTV or Digital TV over coax. Cox, Cablevision has to play by a certain set of rules, so should the ILECS. And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case... Now if we can get some regulation on the Cable Cos on their telephone service, all would be equal.... | |
| | | Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID | I stream google videos to my TV at home, should they also be negotiating franchise agreements? | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Re: TV is TV? said by Matthew :I stream google videos to my TV at home, should they also be negotiating franchise agreements? Google video isn't designed for televisions, nor is Google video attempting to roll out a service like UVerse or FIOS TV. Google video is made product designed for consumption on a computer... Because your laptop is attached to your TV does not make Google TV a television service provider.
Nice angle, but it doesn't hold up...
edit:spelng korecshun!
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID
| Re: TV is TV? As much as I would like one, I do not yet have a lap top. My desktop monitor also happens to be my TV monitor. At 37" it is an Ok sized TV monitor, and an awesome computer monitor. It has VGA in as well as coax HDMI, etc.
Both services stream video content to enjoy on a monitor. The difference between T's and Google's approach is that we install OSP and remote servers, to better deliver that content.
T's service has also been modeled more like the familiar MSO model than Google's, complete with a subscription fee where as Google makes their money other ways. Is it the seeking of subscription fees that leads to a need for franchise agreements in your opinion?
Both services require a computer on the client side, so that the content can be viewed on a monitor. The computer used on U-verse comes with a remote control, and is modeled after a traditional set top box. Is that what triggers the requirement for franchise fees?
I personally am not against Google providing Video service, I also agree that they shouldn't be pursued for franchise fees- but I am not sold that we should be either in U-verse's current inception. | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV is TV? said by Matthew :Is that what triggers the requirement for franchise fees? More often than not it is public right of way access that triggers franchise fees. Uverse, FiosTV, etc. all use public right of way access to deliver their video.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | 
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Matthew, surely you aren't refusing to see the very profound difference between google and ATT, namely that ATT controls the wires and therefore is in a commanding position to leverage that control into control over all applications over those wires.
If ATT wants to voluntarily divest itself of its wireline assets and become just another applications provider competing with others over wires they don't control then I will be the first to stand with you and insist that such an ATT should not be subject to franchise rules, whether they seek to stream video or not. | |
| | | | | | | Matthew
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-03
Emmett, ID
| Re: TV is TV? said by asdfdfdfdf :
Matthew, surely you aren't refusing to see the very profound difference between google and ATT, namely that ATT controls the wires and therefore is in a commanding position to leverage that control into control over all applications over those wires.
I thought the discussion was about franchise fees, and whether U-verse and it's IPTV service really fall under cable franchise rules or not. Google and at&t are very different companies, but offering similar services in this field.
said by asdfdfdfdf :
If ATT wants to voluntarily divest itself of its wireline assets and become just another applications provider competing with others over wires they don't control then I will be the first to stand with you and insist that such an ATT should not be subject to franchise rules, whether they seek to stream video or not.
Wow, back to divestiture? Dang, we Just got the band back together.
So then in your opinion is the inverse true? Should Google or any other application provider be forced to lay a last mile medium in order to be in the business of streaming video? I don't believe so, but your view of "fair" seems to suggest so.
Should Comcast be forced to divest its HSI division in order to provide a search engine? Bringing up divestiture here comes across as more anti-T sentiment clouding the discussion at hand.
This discussion is about franchise fees, and whether T should be forced to pay franchise fees over wires already existing in the already paid for ROW's or not.
I don't recall anybody asking for T to pay franchise fees when installing RT's so that the Google's of the world could stream their video to you and I. The two differences now are that the equipment is higher bandwidth, and T is reaching for a piece of the streaming video market that was already being watched on it's network.
Yes, T's service incorporates in a way that makes it easier for the average day to day user to watch on their monitors at home, but then Google's service is free to the end user.
| |
| | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | What about Amazon's Unbox service? It's designed to act almost exactly as a VOD service for Tivo boxes using IP/TCP as a delivery method. | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV is TV? Amazon's unbox is not designed to be view over your television... Yet...
Additionally, it does not require the extensive use of public right of ways AND public infrastructure that cable and telco TV services will require.
Additionally, if we continue along your line of slippery slope reasoning, then all video rental stores should be subject to franchise agreements because they provide video service... The problem is that they aren't using public infrastructure to deliver their service in the same manner as the TV providers. Any public infrastructure use is already covered in fuel taxes, etc. They don't use right of ways that require maintenance.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | | 
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | dose google offer an end less stream? | |
| | | skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by bmn :And there IS no valid argument can be presented to show why this should not be the case...
Unfortunately dmconwa, bogey780 and TheGhost all beat me to it but the very valid argument is that if AT&T has to play by CATV rules then CATV should have to play by AT&T rules. Maybe they have the same performance standards (5 nines and 911) but they do NOT have to resell their lines to ANYONE, they do NOT have to allow any other ISP to use their internet lines, they do NOT have to run coax to everyone that wants it for no charge to get it there, they do NOT have to provide discounted service to low income families.
Until CATV has to abide by all those rules and a whole herd of others AT&T should have free reign to provide television service. | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV said by skrupowies :Maybe they have the same performance standards (5 nines and 911) but they do NOT have to resell their lines to ANYONE, they do NOT have to allow any other ISP to use their internet lines, they do NOT have to run coax to everyone that wants it for no charge to get it there, they do NOT have to provide discounted service to low income families. Already killed that line of reasoning... BTW, Cablecos do offer life line service.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | Answer Guy
join:2006-07-28
Grass Lake, MI | Re: TV isTV Hrmmm....it is interesting that you can offer a VOIP service with "5 nines" across a broadband service that is not guaranteed to be "5 nines". | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV said by Answer Guy :Hrmmm....it is interesting that you can offer a VOIP service with "5 nines" across a broadband service that is not guaranteed to be "5 nines". Digital telephone, not VoIP, can do that... I should have been more clear.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I agree..
It's time to look at products as what they are/do.
IPTV (um duh! ipTV?) What you see in the square is TV.
I also agree that cable's HSI should not be an "Information Service".. it's the internet.
Cable's VoIP and vonage, et all, should be classified as "Telephone Service"...
It is what it is. I could care less about the technology behind it.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV said by fiberguy :Cable's VoIP and vonage, et all, should be classified as "Telephone Service"... Last it appeared, Vonage and Cable's VoIP were classified as telephone service since they are paying into the USF and all of the government taxes and fees. I know I'm paying them on my VoIP line (I don't even use POTS anymore).
While they don't have the five 9s requirement, at least in the case of Vonage and others, it makes sense they are exempt since some access providers can't can't provide five 9s availability for IP transport from the subs location.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: TV isTV said by bmn :While they don't have the five 9s requirement, at least in the case of Vonage and others, it makes sense they are exempt since some access providers can't can't provide five 9s availability for IP transport from the subs location. My Verizon POST line doesn't have any 9s. It has a 100%. | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV said by batterup :My Verizon POST line doesn't have any 9s. It has a 100%. I doubt you are awake 24/7/365 sitting there with your phone in use. Verizon, like most other LECS, does their maintenance very late at night/very early in the morning when people are least likely to be using their phone.
Five nines is around 5 minutes of downtime per YEAR.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: TV isTV said by bmn :said by batterup :My Verizon POST line doesn't have any 9s. It has a 100%. I doubt you are awake 24/7/365 sitting there with your phone in use. Verizon, like most other LECS, does their maintenance very late at night/very early in the morning when people are least likely to be using their phone. Five nines is around 5 minutes of downtime per YEAR. If TPC is going to work on a line they call the subscriber and put a whip on the line. Whip is work in progress for you wannabes. | |
| | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: TV isTV said by batterup :If TPC is going to work on a line they call the subscriber and put a whip on the line. Whip is work in progress for you wannabes. Just because you don't get a call does not mean 100% uptime.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| I disagree.
Wireline TV is Wireline TV. Satellite shouldn't be required to adhear to frachise agreements since easement and right of way are not involved. That's the problem with wireline transmissions. If your premium TV provider only wanted to wire affluent areas because the money spent to aquire "right of way" would very likely be recooped, people would complain...and rightfully so.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
| | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: TV isTV said by DaSneaky1D :Wireline TV is Wireline TV. Satellite shouldn't be required to adhear to frachise agreements since easement and right of way are not involved. Easements and right-of-way are not involved. The wires are up for POTS TPC is only using them for moving pictures. | |
| | 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| So using your argument, a phone is a phone "doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house!"
That means "cable" companies and VoIP providers should start taxing you to death with 911, USF, "federal regulatory fee" recovery, local fees and taxes.
I say nonsense. | |
| | | 
Zzyzx
Sean Raines
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Phoenix, AZ
clubs: | Re: TV isTV Cable companies already charge the FCC taxes, something to the tune of $6.30/month plus other taxes.
--
Don't lose your mind trying to set it free... | |
| | davl
join:2006-01-28
Furlong, PA
| said by bamabrad :...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house! Yes it does matter HOW. That is the issue here. Are you saying that over-the-air and satellite services should require a franchise fee? How about watching that episode of LOST that you missed but were able to watch on your computer through the internet? Is that TV? Or is the criteria that it must be real time?
Suppose for the sake of argument that an IP provider would offer a service that would store TV programs that you list on a menu (TIVO style)and that you would play back later from the internet. Is that TV? Are we going to have the "TV franchise police" checking the internet to see if you are watching a TV show through the internet and are not paying a franchise fee?
IPTV is as different from regular cable TV service as VOIP is from regular dial-up phone service. | |
| | 
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
| said by bamabrad :...doesn't matter HOW it gets in the house! Does DirecTV pay a franchise fee? I've never seen mention of it on my bill. They too provide TV service. What about online TV such as Vongo? The Telcos don't already have any sort of franchise agreements for their phone service since the service involves digging up the town to run their cables?
This franchise stuff really confuses the crap out of me. | |
| NewMariner
join:2005-06-24 | Make the Playing Field Level! So is this same Judge going to rule that VOIP is phone service and should be regulated as such? | |
| | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: Make the Playing Field Level! said by NewMariner :So is this same Judge going to rule that VOIP is phone service and should be regulated as such? What he said! | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
3 edits | Ding Dong..the ... Witch is DEAD.
Better put the brakes on those VRAD installations here in CT. because, Uverse..you aint' going anywhere with them just yet.
Some may recall that here in Ct..when this all first started..the Ct. DPUC very quickly gave them the green light to proceed. To his VAST credit..the State Atty General said..hold on just a minute.
And challenged that ruling. As did others with admittedly a more direct financial interest in seeing AT^T's efforts stalled.
This apparently is the result of that effort.
When you read the complete laws that apply in this kind of situation (they were previously brought to BBR by the Geneva folks..who had a top law firm research them..
I think you unquestionably come away with the opinion that yes..it is a cable service as defined by the cable act.
The act doesn't specify that it has to come over COAXIAL cable..but rather, that if a company is engaged in the business of providing TELEVISION service..that it's subject to these regulations. How could AT&T not come to that same conclusion internally? Personally, I think they did..and just decided..to he** with it..to he** with the laws..they would just do it anyway.
I'm sorry to say, but this is just one part of my personal displeasure with this company..and how they operate.
They're just so..well, UN Verizon like..aren't they?
I think some would use the word..bullies. And, I think it's just all blowing up in their face..from this ruling to the dismal showing of only 51,000 poor souls now taking their uverse service nationwide so far.
I think that it gives real credence to the old saying that you'd better be careful what you work for, because it just might come right back at you.
Anyways..jeesh AT&T..how's about those vrads you now have hanging around here in Ct.
What will you be doing about them?
Perhaps negotiating with the powers that be..after the fact maybe?
Have fun. | |
| | | | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Rick :Anyways..jeesh AT&T..how's about those vrads you now have hanging around here in Ct. What will you be doing about them? Perhaps negotiating with the powers that be..after the fact maybe? No, they will just get a law passed in Connecticut(like in 21 other states) that gives them a statewide franchise and they still won't have to deal with every little burg in the state.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| 
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
2 edits | Let's take fairness a step further I mean if we're interested in fairness, how about forcing cable to open their HSI lines to ISP competition like the ILECs had to do with DSL? | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | FiOS (a fiber/coax hybrid) FiOS is fiber to the premises. Why does only the network provider have to buy the mayor a swimming pool and not M$ or Google? | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
DA BULLS44
@comcast.net | GOV'T The only reason why there is so much regulation on phone is because back in the day the government subsidized Ma Bell to build the phone network. When did the government subsidize the cable company? | |
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: GOV'T The "subsidied" it via tax breaks and allowing it monopoly access. Cable has had tax breaks and given monopoly rights. Wireline communications was a natural monopoly in the view of the gov't prior to 1984. What happened is a lot of people saw money to be made by breaking up the monopoly at the expense of residential service. The problem was the figured incorrectly that the network work was done. Sure, you got cheaper long distance out of it. But you lost the world's best network. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| once you sell.. Once you sell CNN, HBO, WEATHER CHANNEL, PPV, ESPN, etc you are a CABLE TV PROVIDER.. it doesn't matter the transmission medium.. and as such, you are subject to local franchise rules and regulations for providing CABLE TV. Yes, that means you with your vdsl lite have become one of "THEM", just another cable tv provider... AT&T thinks they can make the argument that their "branding" of cable-tv service is just like VOIP-- that is.. not subject to taxes & fees.. they are just deluding themselves.. Unless AT&T / Verizon went totally proprietary with their content, which is to say bought NOTHING from the cable industry (not even CNN) ... they might have been given the benefit of the doubt.. but once you "joined-in" at the hip to the cable industry.. you pony up franchise fees like the rest.. the shocking thing, though.. up until now AT&T had more success fighting franchises than Verizon.. but that won't be for long... It is also doubtful once people realize the U-Verse service SUCKS, they'll have to upgrade the infrastructure to what it REALLY should be.. so, AT&T will be spending TWICE on a network build sooner than they think.. | |
| | | |
|
|
Judge: U-Verse Is A Cable Service
)