From The Philter regulator file, the FCC's cable competition report offers this handy summary of the RBOCs' gripes against local video franchises:
LECs described the local franchising process as an impediment to entry into the market. SBC maintains that cable franchise requirements are unnecessary given existing local authority to manage telephone company rights of way. Verizon and others note that franchise negotiation gives notice of entry to the incumbent, delays entry, and allows LFAs to demand unrelated concessions from the entrant. Verizon alleges that a “level playing field” approach to regulation is harmful to competition, and urges congressional action and Commission action pursuant to Section 621(a) of the Communications Act to alleviate these concerns.
In summary, Verizon likes surprising competitors. Doesn't like level playing fields. Likes lobbying... Doesn't like local politics. And SBC thinks the whole thing is unnecessary.
re: Level Is Unfair Let's see, Verizon complains that they don't want to have to telegraph (pardon the unintended pun) their intentions to enter a market, they don't want to have to subsidize their competitors who offer services like data and telephony to VZ base, they don't want to have to deal with local yokel municipalities and for that they are bad??? And this drivel about Level Playing Field is crap. Why don't all of us in the business world sit around and hold hands singing the Barney song?
Meanwhile I as a consumer am denied an additional choice in service providers and Verizon's sharholders are denied the opportunity to maxmize their investment.
Machine learning is primed to help service providers run more efficient and effective networks, but first the good ideas have to make their way from the lab to the real world – and that's a big challenge, according to the University of Chicago's Nick Feamster.