& cplSiteName &

SBC Sees IPTV Interference

Light Reading
News Analysis
Light Reading

Legal battles over cable franchising may add a hurdle to SBC Communications Inc.'s (NYSE: SBC) planned rollout of IPTV service later this year (see SBC: 'Let Us Entertain You!').

Attorneys and industry advocates from SBC, the cable industry, and municipalities are already jousting over whether TV channels piped through the Internet are bound by franchise law, and the courts seem to be where the debate is heading.

The battle is worth watching because SBC and other phone companies could wind up forfeiting 5 percent of their return on investment to local authorities if the franchising rules are shown to apply.

The franchising agreements formed between TV providers and municipalities typically include standard provisions for reliability, customer service, billing cycles, public access channels, and the payment of a franchise fee.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) president Robert Sachs fired the first salvo in the IPTV debate in a speech to the Washington Cable Club on December 14. Sachs said there is no distinction between the technology used to deliver cable television in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the law which set forth the franchising rules.

The business plan for SBC's Project Lightspeed, Sachs said, aims to target what it calls “medium-“ and “high-value” customers -- those willing to pay $110 per month for services -- with its IPTV offering. “To protect against ‘cherry picking’ certain neighborhoods based on income, the Communications Act requires local franchising authorities to ‘assure that access to cable services is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides’,” Sachs says.

SBC says the NCTA’s motives are not really rooted in serving the public. “It’s not surprising that the head of the cable association would speak out against what we’re doing, because he’s afraid of the competition,” says SBC spokesperson Mike Balmoris (see MSOs Yawn at Lightspeed).

SBC argues that its TV service isn't the same as a broadcast or cable-provided service. To make that point, SBC’s lawyers are relying on a November ruling by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exempting the VOIP carrier Vonage Holdings Corp. from the jurisdiction of state utilities regulation and placing it under federal jurisdiction. The FCC’s central reasoning behind the decision was that Vonage’s VOIP service was not affected by state borders in any way and should not be regulated as such (see FCC Shields VOIP From States and Vetting SBC's VOIP).

“This is an IP platform,” Balmoris says. “It’s the same as when the cable companies provide telephone service over IP; there is no regulation at the local level.” Balmoris says SBC last year filed a forbearance petition with the FCC which states its view that IPTV should be exempt from the franchising agreements. The agency recently extended its deadline to respond, and is now expected to give its view by May 2.

But SBC isn't waiting that long to start digging up neighborhoods. Construction is set to begin this quarter to deploy SBC fiber close to customer locations to provide new, feature-rich, IP-based services, including IP television, VOIP, and fast Internet access. Project Lightspeed is expected to reach 18 million households by year-end 2007.

Balmoris said SBC’s response to any legal challenge from municipalities -- those potentially losing out on franchise revenues -- depends on the circumstances and timing. “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” he says.

For the cable industry, the connection between the Vonage decision and an SBC exemption from local TV franchise rules is too big a stretch. “That decision was specific to voice,” says NCTA spokesman Brian Dietz.

The cable industry, and some localities, are citing language in the Telecommunications Act to support their argument that TV is TV, whether IP or not, and the franchising rules apply to phone companies. “The Act is really very clear on franchising; there is really no need for further interpretations on that.”

“City officials have said they will file injunctions [against SBC] if they don’t abide by the franchising rules,” Dietz says. “At federal level, the Congress could draft new language specifying that phone companies must enter franchise agreements."

Balmoris says some cities welcome the phone companies entrance in the local TV market because of the downward pressure they may place on rising cable TV prices. The NCTA’s Dietz, on the other hand, points out that many cities are more interested in collecting the franchising fees the phone companies might bring to city coffers.

“If SBC continues with their plan to roll out cable television service without entering into the franchising agreement, the law is very clear under Title 6 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act,” says Marilyn Morhrman-Gillis, director of federal relations at the National League of Cities.

Morhrman-Gillis says the situation could play out in a number of ways, depending on SBC’s rollout. “How cities choose to respond would depend on what they announced and in what locations and when,” she says. “But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if cities filed injunctions against SBC.”

One of SBC’s competitors, Verizon, has chosen to form traditional cable franchising agreements with cities and has already entered agreements with Beaumont, Calif. and the Dallas suburb of Sachse.

— Mark Sullivan, Reporter, Light Reading

(14)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:08 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
I found this interesting as I have been following the whole franchising activity, including Sachse, with my city council (in the Dallas Area). Things are heating up leagally;

Not mentioned was that Comcast cable is now claiming that the satellite business has 15% of the TV business in the Dallas area and therefore is operating in a competitive area according to the Cable Act. As a result it is asking to be free of Cable Act and the franchise restrictions of all cities in the Dallas area!

Who has to Franchise???
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:07 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
I think this legal battle is different from the VoIP one. Here's why:

The RBOCs collected the "toll". So the VoIP folks simply had to fight it out with essentially one entity (RBOCs) in front of the FCC.

In this case, the "toll" is collected by each municipality. As such, SBC may have to fight it out with every municipality in the local courts and fight it out with the cable cos. in front of the FCC. That sounds like a much, much bigger legal battle.

Makes sense?
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:06 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
Perhaps this is all an arguement for municipal fiber. Let them lay it and charge for transit. It has to be new and different anyway. Now is their chance. Then, the archaic arguements over who has what transit goes away. Munis just get their cut of the action from any bits crossing their tollway.
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:05 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:05 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
Perhaps this is all an arguement for municipal fiber. Let them lay it and charge for transit. It has to be new and different anyway. Now is their chance. Then, the archaic arguements over who has what transit goes away. Munis just get their cut of the action from any bits crossing their tollway.

It does seem like the only way the last mile will ever get properly upgraded will require municipal action.

The question I have is what conditions must be in place before the municipalities will act? You say, "Now is their chance." But yet in the US only a rare few have acted and, of those few, many remain in a trial status. What are the pieces to this puzzle that remain missing?

(Note: many believe the muni's should stop at leasing ROW access to private industry. Why hasn't that model proven itself?)
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:04 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
I think it's not so different from the VoIP story if you look from a market & competition point of view.

Voice providers like SBC are subject to some regulations/restrinctions on voice services (things like serving everyone, ...).

Cable operator jumped into the voice market with VoIP (VoIP is different from traditional PSTN Voice switching from technical perspective, but from a market and end-user perspective it's the same, just a phone line), and started an aggressive priving strategy to gain marketshare.
But, they are not subject to the same regulations/restrictions as traditional voice providers.
It's a kind of "unfair" competition.

Looking at TV, Voice providers (like SBC) are now entering the cable companies homemarket with IPTV, so to be fair they should not be subject to the same regulations.

I mean, either voice & TV regulations applies to everyone, either to no-one. Otherwise cable companies get an unfair competitive advantage.

On top of that, while VoIP & PSTN Voice are very similar from a end-user experience, IPTV is very different from traditional Broadcast TV. It offers interactivity thanks to the 2 way communication nature of an IP network, in term of services it's things like : programs "a la carte", video on demand, network VCR, news/show replay, interactive EPG (can memorize genre, channels, ...), a customizable interface for each family member, online gaming on TV, email/web on TV, and much more. And still the good old broadcast TV.

Looking at all that, it's definitly a big move ahead from traditional TV, and a "premium" kind of service. Should such a premium service be subject to the same restrictions/regulations as the basic BTV service ?
Voice providers are making huge investments (look at the SBC numbers) to deploy this new technology, far ahead from traditional cable & satellite offers.
So, if some companies are making such huge investments (means it creates jobs somewhere), they should get in exchange fair competitive conditions.
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:03 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
What are the pieces to this puzzle that remain missing?

I'll take a guess: the missing piece is the "drive". Something that can drive the humans who are in charge to get stuff done. It's got to be something basic. Like Sex. Or Money. Or Power. Or Fear. Or a combination of one or more of the above.

Please surrender your lofty egalitarian ideals to the immigration official.

Welcome to America.
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:02 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
"Please surrender your lofty egalitarian ideals to the immigration official."

I thought I already did it years ago... but they may think I didn't ;-). Just because one wishes to see an equitable and a better way of information transmission, one that is not bullied by the status quo (RBOCs et al.), doesn't mean one is dogmatic (I know you didn't say that). It is the essence of American way to try better approach in an equitable way. When that spirit is hurt by a narrow interest like the story in the USA TODAY, that only shows what's puzzling is that the status quo will try to stop competition by whatever means they can.
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:31:00 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
The real issue is that the regulations that govern both cableco's and telco's are a totally antiquated hodge-podge of local, state and federal rulings and bodies.

With convergence (yes, the most over-used word in this industry) the entire regime is inadequate. The regulatory bodies see only declines in power (and revenue), while the service providers find themselves trying to compete head-to-head while each of them are playing under different rules.

I'm not a big fan of either the RBOC's or the cableco's but at the end of the day they should be playing under the same rules. Maybe the new Congress will get around to trying to revamp the Telecom Act and bring it into this century.
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:30:59 AM
re: SBC Sees IPTV Interference
The real issue is that the regulations that govern both cableco's and telco's are a totally antiquated hodge-podge of local, state and federal rulings and bodies.

I believe fiber overbuilders could bypass many (most?) of these regulations. The question then becomes why aren't fiber overbuilds happening at a much greater rate? The fact that they aren't suggests antiquated regulations are only part of the problem.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Light Reading’s Upskill U is a FREE, interactive, online educational resource that delivers must-have education on themes that relate to the overall business transformation taking place in the communications industry.
Friday, September 30, 1:00PM EDT
Gigabit & the Great Migration
Robert Howald, Vice President, Network Architecture, Comcast
Wednesday, October 5, 1:00PM EDT
Gigabit & Smart Cities
Joe Kochan, COO & Co-Founder, US Ignite
Friday, October 7, 1:00PM EDT
Gigabit & DOCSIS 3.1
Ty Pearman, Director, Access Architecture, Comcast
Wednesday, October 19, 1:00PM EDT
Securing a Virtual World
Rita Marty, Executive Director, Mobility and Cloud Security, Chief Security Office, AT&T
in association with:
From The Founder
Light Reading today starts a new voyage as part of a larger Enterprise.
Flash Poll
Live Streaming Video
Charting the CSP's Future
Six different communications service providers join to debate their visions of the future CSP, following a landmark presentation from AT&T on its massive virtualization efforts and a look back on where the telecom industry has been and where it's going from two industry veterans.
LRTV Custom TV
Flexible Deployment Approaches for the Gigabit Services Evolution

9|29|16   |     |   (0) comments

For many operators, the gigabit evolution begins with the shift from DOCSIS 3.0 to DOCSIS 3.1. But that move represents a change not only in the protocol itself, but in the approach to architecting their entire DOCSIS delivery chain -- from the headend to the outside plant and home gateway components.

Jonathan Ruff, senior director of global technical ...

LRTV Interviews
Level 3 VP: Enterprises Need More for Less

9|29|16   |   05:27   |   (0) comments

Andrew Dugan, Level 3 group vice president of global technology and IT, says enterprises need more bandwidth and they need it faster and with greater security, but they want to spend less, if possible. They are looking to carriers to reduce their network complexity and help protect them from cyberattacks as well.
LRTV Interviews
CenturyLink: SDN/NFV Pose New Interconnection Possibilities

9|28|16   |   04:37   |   (0) comments

Network operators should develop new APIs and business processes for reselling virtual assets to each other, says CenturyLink's Bill Walker. That will enable them to build digital business portfolios that help them avoid becoming commodity transport providers.
LRTV Interviews
Level 3: Overcoming Terror of Being Supplier, Integrator & Developer

9|28|16   |     |   (0) comments

At Light Reading's NFV & Carrier SDN event in Denver, Travis Ewert of Level 3 Communications said there is terror in becoming supplier, integrator and developer, but it can be overcome and be cost effective.
LRTV Custom TV
Introducing IoT World News

9|27|16   |   01:43   |   (0) comments

Self-driving cars, medical sensors, smart cities... and refrigerators. In order to address the huge scope of IoT, KNect365 has created a unique online community that will help businesses to understand and monetize the opportunities that live within the IoT market. We look forward to welcoming you to IoT World News -- your gateway to a better connected future.
LRTV Interviews
AT&T: Reusable Functions Next NFV Key

9|27|16   |   06:03   |   (0) comments

The next generation of NFV has to break functions down into reusable software chunks, making everything much more cloud-like.
LRTV Interviews
Masergy on Security: Attackers Gaining Upper Hand

9|27|16   |   5:10   |   (2) comments

At Light Reading's NFV & Carrier SDN event in Denver, Ray Watson, vice president of Global Technology at Masergy, says that because of the growth in virtualization, the threat landscape is shifting in favor of the attackers. As a result, service providers need to think beyond just defending the perimeter and take a more holistic approach to security.
LRTV Interviews
Verizon Takes Next Step on Biz Virtualization Journey

9|26|16   |   4:38   |   (2) comments

At September's NFV & Carrier SDN event in Denver, Light Reading sat down with Victoria Lonker, director of Product and New Business Innovation at Verizon, to chat about where the carrier is with delivering virtualized services to business customers.
LRTV Interviews
Global Services: The $40B Face-Off

9|26|16   |   05:53   |   (1) comment

More service providers than ever before are battling it out to win a slice of what is now a $40 billion global communications services pie, explains Ovum Principal Analyst David Molony.
LRTV Documentaries
MEC Congress: The Key Takeaways

9|22|16   |   03:25   |   (3) comments

Three key takeaways from the Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) Congress in Munich, Germany.
Wagner’s Ring
Time to Shut Up About 'Dumb Pipes'

9|22|16   |     |   (19) comments

Service providers can't compete with OTT players. It just isn't in their DNA. Instead, service providers need to embrace what they're good at -- providing reliable, secure connectivity.
Wagner’s Ring
Keeping Your Tech Career Going After 50

9|21|16   |     |   (13) comments

How do you keep your career moving forward when you're past the half-century mark?
Upcoming Live Events
November 3, 2016, The Montcalm Marble Arch, London
November 30, 2016, The Westin Times Square, New York City
December 1, 2016, The Westin Times Square, New York, NY
December 6-8, 2016, The Westin Excelsior, Rome
May 16-17, 2017, Austin Convention Center, Austin, TX
All Upcoming Live Events
Hot Topics
WiCipedia: The Women Helping Women Edition
Eryn Leavens, Special Features & Copy Editor, 9/23/2016
Eurobites: Telefónica Taps Juniper for Network Security
Paul Rainford, Assistant Editor, Europe, 9/26/2016
Open Source Getting on My Nerves
Carol Wilson, Editor-at-large, 9/26/2016
Powell Kills the Cable Show
Mari Silbey, Senior Editor, Cable/Video, 9/29/2016
Telstra Sees Quadrupled Data Capacity by 2020
Carol Wilson, Editor-at-large, 9/28/2016
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed
BETWEEN THE CEOs - Executive Interviews
Light Reading CEO Steve Saunders and UXP Systems CEO Gemini Waghmare discuss the strategic importance of digital identity for operators in the midst of transformation.
Join us for an in-depth interview between Steve Saunders of Light Reading and Alexis Black Bjorlin of Intel as they discuss the release of the company's Silicon Photonics platform, its performance, long-term prospects, customer expectations and much more.
Animals with Phones
There's Nothing Like Missing a Full Minute of Pokémon Go Click Here
Live Digital Audio

A vital part of increasing the number of women in comms is transforming the ways companies can support and empower women. While progressive company policies that support both men and women in achieving work-life balance are a step in the right direction, creating a company culture that supports those policies can at times be more challenging.

During this show, we'll talk to Lynn Comp, Senior Director of Industry and Sales Enabling (ISE) in the Network Platforms Group at Intel, about why those challenges exist and how companies can overcome them. She'll provide insight into how Intel has worked to create a culture that supports work-life balance, and provide steps and guidance for other companies wishing to do the same. We will also leave plenty of time to get your questions answered live on the air.