HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
Fletcher E Kittredge
fkittred at dargo.gwi.net
Mon May 7 20:37:03 UTC 2001
> > If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements?
> > Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles
> > and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a
> > modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked
> > other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video.
> Falcon Cable ... Morgan Hill, CA ... to name one of many. Livermore CA...
> for another. San Jose .... and the list goes on...
OK Roeland, spin me out the quotation/URL to the contract that says
any of these municipalities gives exclusive access to cable companies
to provide high speed IP via cable technology. I would be interested
in hearing about contracts which are exclusive just for video, but
that is off, off-topic.
> I tried, in 1993, to drop a satellite head-end into a retirement
> trailer^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmobilehome park. This was all private property. The
> deal was a co-op where ech resident pays a monthly fee to the owners of the
> park and we ran co-ax to feed all the residents, on a cost-recovery basis.
> Upfront capitalization was amortised over 3 years. City council got wind of
> it and threatened the park's owner with cancellation of their operating
> permits becasue such a plant put the city at risk of violating their
> exclusive franchise agreement with Falcon Cable, for cable TV provisioning.
> This caused me to do some research into this. Yes, these exclusive contracts
> still exist today as part of the cable franchise system. I should also tell
> you that I worked for PacificBell Broadband, until 1997, where this also
> became an issue. The LA beachhead was largely stone-walled becasue of this.
Roeland, it is almost halfway through 2001. We are discussing today,
not remote history.
Further, we are discussing Internet access, not video. This is an
IP list, not a CATV list.
> Rights of way were granted, to cable operators, on a city-by-city basis, all
> based on exclusive franchise agreements, nation-wide. At that time, all they
> were pumping down those pipes were analog video. Now, that they are pumping
> digital data streams, those contracts have not changed. What is
> significantly different is that the telcos have no such exclusivity, per
> city. This is not competition, it is market lock-out. Each cable operator
> has a proprietary exclusive market lock on the city of operation. Many of
> these contracts were bought by, what is now AT&T, when they bought all those
> cable operators. Cable systems, plants, and rights of way, were specifically
> excluded from regulatory effects and ignored by the 1996 telecom act.
Roeland, show me a current contract that provides for exclusive
access. We are post telco access of 1996 :)
More information about the NANOG