Legal Basis for Authorization of TV Franchises?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Doug, if you look at the areas where FiOS is rolling out you'll find there
is substantial digging. The existing infrastructure doesn't have FTTP. I
would imagine the same will be the case for AT&T/SBC once they get closer to
rollout, even though they are only taking fiber to the node.

That being said, who do you want to deal with in the permit process? 3
different companies or one? Let's not forget the barrier-to-entry here
either. I think Verizon's estimated expenditure is $30B for limited rollout?
SBC is attempting to do it on the cheap at $5-$6B. Not many companies have
that kind of capital to even consider getting in the game. IOW, it's
probably market dynamics as much as franchising that's responsible for a
single player in a given locale.

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Doug Weil
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 6:37 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Legal Basis for Authorization of TV Franchises?
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I've been wondering about this for some time, so maybe someone here can
> shed
> some light on the situation.
>
> I'm unclear what legal basis there is for a local government to have
> control
> over who delivers cable television into a community. When cable television
> first started, I think the authorization process probably made sense from
> the standpoint that the franchise owner would have to dig up streets all
> through a community in order to lay the cables necessary to deliver its
> service. Obviously it wouldn't make a lot of sense to allow two, three or
> more companies into a community, each digging up the town to put its
> infrastructure in place.
>
> But now the telecommunications world is a completely different place. With
> fiber optic cable networks becoming more and more the norm, there's no
> reason that these networks can't be used to deliver cable television from
> competing companies.
>
> No need to dig. No need to constrain the market.
>
> Of course, that's just what Verizon (FIOS) and AT&T/SBC (Project
> Lightspeed)
> are planning to do over their own fiber networks, though they're finding
> that local authorities are blocking their entry and demanding all sort of
> unrelated concessions to gain local authority approval.
>
> For example, in Tampa, Verizon received a list of demands totaling $13
> million that included money for an emergency communications network,
> digital
> editing equipment and video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for
> kids. In New York, Verizon was asked for seed money for planting
> wildflowers
> and to provide video infrastructure needed to televise a Christmas
> celebration. Arlington County, Virginia, wants the company to string fiber
> to every traffic light in the community so that it can monitor traffic
> flow.
> Holliston, Massachusetts is requiring free TV for every house of worship
> and
> a 10% discount for all senior citizens. -- Wall Street Journal, October
> 28,
> 2005, page 1
>
> Most of these demands have little to do with regulation of the cable
> industry and everything to do with extortion in the name of crossing off
> items on local government wish lists and/or plugging budget shortfalls.
>
> Personally, I think both AT&T and Verizon (and any other telecom companies
> that follow them into this market) will find the reality of competing as a
> pay TV newcomer to be much more difficult than they think it will be. In
> my
> opinion, it will be a total train wreck, and if I were silly enough to own
> shares in these companies now, I'd be looking to sell all of them before
> they're seriously geared up for cable television service.
>
> It seems to me the telecom companies should be looking to sell the
> bandwidth
> required for an existing cable television provider to enter a market where
> they are unable to lay their own network. I have to believe this approach
> would yield the phone companies a higher, and speedier, return on
> investment
> than they will achieve by setting themselves up as a full-service
> competitor
> to the entrenched local cable leader.
>
> And, of course, providing access to other cable providers would create
> more
> competition, and likely lower prices in the short and long run for
> consumers.
>
> If the FCC was sincere about lowering the cost of cable television for
> consumers, it would be pushing for local competition in cable television
> service, rather than their recent "a la carte" crusade, which I'm highly
> doubtful will produce anything beyond object lessons in the power of
> "unintended consequences."
>
> So then, why is it local authorities still have the power to say who can
> or
> can't deliver local cable television services? It seems to me that while
> this approach could be justified 20 years ago, continuing on with it is
> completely anti-competitive and should now be unwound.
>
> Local and federal governments have done an abysmal job of regulating the
> cable industry for three decades, and no doubt burned through billions of
> dollars of taxpayer money in the process. Opening up these markets would
> provide consumers greater choice, lower prices and allow government to
> turn
> its attention to something that might actually be able to manage better.
>
> So, why isn't this happening?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Doug
> Clearly Resolved Image & Sound
>
> Business: +1 (618) 234-2865
> Cell: +1 (314) 495-2993
>
> eMail: [email protected]
> Web: http://www.clearlyresolved.com
>
> Affiliated with the Imaging Science Foundation
> http://www.imagingscience.com
>
>



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Bob,

I'm not sure but I think you're missing my point.

Yes, it requires digging for the fiber optic networks, but I assume that
this is the sort of infrastructure project that is dealt with all the time.
While I assume that permits were required for Verizon and SBC to lay these
networks, I assume this was more of a formality than it would be for some
company coming into a community explicitly to lay a cable television
network.

In other words, local telephone infrastructure gets repaired, upgraded and
extended as a matter of course. And one nice thing about the fiber networks
and their super-capacity is that once laid and operating, the need to dig
again for additional capacity should be far less frequent than in the past.

As far as there being only a single telecom network in each locality, I'm
entirely ambivalent about that.

What does bother me is a local government creating unnecessary obstacles to
competition in the cable television business. As far as I know, there's no
logical reason that a local government authority should have the ability to
stop a cable competitor from coming into a market if there's infrastructure
already in place that can be used to that end.

In my local market, Charter is largely a cable monopoly in a 50-mile radius.
Why shouldn't Comcast be able to come into any of these local markets where
SBC has the available infrastructure?

I really believe this is a win-win-win for consumers, new cable entrants and
the telecos. Consumers would win by having more choice/competition, cable
companies could expand their scope nationally and the telcos would win
because they'd be immediately putting a part of these new networks to use.

Also, bear in mind that if Comcast came into my market, they'd need the
capacity to cable TV, as well as broadband Internet access and local phone
service. While there might be some exposure on the local phone service, it's
an exposure that's already there with the cable competition, and there's
more to be gained than lost if the telecos manage to look at the bigger
picture.

Regards,


Doug
Clearly Resolved Image & Sound

Business: +1 (618) 234-2865
Cell: +1 (314) 495-2993

eMail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.clearlyresolved.com

Affiliated with the Imaging Science Foundation
http://www.imagingscience.com


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Bob Mankin
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:06
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Legal Basis for Authorization of TV Franchises?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Doug, if you look at the areas where FiOS is rolling out you'll find there
is substantial digging. The existing infrastructure doesn't have FTTP. I
would imagine the same will be the case for AT&T/SBC once they get closer to
rollout, even though they are only taking fiber to the node.

That being said, who do you want to deal with in the permit process? 3
different companies or one? Let's not forget the barrier-to-entry here
either. I think Verizon's estimated expenditure is $30B for limited rollout?
SBC is attempting to do it on the cheap at $5-$6B. Not many companies have
that kind of capital to even consider getting in the game. IOW, it's
probably market dynamics as much as franchising that's responsible for a
single player in a given locale.

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Doug Weil
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 6:37 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Legal Basis for Authorization of TV Franchises?
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I've been wondering about this for some time, so maybe someone here can
> shed
> some light on the situation.
>
> I'm unclear what legal basis there is for a local government to have
> control
> over who delivers cable television into a community. When cable television
> first started, I think the authorization process probably made sense from
> the standpoint that the franchise owner would have to dig up streets all
> through a community in order to lay the cables necessary to deliver its
> service. Obviously it wouldn't make a lot of sense to allow two, three or
> more companies into a community, each digging up the town to put its
> infrastructure in place.
>
> But now the telecommunications world is a completely different place. With
> fiber optic cable networks becoming more and more the norm, there's no
> reason that these networks can't be used to deliver cable television from
> competing companies.
>
> No need to dig. No need to constrain the market.
>
> Of course, that's just what Verizon (FIOS) and AT&T/SBC (Project
> Lightspeed)
> are planning to do over their own fiber networks, though they're finding
> that local authorities are blocking their entry and demanding all sort of
> unrelated concessions to gain local authority approval.
>
> For example, in Tampa, Verizon received a list of demands totaling $13
> million that included money for an emergency communications network,
> digital
> editing equipment and video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for
> kids. In New York, Verizon was asked for seed money for planting
> wildflowers
> and to provide video infrastructure needed to televise a Christmas
> celebration. Arlington County, Virginia, wants the company to string fiber
> to every traffic light in the community so that it can monitor traffic
> flow.
> Holliston, Massachusetts is requiring free TV for every house of worship
> and
> a 10% discount for all senior citizens. -- Wall Street Journal, October
> 28,
> 2005, page 1
>
> Most of these demands have little to do with regulation of the cable
> industry and everything to do with extortion in the name of crossing off
> items on local government wish lists and/or plugging budget shortfalls.
>
> Personally, I think both AT&T and Verizon (and any other telecom companies
> that follow them into this market) will find the reality of competing as a
> pay TV newcomer to be much more difficult than they think it will be. In
> my
> opinion, it will be a total train wreck, and if I were silly enough to own
> shares in these companies now, I'd be looking to sell all of them before
> they're seriously geared up for cable television service.
>
> It seems to me the telecom companies should be looking to sell the
> bandwidth
> required for an existing cable television provider to enter a market where
> they are unable to lay their own network. I have to believe this approach
> would yield the phone companies a higher, and speedier, return on
> investment
> than they will achieve by setting themselves up as a full-service
> competitor
> to the entrenched local cable leader.
>
> And, of course, providing access to other cable providers would create
> more
> competition, and likely lower prices in the short and long run for
> consumers.
>
> If the FCC was sincere about lowering the cost of cable television for
> consumers, it would be pushing for local competition in cable television
> service, rather than their recent "a la carte" crusade, which I'm highly
> doubtful will produce anything beyond object lessons in the power of
> "unintended consequences."
>
> So then, why is it local authorities still have the power to say who can
> or
> can't deliver local cable television services? It seems to me that while
> this approach could be justified 20 years ago, continuing on with it is
> completely anti-competitive and should now be unwound.
>
> Local and federal governments have done an abysmal job of regulating the
> cable industry for three decades, and no doubt burned through billions of
> dollars of taxpayer money in the process. Opening up these markets would
> provide consumers greater choice, lower prices and allow government to
> turn
> its attention to something that might actually be able to manage better.
>
> So, why isn't this happening?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Doug
> Clearly Resolved Image & Sound
>
> Business: +1 (618) 234-2865
> Cell: +1 (314) 495-2993
>
> eMail: [email protected]
> Web: http://www.clearlyresolved.com
>
> Affiliated with the Imaging Science Foundation
> http://www.imagingscience.com
>
>



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]