Social Feed

That graph doesn't make sense.

My area has a choice of

D*
E*
Comcast
Cavtel IPTV
Verizon Fios TV
OTA

Unless they only consider a choice is 2 cable operators?

OTA, and even cable for that matter, isn't an option for a fair number of folks - and a large number of folks do not have line-of-sight access to various satellites. Likewise, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison between cable and DBS since cable provides local area access channels, bundled video/broadband/phone services and savings, and in almost all cases they generate tax revenue through franchise fees (although this is changing since more and more states are charging satellite a "communications tax").

Wewantchoice.com is very similar to consumers4choice.org, which is very similar to my former cablechoicenow.org --> a variety of grassroots movements that were funded with seed money from the Telcos in order to raise public awareness, and lobby legislators to reform antiquated cable franchise laws. Their goal is to make it easier for telcos, and others, to complete against the big cable players, and not have to deal with the tens of thousands of local franchise Nazis (a form of government sponsored collusion IMO).

Anyway, we were successful in passing franchise reform here in the Commonwealth of Virginia (hence why grydlok has so many choices with the addition of FiOS TV and Cavalier TV) and in other states (Texas, New Jersey, Michigan, and Indiana to name a few) so the focus is now on nationwide cable franchise reform. Last year, legislation was passed in the House, it passed in Senate subcommittee, and was endorsed by the White House. However, folks like Google and Yahoo threw-out the "Net Neutrality" buzzword and the issue was mired in politics. It was never taken to full Senate vote since Senator Stevens (Alaska) did not have enough votes to get it passed (he was two votes short). The Net Neutrality issue is a red herring, but there were a couple items concerning digital content protection that I didn't particularly like that were included in the bill...so it may be a good thing that the process begins anew with the new 110th Congress next year.

This may all be a moot point since the FCC (Chairman Martin) recently adopted rules to ensure reasonable franchising process for new video market entrants. Basically, they are going to actively ensure that local franchise authorities, not under statewide franchise authority (i.e. County, City, Township) are not hindering the telcos from entering new cable markets. For example, here in Virginia prior to 1 July 2006 it was literally taking 18-36 months for Verizon to negotiate a franchise agreement. Now, there are 30, 45, 90, and 120 day timelimits for both parties to negotiate a franchise ~OR~ the franchisee, by default, will be awarded under the terms of the new. The new laws, while not perfect, make the franchise process very simple...and they apply to the existing cable companies when a certain level of competition is achieved. Here in my area (Spotsylvania County) Verizon was awarded a cable TV franchise in October and was delivering video service to a small portion of residents by December. The total time from formal application to the awarding of the franchise was about 100 days. Prior to the implementation of the new cable franchise reform laws, Verizon and the County were engaged in "informal" discussions for about 20 months.

Franchise reform is good...choice is great!!!

BTW, don't forget about ITVN.

Living in Michigan, we finally got the legislature and governor to open up the markets for us to other providers. I am already receiving info in the mail on stuff they want to offer. Finally, maybe some real choice.

riffjim4069 said:

OTA, and even cable for that matter, isn't an option for a fair number of folks - and a large number of folks do not have line-of-sight access to various satellites. Likewise, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison between cable and DBS since cable provides local area access channels, bundled video/broadband/phone services and savings, and in almost all cases they generate tax revenue through franchise fees (although this is changing since more and more states are charging satellite a "communications tax").

Wewantchoice.com is very similar to consumers4choice.org, which is very similar to my former cablechoicenow.org --> a variety of grassroots movements that were funded with seed money from the Telcos in order to raise public awareness, and lobby legislators to reform antiquated cable franchise laws. Their goal is to make it easier for telcos, and others, to complete against the big cable players, and not have to deal with the tens of thousands of local franchise Nazis (a form of government sponsored collusion IMO).

<text deleted>

Click to expand...

LOL, Verizon, ATT, et. al. are just poor little old companies that are being discriminated against by the big, mean cable companies, huh? Rich, really, really, rich! After the way they fought to keep VOIP off the market, they sure have balls, have to give them that! Glad they are funding "grass-roots" causes to benefit the consumer!

While there are problems with the franchising processes in some cases, I am sure, we had a 2nd cable company (Knology) come in here and sue the long time provider and city / county to get access to over-build the area. Instead of a long, drawn out battle in court, the city / county folks said "OK, go ahead and build, same terms and fees as the current company." Two years later, they withdrew their application and have never been heard from again.

Equal footing is one thing, but from what I have seen from SBC (now known as ATT), they want preference, NOT equal, although their tactics could change from state to state.

Sorry, but not going to drink the kool-aid on this one.

Enjoy!

It has nothing to do with kool-aid this time. It's a matter of fair and open competition. Competition is always a good thing. It encourages progress, and lowers prices. To rally against fair and open competition simply because you don't like the big bad telephone company is stupid and self-destructive.

OF COURSE the telcos would like an advantage, as every competitor would. But, that is not what they have been pushing for right now. To start, they want the ability to offer video services in areas where Cable has an unfair advantage. Cable has nothing stopping them from adding phone and internet service. But, in many cases, Telcos do have local regs preventing them from adding TV services.