IPTV Rules

2:50 PM -- I'm confused. A few IPTV providers have made the point that their service isn't subject to Texas state-issued franchise rules. (See Even Video Is Big in Texas.) But Senate Bill 5 spells out that any video service served over any technology requires a franchise:

"Video service" means video programming services provided through wireline facilities located at least in part in the public right-of-way without regard to delivery technology, including Internet protocol technology. This definition does not include any video service provided by a commercial mobile service provider as defined in 47 U.S.C. Section 332(d).

Was that bit eliminated from the bill Gov. Perry signed?

— Phil Harvey, Legal Stuff Editor, Light Reading

paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 2:58:45 AM
re: IPTV Rules
Don't IP networks carry IP traffic?

What is Video over IP and when does it become something franchisable (not probably a real word)?

There are plenty of "Movies" stored on places like Filefront. Not too many of these are commercially oriented films but they do exist. Now if you download one over your DSL modem, cable modem, or dial-up modem do you require a franchise? Suppose you could download movies on a pay per viewing basis?

The whole problem is that the regulators and regulations are written in a rather old paradigm. Probably a better way would be:

Franchises go in place for building Access Networks irrespective of technology (cable, copper, Fiber).

These franchises are managed at a state or federal level with disbursements on a state and local level.

Content is then independent of the franchises.

DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 2:58:43 AM
re: IPTV Rules IP networks do carry IP traffic (hope that wasn't a trick question).

But just because you can, say, email a movie, does that make IPTV service any less competitive to cable or over the air TV?

If no, then it should have to go the franchise route, according to my half-drunk interpretation of the law.

Perhaps I'll think on it some and offer a full drunk interpretation later on.

paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 2:58:42 AM
re: IPTV Rules
Drinking makes regulations and regulators a lot more fun. Or at least smarter. Sort of.

And your example is exactly what I mean. Phil's Home Movies sent to your family. Hopefully these do not star say Paris Hilton. That aside if you host these movies, do you require a franchise. The law would say yes I think.

That is why I think the regulators are so out of touch. They are trying to apply an old paradigm to today's technology. It is almost impossible (rjmcmahon may be spinning right now thinking that I am on drugs). I do think the regulators are in a quandry because the morons...err politicians writing the regulations are just not smart enough to help everybody out.

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 2:58:34 AM
re: IPTV Rules The bill seems to distinguish between four services being cable, voice, video and information. It's hard for a layman to understand the criteria for the classifications and if they are mutually exclusive or if they overlap.

In general, the suggestion that municipal franchising has been a roadblock to broadband investment doesn't seem valid. Both the recent cellular build out and the previous cable build out went through the process of municipal permitting and franchising and both have been successful.
Sign In