FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
frnkblk at iname.com
Mon Sep 7 18:50:35 UTC 2009
I don't think LECs to MSOs have first right of refusal..it's possible that
with MSOs that the city has give the franchise exclusivity, but blame the
city then, not the MSO. What happens more often is that the LEC or MSO uses
legal, lobbying, or legislative means to put a stop to the competition, but
it's not first right of refusal. In the cases where munis lost, it was in
relationship to telephone service and a city's ability to obtain a
certificate of service (see here for one muni's story:
http://www.cityofhawarden.com/HiTec/History.html). Another route to
opposition is if it fills up RoW, though I haven't personally read as much
about that. Possibly because if the new company is a desperate enough,
they'll come up with a way to address the RoW constraints or show how it's
not a real issue. Remember, if it really *is* constrained, the new company
won't be super eager to build in there, either.
From: James Downs [mailto:egon at egon.cc]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 12:02 PM
To: frnkblk at iname.com
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:55 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first refusal?
The incumbent companies (generally, a LEC or cable company) are able to
refuse projects and also effectively prevent buildouts and upgrades from
being done by a 3rd party. However, I have seen reports that in a few
areas, municipalities are starting to win lawsuits against them (in
apparently the long appeals process).
urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify it even
with a dense customer base.
That might apply to fiber, but even speed upgrades (Newer DSL services) are
apparently subject to the same refusal process, but the rules are different
across the country, too.
More information about the NANOG