& cplSiteName &
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First        ADD A COMMENT
OldPOTS
OldPOTS
12/5/2012 | 3:13:40 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call
I forgot to mention that the Texas Rep Joe Barton is Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that will start work/have hearings updating/a new Telecom Bill, supposedly later next month.

Obviously he will work in concert with the FCC as a major contributor looking at what the Texas legislator has done. (No update today on Texas legislation).

But first they will try to make me buy a digital receiver for my analog TV so congress can sell that analog TV BW.
http://energycommerce.house.go...

OldPOTS
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/5/2012 | 3:13:46 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call
So much for "free markets".

A problem with the free market ideology is that people treat so-called "free markets" as an ends in themselves. They rarely, if ever, ask the deeper questions like what is the purpose of a modern communications infrastructure? Or why did Justice Hugo Black have to use the US Supreme Court to make the Associated Press do the right thing?
DarkWriting
DarkWriting
12/5/2012 | 3:13:47 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call
So much for "free markets".

DW
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:13:48 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call

See this is what is funny about this whole thing. I agree that Internet and cable service is a utility. The Franchising issues were done to ensure fairness of access and payment for the use of city land. I have no truck with that.

I think we have a land of outmoded rules to deal with the current situation. However, I am still greatly in favor of letting the market do its job. Unfortunately, this law could discourage broader competition by ensuring only those with lots of money will get lots of service.

seven
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/5/2012 | 3:13:48 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call
Comments rj????

I'm reading a book called Ties that Bind written by Charles David Jacobsen which discusses the history of electricity, waterworks and cable television. It has some interesting points.

http://www.pitt.edu/~press/boo...

One was when the US Supreme Court decided an antitrust action against AP, where members were barring competing newspapers from joining the cooperative. The court voted against AP's actions. Here's an excerpt:

Justice Hugo Black spoke for the majority: "[The First] Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if tehy impose restraints upon that consitutionally guaranteed freedom... Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not."

The FCC has been monitoring this and expects to use it for it's starting model, so read very carefully!

Thanks for the "heads up". So far, this FCC and I don't agree much on policy. They seem to be catering to what SBC wants vs. doing the right thing.

"It is not a utility, like making sure everyone has electricity or water," he said. "This is entertainment, and it's just not the city's place to regulate."

Many people take this position. I think that is the fundamental basis for our disagreements. I believe societies that don't respect free speech and a free press are terrible places to live. A modern communications infrastructure is all about free speech, a free press, and the diffusion of knowledge. This FCC treats it like its only pipes for MTV or ESPN. It's very sad to me when policy makers don't strive for the ideals which are the foundations of a civilized society.

There is a reason that people choose internet access over cable access, even with the bandwidth imbalance towards the latter. Cable policy has been failing us. It helps nobody to extend these failed policies to the phone companies.
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/5/2012 | 3:13:49 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call
SBC will serve the richest communities in Texas and the poorer ones will get nothing.

I agree with this.

Seven; Sorry about the accusations in my earlier posts. I shouldn't have done that.
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:13:50 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call

Well, I will comment. Here is what you can expect. SBC will serve the richest communities in Texas and the poorer ones will get nothing.

seven
OldPOTS
OldPOTS
12/5/2012 | 3:13:51 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call
Comments rj????

The FCC has been monitoring this and expects to use it for it's starting model, so read very carefully!

It has moved further through the Texas legislature today for Texas Senate compromise. Todays Dallas Morning News statements were similar but added the following of interest;

"It is not a utility, like making sure everyone has electricity or water," he said. "This is entertainment, and it's just not the city's place to regulate."

"Mr. King said cities would still get the same amount of revenue from cable providers. Cable providers would pay to cities a fee equal to 5 percent of their gross revenues."

This seems to have cities favoring cable and the state (PUC) favoring telcos for revenue!!!

OldPOTS
iponthebrain
iponthebrain
12/5/2012 | 3:13:56 AM
re: Routers Answer IPTV Call
House approves telecommunication bill
By NATALIE GOTT
Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN G Phone companies won a victory over the cable industry Sunday when the House tentatively approved a bill that would make it easier for SBC, Verizon and other phone companies to sell TV services.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, had tried unsuccessfully twice before to get the bill approved before prevailing Sunday.

The bill, approved on a non-recorded vote, would allow phone companies to get a TV franchise from the state rather than requiring them to go to each city they want to serve to obtain franchises.

The bill also would allow phone companies to serve only the areas in a city that they choose to serve. Current law generally forces cities to require cable franchise holders to serve all homes.

Cable companies dominate TV service now but phone companies are trying to get into the business by offering video service over fiber-optic networks that also could carry voice and high-speed data transmission.

King said the bill will create billions of dollars of investment for Texas, spur job creation, increase revenue for municipalities and increase competition.

Verizon Communications Inc. spokesman Bill Kula said Texans deserve the benefits of cable competition as soon as the equipment and facilities are ready, not months or years later.

"Genuine competition will happen faster by creating a statewide franchise for video services in Texas," Kula said.

The cable industry has said poor households would be discriminated against under terms of the bill because telephone companies want to build fiber-optic networks only in upscale neighborhoods.

The telecommunications provisions were added to a bill that allows the state Public Utility Commission to continue its operations for another six years. Other provisions in the bill would stregthen the PUC's oversight of the state's electric grid operator.

After final approval in the House, expected Monday, the bill will go back to the Senate, which has already approved the PUC bill. The Senate bill, however, does not contain the TV service language. Republican Sen. Jane Nelson of Lewisville said she opposes including that language in the PUC bill.

If the Senate rejects the bill, a group of lawmakers from each chamber likely will be appointed to work out the differences.

Also Sunday, the House approved a related bill that continues the functions of the Office of Public Utility Counsel, which represents consumers in dealings with the Public Utility Commission.

___

The PUC bill is SB 408 and the Office of Public Utility Counsel is SB 409.



Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events