Telco/Cable Franchise Discussion

[cablewithaview]

I will say this much, telco's should not have a free ride in providing video service. I feel that if cable has to work hard to acquire franchises, offer community channels, etc. within the franchise agreement then telco's should be held to the same standards. I believe in the long run there will be backlash over it and a costly one. Investors are deeply concerned with Verizon's FiOS as far as cost goes. The question is will the product always be feasible? The answer is NO. There is to much invested and very little return at this point. I believe investors will start getting panic ed which could possibly slow if not stop the roll out of FiOS. Some people can only put out so much of a good thing and then tank out. If your not receiving a generous amount of return, then customers could start feeling it in there wallets. Prices will increase due to operations, and with that said will prices hold down for ever? again NO. I feel that Verizon, Qwest, and AT&T still will continue to cherry pick some communities avoiding access to all, cable on the other hand feeds all within the agreements set forth in a franchise agreement. If this had been to remove all franchise and terminating all franchise agreements in place now then I would have been more favorable of it. I'm I against competition? NO, I welcome it, I just feel it should be on the same level. The franchise fees going to a state or federal level is to much of a big bother idea. Keeping franchise fees within the community helps fire, police, your parks your kids play on, help maintain streets, etc. There is some things better at a local level then at state or federal.

 

[efbrune]

There is some things better at a local level then at state or federal.

With all due respect, I disagree. I will not argue this point, I just want to disagree.

The cable industry, in the most part, has been a monopoly for many years. Raising rates and having absolutely no competition. It is widely known that cable companies have been gouging customers for years. That's not a free market economy.

The financial benefit to local communities is insignificant, especially with the billion dollar budgets of today.

Respectfully,

Earl

 

[cablewithaview]

The cable industry, in the most part, has been a monopoly for many years. Raising rates and having absolutely no competition. It is widely known that cable companies have been gouging customers for years.

Well this is where I disagree on the monopoly, as far as video goes, there has always been choice from an antenna, to c band, DirecTV, Dish, FTA systems and of course those that has died (Alphastar, Primestar and Voom, may Voom RIP) and telco's more now then ever before. Cable didn't go to someones house and say "Hey you can't have that dish!!!" It never worked that way. You show me a place that you feel cable is a monopoly and I will find you a deverse amount of alternatives in every neighbourhood, then or now.
No disrespect intended, it's just how I feel about it.

 

[efbrune]

No disrespect intended, it's just how I feel about it.

Thanks!

 

[riffjim4069]

I've said it many times before, so I won't go into great detail...but satellite provides an alternative to cable since they do not generate local revenue in the form of franchise fees nor do they provide PEG (big consideration since I'm active in local government and my wife is a schoolteacher). Plus, some people just don't want a satellite dish on their homes in any form or fashion.

Although the Cable Act opened the way for cable competition more than 10 years ago, the fact of the matter is 97% of America has only one, single, sole choice of cable TV provider in their locality thanks to the Good Ole Boy networks (aka Local Franchise Authorities) and their brand of government sponsored collusion and legalized extortion. In essense, citizens have no cable TV choice! People can blame Big Cable all you want (they are certainly culpable), but the root cause of this problem lies at the doorstep of our legislators and their failing to update antiquated cable laws. Get rid of these 33,000+ LFA cronies already!

Local governments provide a valuable service by addressing Cable TV quality control and public utility issues (easements, etc.), but their dirty little mitts need to be taken out of the cookie jar. Our Cable TV rates are through the roof and there has been little effective competition due to the predatorial practices of the LFAs and Cable. Like I mentioned, it has been a government sponsored collusion.

Anyway, just look at what has happened in Texas, Virginia, and New Jersey...and just wait 'till you see the legislation coming from Capitol Hill. It will knock you socks off! Don't be deceived nor fooled by the propaganda being spouted by Big Cable and your local leaders....they have told half-truths, misrepresented facts, and just plain lied in order to protect the status quo...all at your expense each and every month you receive your monthly cable bill. Is it really any wonder why DirecTV and Dish Network have grown so large in recent years? Is it really any wonder why State and Federal legislators are changing laws in favor of the Telcos? People are outraged and fed up with their cable TV bill and the fact they have no choice of cable TV providers.

I actually agree with cablewithaview in several key respects: telcos should not get a free ride-->they should pay franchise fees and provide or pay for PEG; satellite should be paying national franchise fees; local government are vital in managing Cable TV in their communities.

However, the fact of this matter is cable providers have been vilified (rightfully so) for the current Cable TV climate and will suffer a backlash, both financially and politically, for their past actions and inactions:

- Legislation will favor the Telcos by dropping barriers to new entrants (franchise rules and market build-out).
- Cable TV prices will, in fact, drop 15% or more.
- American's will finally have more cable TV choices.

BTW, the number of American's having only one choice of cable provider is down to 96% since the beginning of the year. Expect this number to drop down to 90% by the end of 2006 with AT&T, Verizon, and others deploying video services.

 

[danm2z]

Personnally, while I welcome the competition on the wire side, I don't think there will be real price breaks for consumers as long as all the popular channels and content are controlled by a few companies. Satellite and cable have to deal with the same issues of channel bundling every time they negotiate for carriage. We now have Fox controlling one of the satellite providers, so every time they decide a new channel or network needs to be launched, they can just add it to their line up and start charging customers extra for the "new programming choices" that are available.

Verizon and AT&T will bring another independent distributor to the pay TV mix (Echostar being the other). Hopefully, this will provide another strong voice to keep rates and content providers in line. Using additional tiers of programming, getting closer to an a La carte model will drive down some pricing, but in the end we'll still all be stuck paying $10-15 / month for channels we don't watch.

 

[cablewithaview]

always one step closer to "real choice" when they had it all the time. have they ever heard of appling for a local franchise like everyone else? O' thats right, they need to red line and avoid some benefits for the community as a whole. As the old saying goes, "only cable can." I like the fact my 3% helps my local fire, police, parks, schools and anything else that franchise fees can help out. I like the fact that it serves everyone fairly within the franchised area.

 

[korsjs]

"The franchising process was used in the past to protect consumers from cable monopolies. It should not be used today to protect cable from competition."

 

[riffjim4069]

"The franchising process was used in the past to protect consumers from cable monopolies. It should not be used today to protect cable from competition."

Well said korsjs, I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[korsjs]

i thought you might like that.

 

[cablewithaview]

"The franchising process was used in the past to protect consumers from cable monopolies. It should not be used today to protect cable from competition."

protect from monopolies? that's why FCC ruled there was no such thing as monopolies in franchise agreements, etc. how is it it to protect a cable company from competition? any company is welcome to apply for a franchise, it is up to the local government to discuss the issue not only with themselves but with the community effected by competition coming in. make it fair and on a level playing field with the same rules for one as the other and let them go at it. as for the term "monopoly", which I hear a lot, there has never been none with all the alternatives that are out there. There has always been a choice in different providers with different methods of delivery.

 

[riffjim4069]

Although similar to a monopoly in form and function, I believe the correct term is what I call government sponsored collusion. It's the good ole boy network in which cable had paid hefty application and franchise fees for the exclusive control to a particular cable market...wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Sure, the Local Franchise Authorities couldn't legally grant exclusivity to any particular vendor, but they could effectively limit competition by making outrageous demands of new entrants (that have nothing to do with cable TV service), and they can drag out the franchise process for years, and years, and years, and years. After all, they are the gatekeepers and they alone control the keys.

Plus, as I mentioned, it's the good ole boy network. Cox wasn't about to compete head-to-head with Comcast nor Adelphia...and vice versa. The country was divided into pseudo monopolies which is why 96% of the country has only one choice in cable provider. It was 97% at the start of the year, it is soon to be 95%, and it may be as low as 92% at years end thanks to Verizon and Cavalier TV (in my area), and AT&T and others elsewhere.

The US Congress is about to pass legislation leveling the cable TV playing field playing field (COPE Act of 2006). The time for debate is over. The people are tired of their excessive cable TV bills - they are tired of not having additional choices of cable TV providers - they are tired of having to pay for channels they don't want (a la carte will be a natural extension of free market competition). The only people still bitching are the minority of individuals having ties to the cable industry and local franchise process. Sorry, but the people didn't buy the "Cable Knows Best" propaganda so it's time to move on. If I may so bastardize one of my favorite quotes from the movie Shawshank Redemption, "It's time to get busy living, or get busy dying."

The Cable Competition Mantra

It's time to get busy competing, or get busy dying.

Now let's stick to Verizon FiOS in Virginia. The reason Verizon struck the deal in Henrico County is because Cavalier TV recently started deploying their Triple Play offering (DSL, Internet, and MPEG-4 IPTV) in the Richmond area. By the way, Cavalier does not need a cable franchise agreement to offer MPEG-4 IPTV since the court has ruled it does not meet the defined standard for being a cable TV system.

I'm not sure what Verizon has to gain in Arlington County, but if I had to guess...they already have a large based on FiOS Internet customers and the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement really aren't all that different than what's in the COPE Act. This would probably be an easy way to pick up a large number of paying video customers.

 

[cablewithaview]

any type of video compeition should be franchised, sounds like certain people are taking nudge, nudge, wink, wink, to try to make it a unlevel playing field. any "good ole boy" crap around here is being procecuted by the feds and you saying things like pay offs is questionable. do you have proof of such? if someone applies for a new franchise and is turned down, then apparently they didn't want to serve the community as a whole, access channels and other things as well which the company in place already does. phone will slip up from being accused for redlining to being sued and prosecuted. there is to many questions concerning this and they keep there heads buried in the sand on this issue, sounds like a wink, wink, nudge, nudge to me. I welcome the competition but I don't welcome the way this is being handle under false pretense about "monopolies."

 

[riffjim4069]

I believe I have adequately stated my position. Currently, Adelphia is the only cable provider in my area...Cox services the other half of the county, and Comcast provides service to the city proper. Other than the cable companies changing ownership, it has been this way for years. If there were truly cable competition, then I would be able to subscribe to at least one other area provider. But just like 96% of the population, I have only one choice of cable TV provider...until now! Cavalier TV and Verizon are likely to begin offering cable service to the area within in the next 6-12 months. Cox and Comcast are welcome to start offering service as well.

The playing field is about to be leveled for all video participants. The telcos can now compete just as easily and unencumbered as cable has been able allowed to compete in the voice market. Selection and services will raise, while video rates will fall. It's a big win for the consumer. As a side benefit, the US will finally crack the Top 10 of Industrialized Nations having broadband access. The archaic and antequated LFA model is on its last legs and will soon be dealt a swift and deadly blow. Yes, the Sword of Damocles is about to fall...

Anyway, this is the last time I am going to state my position regarding cable competition in this thread, but I will gladly addresses them in other, more appropriate threads. Let's keep discussion related to FioS TV offerings in Viginia.

 

[cablewithaview]

rates wont' fall like you think if programmers are still going up every year. the increases from them are 5% on average yearly. agreements with power companies for pole attachments are raising as well, some power companies wants to go to $40 a pole per year. FCC has a cap on that for now at under $8 a pole per year, but there has been discussion of reviewing that cap as well. cooperatives are immune from that among other things leaving coop's to bend you over. there is a whole bigger picture of cost you don't put into this whole thing. some of this goes back to the arguement about a la carte, "giving people choices" would not give them a cheaper rate. Verizon may keep there low for now to try to get new customers but investors will play a major part in the increase of programming. investors are already wanting to see returns and are still sweating it.

 

[korsjs]

rates wont' fall like you think if programmers are still going up every year. .

in my area, rates have gone down for certain people who have brighthouse cable. brighthouse does not advertise them, but if you live in a neighborhood how can recieve fiostv and call them and tell them you are going to change to fios tv, they will lower your rates. a person that can not get fios tv can not get the reduced rates.

enough of all the debating fios and cable in this thread. let's keep this thread to what it is suppose to be. news for the virgina area. if someone wants to start a debate on cable/fios open another thread.

 

[korsjs]

to make it easy for everyone, if i have time later tonight or tomorrow, i will go through and clean it up and remove all the debates and put them in another thread.