Senators Introduce Bill on Cable Franchising Issue

[Sean Mota]

From Tvweek.com


By Doug Halonen
In a boon to the telephone industry, Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and John McCain, R-Ariz., on Wednesday introduced legislation that would allow phone companies and incumbent cable TV operators alike to offer TV services without having to get local or state cable franchises. The phone companies have complained that local franchising obligations have stymied their efforts to compete with incumbent cable TV operators.

If the legislation becomes law, local franchising obligations would be scrapped for everyone, with all players on the same playing field. Under the bill, cable TV operators and phone companies would still be required to pay fees of up to 5 percent of their revenues to local governments. All players would also have to meet a variety of other obligations cable TV operators currently face, including a requirement that they carry the signals of local TV stations.

 

[korsjs]

good good good for mccain.

 

[riffjim4069]

Schweet! Of course, don't expect the cable companies and your local cable franchise authority to roll over on this one.

 

[LonghornXP]

Some of my sources say this bill has a very very good chance of making it. I've also been told that this bill does contain more regarding HDTV than that article states.

Part of that bill states that cable must carry both the analog and HD feeds that a broadcast network offers but if the broadcaster can't work out a deal with the cable company or vice versa within 6 months a deal would be made for them by another party within 1 month. This allows a company to try and get more but stops a company from going crazy.

So the above would have prevented the NBC and CBS HD crap with Bright House Networks in the Tampa Bay Area. In this case NBC didn't work out a deal for over three years because of first money and second multicasting so if this bill was in place we would have lost out for no more than 8 months instead of over three years. With this bill the day after 6 months passes both the cable company and/or the broadcast network can ask for a deal to be made by a third party at which time they would have 72 hours to work out a deal before its out of their hands.

 

[korsjs]

Part of that bill states that cable must carry both the analog and HD feeds that a broadcast network offers but if the broadcaster can't work out a deal with the cable company or vice versa within 6 months a deal would be made for them by another party within 1 month. This allows a company to try and get more but stops a company from going crazy.
.

i like this idea.

 

[riffjim4069]

Senate Bill S.1504

Status and Summary for S.1504 - the text of the proposed legislation has not been posted...yet.

 

[LonghornXP]

Status and Summary for S.1504 - the text of the proposed legislation has not been posted...yet.

If you talking about my post above just remember I have access to a DirecTV exec who has access to a Fox exec and lets just say that Fox might want this thrown in for their benefit. If the FCC stops them from playing hard ball without a bill than maybe DirecTV would like a bill to stop any company from doing the same stuff they are banned from doing.

 

[cablewithaview]

From what I have understood there maybe a Federal tax which would be the same across the board for everyone, without any fee going to local government. either way, I just weather not have the franchise fee in place at all. If cable has to pay it then DirecTV and Dish should have to pay it too along with phone. Argument for years is that DirecTV and Dish doesn't use public ride of way so therefore they shouldn't have to pay it. My question is, how do you think they are able to offer locals? Fiber which runs in what? Right of Way.

 

[peterl1365]

From what I have understood there maybe a Federal tax which would be the same across the board for everyone, without any fee going to local government. either way, I just weather not have the franchise fee in place at all. If cable has to pay it then DirecTV and Dish should have to pay it too along with phone. Argument for years is that DirecTV and Dish doesn't use public ride of way so therefore they shouldn't have to pay it. My question is, how do you think they are able to offer locals? Fiber which runs in what? Right of Way.

Um, I think you're a tad confused here. DirecTV and Dish offer local channels entirely via satellite. The TV station *might* have a fiber connection to a DBS uplink facility, but that is not considered a right of way.

As for the phone companies, they already paid (in some fashion) for their right of way when they originally installed their copper phone lines. If they were somehow able to offer video services over the POTS system, then they could possibly argue that they shouldn't have to pay any video franchise fees at all. In any event, they seem perfectly willing to pay the same fee that the incumbet cable system pays. This legislation is to avoid having to file thousands of franchise applications around the country. It also prevents local governments from gouging Verizon by requiring a fee that is greater than what the cableco pays.

 

[cablewithaview]

Um, I think you're a tad confused here. DirecTV and Dish offer local channels entirely via satellite. The TV station *might* have a fiber connection to a DBS uplink facility, but that is not considered a right of way.

this what an engineer said "Both fiber back to the west coast for uplink." and "Both Dish and Direct TV have separate headends, and most locals are picked up off-air." something else to note if there head end is to close to where a station signal shoots over it's antenna they will ALSO use fiber from the station to there head end.
there is nothing tad confused about it. still either way they use a "right of way", there is no other way to spell it out.

 

[peterl1365]

Um, I think you're a tad confused here. DirecTV and Dish offer local channels entirely via satellite. The TV station *might* have a fiber connection to a DBS uplink facility, but that is not considered a right of way.

this what an engineer said "Both fiber back to the west coast for uplink." and "Both Dish and Direct TV have separate headends, and most locals are picked up off-air." something else to note if there head end is to close to where a station signal shoots over it's antenna they will ALSO use fiber from the station to there head end.
there is nothing tad confused about it. still either way they use a "right of way", there is no other way to spell it out.

I think "right of way" generally refers to areas allocated in each neighborhood for underground or aerial distribution to EACH home. This entails access along many miles of public streets. These all have to be documented and monitored so that other public works projects do not disturb any existing wiring (hence, you have to call Dig-Alert before doing ANY digging on your property).

An uplink from a TV station to a head end center is in fact a right of way issue, but it is strictly point to point, and does not even have to be a dedicated connection. I imagine that the parties involved could simply lease a connection from their local phone company or other backbone providers (e.g. MCI, global crossing, etc).

The fact of the matter is that, as far as the consumer is concerned, satellite services do not require any right-of-way, and thus are exempted from franchise fees. If the TV station or DBS uplink center has to pay for right-of-way (in whatever form), then that is just a cost of doing business and is not (directly) passed on to the consumer.

By the way, don't you think cable companies have the same issues? In fact, cable companies get most of their signals via satellite. So it wouldn't surprise me if cablecos and DBS operators, despite being competitors, share many of their costs of terrestrial signal transmission.

 

[riffjim4069]

Here is the updated link to S.1504 as well as an attached PDF version of the Senate bill.