Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Mon Dec 20 01:37:12 UTC 2010

> Google finds some:
> 
>
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7364
> 
> "The Franchise Agreement requires AT&T to pay the City $0.88 per
> residential subscriber per month to maintain and enhance PEG access
> services provided by MPAC. AT&T has chosen to pass this $0.88 fee on
to
> subscribers, which it is not prohibited to do under Federal law."
...

If you look at that agreement, you will see that it specifically does
not apply to Internet services, and it specifically prohibits any
monopolies.

This is simply a charge for access to "public right of way" or a payment
to the city for stuff the city has to maintain to support AT&T's
infrastructure.

For example, if AT&T undergrounds cables under a street, this increases
the maintenance cost of that street because they must now be sure to
avoid AT&T's cables when they dig and must take those cables into
consideration for any civil engineering work they do.  I don't see that
as an "access fee for subscribers".

What I am concerned with happening is a cash-strapped city seeing
Comcast (or any provider, really) trying to charge for access to
subscribers and then the city saying "wait a minute, who are you to sell
access to our people to a third party?  If you are going to charge third
parties for access to those eyeballs, then you can pay us, in turn for
that access."  And from there it all goes down hill.  Comcast charges
for access to eyeballs and then the cities turn around and charge
Comcast an "access" fee and then it becomes ubiquitous and cities start
charging all ISPs for "eyeball" access as a revenue source.  It is the
opening of a box that is better left closed, in my opinion.