 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Crybaby Fucking crybaby, go it your way with stupid lawsuits and waste money! | |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | This is why we wont get 100mbps service companies have to jump through hoops | |
|
 | 
alphapointe
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-10
Columbia, MO
clubs: | Re: This is why we wont get 100mbps service No, this is why we get bad service, because they don't want to be held to any standards.
--
Resistance is NOT futile...It's voltage divided by current. | |
|
| | 
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
| Re: This is why we wont get 100mbps service said by alphapointe  :No, this is why we get bad service, because they don't want to be held to any standards. With three options for service I think any company with any interest in keeping customers will meet the standards that customers desire. | |
|
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
| WTF Does a Franchise Agreement Do? The wires are already run to offer phone service, why does a company need another agreement with a city to offer other serivces over the same wire???? Can someone elaborate on what a frachise agreement is for, or point me to some good information. DirecTV doesn't have these agreements to my knowledge. | |
|
| firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI | Re: WTF Does a Franchise Agreement Do? Hmmmmmmmmmmm one word: MONEY
Local cities use the agreements get money, power, channels and all kinds of crap................... | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Pretty much. It's completely IP. The only equipment that is exclusively TV is in the CO and the actual tuner. | |
|
| |
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Franchise agreements protect customers »www.techdirt.com/articles/200601···_F.shtml
Franchise payments are basically rent for public rights of way (unless you want them to dig in your yard or put poles in whenever they want with no oversight at all).
Franchise agreements also insure that the city is serviced fairly (not just affluent areas).
Franchise agreements create government,educational and public cable channels for local areas.
They also set up a customer advocate locally to take care of local problems (imagine calling some federal franchise authority to get a cable in your yard buried).
Bottom line, franchise agreements are cables "business license and rent for rights of way). Telcos think they can cost on their federal regulations that were put in place in I think 1918, while forcing cable companies to deal with local franchises thus creating an unfair playing ground for competetion. | |
|
| 
AnonUser2
@motive.com
| Re: Franchise agreements protect customers This is the positive side. The dark side is that its a squeeze play for the city to get voice/data/video services for employees, city bldgs and departments, etc. I know this from personal experience. The city of San Jose remained locked in a battle with TCI/ATT Broadband over high-speed Internet. The city of San Jose lagged literally years behind others in deployment, stuck on issues such as free access for the city. | |
|
| | 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Re: Franchise agreements protect customers aye aye aye! yes, y'all have invested thousands of hours of research on this subject and know, for a fact, that all municipalities in this country are greedy and corrupt and demand such things. (rolls eyes) | |
|
| | | SD6
join:2005-03-26 | Research? Yes There has been research done, and the problem is quite common. The FCC will be releasing their findings soon. | |
|
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Franchise agreements protect customers said by garagerock :... all municipalities in this country are greedy and corrupt and demand such things. This is government we're talking about. Prejudging it to be be corrupt and greedy is perfectly reasonable.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by AnonUser2 :
This is the positive side. The dark side is that its a squeeze play for the city to get voice/data/video services for employees, city bldgs and departments, etc. On difference in this case is that Cavalier Telephone is essentially an overbuilder. What that means is that they only have to agree to terms equal to the terms of the incumbent cable company. The negotiations are probably over buildout requirements (which are different for overbuilders), information requirements (i.e. turning over their customer and payment details), and a start date for the licenses and fees involved (as well as possibly the length of the franchise). The "extras" have to be in line with whatever the incumbent already has to do. The city cannot require more than the incumbent provides and is not allowed to give a break for less than the incumbent provides. If the incumbent is already providing free services, than Cavalier has to provide similar free services or provide appropriate contributions to that service (i.e. payments).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| 
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | That's the intent, but definitely not the "bottom line". They're also used by some cities as a way to extort for freebies and perks. I remember ready of one town that demanded that an applicant to provide free phone service for all city employees. What the heck does that have to do with any tax or returns on right-of-way?
--
Myspace | |
|
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by xerxes3642 :Franchise payments are basically rent for public rights of way (unless you want them to dig in your yard or put poles in whenever they want with no oversight at all). If a company already has an agreement in place for one kind of service, e.g., telephone, then whey should the company's customers have to pay twice if the company wants to run cable or broadband lines in the same spot as the phone lines?
said by xerxes3642 :Franchise agreements also insure that the city is serviced fairly (not just affluent areas). This is the only goal that franchising seems to be good at. In this case, the franchise process has ensured that everyone gets zero service, so it is perfectly equal throughout all parts of the jurisdiction.
said by xerxes3642 :Franchise agreements create government,educational and public cable channels for local areas. Stuff that no one watches anyway. I'd love to save an extra buck or two if it meant eliminating these channels.
said by xerxes3642 :They also set up a customer advocate locally to take care of local problems (imagine calling some federal franchise authority to get a cable in your yard buried). Considering how bad of an image cable TV service has in this country, it is hard to see how effective local franchise authorities are at this particular sport.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| |
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Franchise agreements protect customers Actually, according to nielson in local areas, the government/edu/public channels have more of a market share than hgtv, hallmark channel, oln and several other nich channels.
You can't get rid of regulation because "government is corrupt and will use the power for evil" if you use that excuse then we can't let government do anything.
The cable companies have expensive lawyers that negotiate these deals and usually (I worked for a franchise office) can get out of these weird requests on the basis of "not needed to provide franchise oversite" and judges usually agree.
Not to say that everyone is perfect however, the cable/telco regulation needs overhauling immediatly.
The problem boils down to the FCC NOT MAKING ANY DECISIONS REGARDING THE CABLE ACT OF 96'S CHANGES THAT ARE DRASTICALY NEEDED!! The private sector is outpacing the regulators at astronomical rates. The FCC needs to make quicker decisions instead of partisin bickering all the time. Whether they decide to make federal franchise or local, they need to say something one way or the other or we'll just keep seeing lawsuits. | |
|
just_looking
@sca.se
| I see it this way Make them pay.
As a homeowner, if these franchise fee's are eliminated, the local gov't is going to still want their money. How are they going to recoup their loss? They are going to raise our taxes.
So it is either a huge company, with billions in the bank, paying, or it is me, the little guy who is faced with rising costs just about everywhere they turn, who is going to pay.
I vote for the big companies footing the bill. | |
|
| 
slashman
Don't do it . ..
Premium
join:2003-10-01
Batavia, IL | Re: I see it this way The big companies won't pay the bill. It will be passed on to the consumer. Do you think these companies are going to eat the costs? The local gov't is sticking to the people either way. | |
|
| | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: I see it this way Yes, but they don't pass it on in the form of higher costs. They will quote you a rate for cable service, say nothing about the franchise fee, and then your bill when it arrives will have an extra line charging a few dollars for the franchise fee. It is paid by you, not the company (similar to sales tax). | |
|
| 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| You are right that the city would tax you to provide revenue. If the company has to pay as part of the franchise agreement they will just pass that cost along as part of your bill. Either way, you pay. Ultimately the customers pay for everything. The companies just skim a piece of the top as the money changes hands.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| |
just looking2
@sca.se | Re: I see it this way You are correct, the companies will pass the cost off onto the consumers, but I at least have the right not to purchase their services. I don't have the right not to pay my taxes. | |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| Analogy I think if a football team suddenly decides to play baseball, they need to adhere to the rules of the diamond. If a baseball team decides to play football, it needs to adhere to the rules of the gridiron.The football team can't just walk onto the diamond and say "well we're a football team, so we don't have to follow the rules of baseball; we're going to follow our rules."
You don't chew gum in Singapore, even if it is ok in the U.S.
So if a cable company wants to offer phone service, they need to play by the phone rules. If a telco wants to offer TV, they need to play by the TV rules.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Analogy If only the cable companies had to follow the same rules as the telcos do for phone servide... | |
|
| |
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Analogy said by bogey780 :If only the cable companies had to follow the same rules as the telcos do for phone servide... Bingo. But they seem to forget about that aspect when they're fighting against telco-TV.
--
Myspace | |
|
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Likewise, IMHO the telcos need to follow the same rules when offering TV. | |
|
| | |
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Analogy said by PolarBear :Likewise, IMHO the telcos need to follow the same rules when offering TV. The thing is, the cable companies have already in the phone service business and not following the same rules that the telcos have to. Where were the alarms when they were getting into the phone business for them to play by the rules?
--
Myspace | |
|
| | | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| Re: Analogy That, I don't know. But the cable co's SHOULD have to play by telco rules to offer phone service, too; how to make them, I don't know (I'm not a lawyer or anything).
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
|
| 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by PolarBear :I think if a football team suddenly decides to play baseball, they need to adhere to the rules of the diamond. If a baseball team decides to play football, it needs to adhere to the rules of the gridiron.The football team can't just walk onto the diamond and say "well we're a football team, so we don't have to follow the rules of baseball; we're going to follow our rules." You don't chew gum in Singapore, even if it is ok in the U.S. So if a cable company wants to offer phone service, they need to play by the phone rules. If a telco wants to offer TV, they need to play by the TV rules. And then someone comes along with a way to play football while it still appears they are playing baseball? Thats what IPTV is.... its just a service that runs over the Internet or the exsisting DSL service which AFAIK is UNREGULATED. The cableco has to play by the rules because they have been up to now a monopoly. The telco comes in to offer competition using EXSISTING METHODS AND INFRUSTRUCTURE thats already in place.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
|
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| Re: Analogy I understand that each side is not completely equal; I am just saying that if each wants to play in the other's field, they should have some equal rules for both of them.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
|
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| So effectivly now local municipalities now have the ability to not only regulate the internet but also regulate interstate commerce? I doubt that all the content being distributed comes from within Virginia....
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
|
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Analogy said by joako :So effectivly now local municipalities now have the ability to not only regulate the internet but also regulate interstate commerce? I doubt that all the content being distributed comes from within Virginia.... Yes, the federal government has explicitly delegated the power to regulate this specific type of commerce through the Telecom Act.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
Trinijoy
Premium
join:2005-09-12
Brick, NJ | Pathetic. Wow isn't this like the 100th lawsuit in this month? people are just too sue happy. | |
|
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Pathetic. said by Trinijoy :Wow isn't this like the 100th lawsuit in this month? people are just too sue happy. The icing on the cake is that the taxpayers of the City of Richmond are footing the bill here. There really have to be limits on the types of lawsuits that can be filed by the government.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: Pathetic. said by pnh102 :The icing on the cake is that the taxpayers of the City of Richmond are footing the bill here. There really have to be limits on the types of lawsuits that can be filed by the government. This lawsuit is quite justifiable when you consider the franchise fees the city is losing. And as much as I may be sympathetic to the service provider who is using already permitted and existing infrastructure to overlay TV, the City nevertheless has the legal advantage. | |
|
Techman21
join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA
| They probably are skirting some sort of tax WTF. That is a great deal. The issue is that the local government aren't getting their taxes out of the deal. Otherwise they wouldn't be so gung-ho about suing.
Having a DSL connection at 9Megbits plus TV? For $95 bucks? That is cheaper than what I pay for my Ebarq DSL 3/512 connection and the DirecTV I have.
Although I'd like to see the TOS on running servers and the such. If they limit customers in what they can *do* with that connection, then I'd have problems. | |
|
EzFlow321
Ezflow321
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Phoenix, AZ
| Free Internet? Is this another blow to the Free Internet idea? The way I see it is that IPTV should be as free as YouTube.com. In fact, with the right hardware, one can turn any PC into an "IPTV" of sorts.
The internet is free, and the cabletv and whatever is going to just have to deal with it. If people and/or companies are finding new ways to use the internet, then so be it; and all the better.
The government, no matter what the case may be, has no right to mandate the internet in any way. If they lose money, oh well. If they make money, so be it. However, one should not try to make the internet less "free" as it is and should be. Except for stalking and trapping predators. But that's a different subject altogether. | |
|
cptmiles
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN
| ...Cake...Eat it too... The concept of a franchise fee is antiquated. What is the purpose? If it is for Right-of-Way usage, telephone companies should pay it regardless if they provide video or not. If it is for quality of service, that is old news because the customer will vote with their wallet on what they think quality is. If it is just to make money on video then Dish and Direct TV should pay it as well. Either charge everybody equally that serves customers within a governing entity or don't charge anything. Let's call it what it is..."A TAX!" | |
|
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: ...Cake...Eat it too... said by cptmiles :The concept of a franchise fee is antiquated. What is the purpose? If it is for Right-of-Way usage, telephone companies should pay it regardless if they provide video or not. Telephone companies received a specific exemption from right of way taxes on telephone service in the 1910s and it has never been revoked.
When cable tv showed up, no one had the same interest in promoting the spread of cable television, so they receive only a cap on the rates rather than an exemption.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
Lenagainster
join:2005-01-07
Silver Spring, MD | Don't forget it's Cavalier they are suing Richmond would do the citizens of VA, MD, DC a world of good if they could sue Cavtel out of existence. IMHO, they gotta be the worst provider in the business.
Lena | |
|
| jervin123
join:2005-04-14
Philadelphia, PA | Re: Don't forget it's Cavalier they are suing One thing they beat verizon on is New years call setup times or on any day can call someone else on Cavtel acrost town then in less time then it takes to call someone on the same switch on verizon. | |
|
plattypus1
join:2005-04-08
Riverside, CA
·Charter Pipeline
| Cable phone I work for Charter Cable. As of this moment there is no requirement, as far as we know, that force us to follow the same regulations as the telcos for phone. We do anyway. (I honestly think it's because our governmental relations guy expects that ruling any day, but the point remains.) Whether other cablecos play by those rules, I don't know, but I know we do. It's only fair for Ma Bell and Verizon to play by the same rules we have to- and honestly it's only fair for Dish to play by those rules as well, but that's besides the point.
Either ditch franchising altogether, or keep it for every provider. | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Cable phone Dish and DirecTV do not have to play a video fee due to they have NO hardwire laying anywhere in the cities they offer service in like Cable TV and the LECs. That's why the Sat providers are clear of the charge.
But now if they just charged the tax across the board for all of them that would be a different story.
Do like the Brits do. Charge a yearly TV Tax to the person that wants to watch TV. 100Pounds= 200$USD PER TV and you don't have to worry about the fee. But thats a programming FEE that some channels do not carry commericals. The money made off the TV tax goes to the city.
The Gov't sets up a website like CableTheft and reports people who don't pay for their TV service. You get fines for not having a TV License. Yes its a License renewed every year. | |
|
|
|
|
Richmond Sues CLEC Over IPTV
·