Hey, there! Log in / Register

Verizon vs. communities at the State House

There's a hearing this morning at the State House on a bill that would make it a lot easier for Verizon to get licenses in individual communities to build out its FiOS TV systems. Cambridge Community Television explains why it opposes the measure.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

GOOD!

I Have been waiting for FIOS for 4 years now. I find it ridiculous that its not yet available in Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't get their opposition to this at all. More options means more subscribers and probably lower fee's as well. I dont see how this bill could possibly hurt cambridge and their defense doesnt detail this at all.

up
Voting closed 0

This piece, written by Cambridge Community Television, NOT the city of Cambridge, avoids the key detail why they don't want this bill in place:

Local television stations are almost entirely supported by licensing fees from cable carriers, and the specific rate is negotiated by the municipality/town/city. Verizon, however, is doing it's damndest to get out of paying these rates, claiming that they are not a cable carrier because they are running Fiber instead. Thus, they are 'telco' - according to them - and not subject to that law.

CambridgetCTV has a lot to lose if Verizon manages to push it's way in without negotiating a fee/rate to support local access TV. Generally, this is the largest reason why certain cities and towns don't have FiOS already - they are using the "you can't come in" bit as leverage to get Verizon to pay up.

While I strongly support Local Access TV (many people on here probably only think of Local Access Channels as "the messageboards", but they are pretty important to a democracy, especially local democracy).

What I DON'T support is this kind of politics that completely avoids the issue at hand - money for local access stations - in favor of trying to find some other reason for people to oppose something. Regardless of my support for Local Access TV, something should be debated on it's merits and true character, not bullshit fluff as presented in the CCTV piece.

up
Voting closed 0

The issue is something like: Verizon wants to get a statewide license for FIOS TV, but right now they have to get licenses community-by-community. So they're holding Cambridge, Boston, etc. hostage until they get a statewide license.

I don't remember what the argument is for NOT letting them get a statewide license, though it seemed valid at the time..

up
Voting closed 0

Its definitely a "fear of competition" thing on CCTV's part, for sure - but Verizon is trying to get the required payments to the licensing towns (read: the $ they have to cough up for local access programming, facilities, etc.) drastically reduced by changing the formula. Companies like CCTV do have a legit beef there - they paid full-fare when they came on board ...

I can't stand Comcast, and its all I can get at my place, too - but in this economy I don't know if giveaways to corp.'s like Verizon is the greatest idea either ...

up
Voting closed 0

FIOS is what will cost them money to add infrastructure support. Cable TV is their pain in the rump at getting community-by-community licensing vs. a statewide license.

I wrote up the general standoff here before.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not sure if this bill is the best way, but in my neighborhood (JP), I can only get Comcast (my Condo Association doesn't allow Satellite). I'm sure hell will freeze over before FiOS comes to Boston, but it would be nice if there weren't so many barriers in their way so I might have a chance at getting competition for services.

up
Voting closed 0

for condo and landlors to ban dishes. I could be wrong.

But that made me think of this apartment building on Cambridge St in Allston right before North Harvard St that has like 15 dishes on the front of the building. Its a wierd sight.

up
Voting closed 0

It's part of the language in our Condo agreement, and we signed it knowing that. We love our place, I'm just sick of bleeding green for Comcast, and the dish still wouldn't solve the internet problem unless I wanted some wicked slow DSL.

up
Voting closed 0

but if it is illegal to ban tennants from getting a dish, whatever you signed wouldnt mean anything.

But letting Verizon into Boston should be good for everyone.

up
Voting closed 0

Telecommunications Act of 1996:

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas

I'm not sure how applicable it is to tenants.. the fact sheet explains, but I'm coffee-deprived right now. I think if you're a tenant they're not required to let you install dishes outside your rental space (e.g. exterior surfaces) unless you have a balcony. My own lease reads something like that.

up
Voting closed 0

Condo associations can't prevent owners from attaching satellite dishes to their exclusive-use space; however, they can prevent owners from attaching dishes or other antennas to common building elements. Typically, with the exception of decks, most exterior building elements are considered common, and the association can prohibit dishes from being attached to the fronts and sides of buildings.

So, unless you have a south-facing porch with a clear view, and sufficient space to attach a satellite dish, you're out of luck.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, we have no exclusive exterior space, and hence cannot do it.

I'd really rather have FiOS anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

Personally I'm tired of seeing FIOS adds all over and not being able to get it. And there is reform needed in this area, since communities often make bad, short sighted deals with current providers and creates a gap between rich and poor communitites. Besides only having the comcraptastic service we are doing the greater community a disservice. CCTV I understand where you are coming from, but your on the wrong side.

up
Voting closed 0

Personally, I want to see towns do away with these franchise rights totally.

What should happen is the franchise rights should go to a cable company that wants to be service provider; but that any company can transmit over the wires / fiber.

Think ISP's. they service the lines and get a piece of the pie, while the cable providers fight, like ISP's, for market share.

Right now, with each community being a local monopoly, it's a joke and hurts consumers.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't understand CCTV's argument about how the shorter process will harm communities. I agree with CCTV that "thoughtful and meaningful negotiations" are a good thing, but I don't see why thoughtful and meaningful negotiations can't be carried out in the time period specified for something as mundane as cable licensing, as opposed to construction & development, matters of public health and safety, and other things that can have a much greater impact on the lives of residents. I called my representative to express my support for this legislation. Hopefully we'll get FiOS in Cambridge soon.

up
Voting closed 0

Whoa! I apologize if the CCTV posting was not clear - everyone wants competition and every community in the Commonwealth, Cambridge included, wants Verizon to offer an alternative to the other cable providers. But that is not what this bill is about.

Under federal law, cable licenses are non-exclusive, which means that anyone can request a license in any community. The reason that Verizon has not started to offer service in Cambridge, or Boston, or most of the western part of the state, is because it doesn't want to. So, this bill's name is really just a way to distract from what is really being proposed - rushing communities through a shortened time period to negotiate its licenses.

At the hearing this morning, community after community testified about difficulties negotiating with Verizon - the towns were ready, but the company continued to seek delays, cancel meetings and generally foot drag. These negotiations take time, not just enough time to make sure that public access stations like CCTV get enough resources to offer services, but time to make sure that all of the necessary city and school buildings get wired, that there are significant customer service requirements put into place, and other such minutiae that make for a good, strong agreement. Remember, these licenses are for ten years and millions of dollars are at stake, so if you don't get it right, you have a very long time to suffer.

By the way, the City of Cambridge does oppose this bill - the City Manager submitted written testimony to the Committee, and the City Council passed a resolution against it. Sam Seidel attended the hearing. State Representatives Alice Wolf and Tim Toomey oppose it.

Please contact us with any other questions: [email protected]

up
Voting closed 0

The bill before the Legislature proposes a permit process consistent with FCC (the national expert on cable regulation) rules that say 90 days is an appropriate period when a carrier (like Verizon) already has approval to operate in municipal rights of way. That ruling was unanimously upheld in Federal District Court. The trend in the U.S. is to fix this antiquated cable licensing process. In recent years, 20 states have streamlined their cable TV licensing process to approve competitive franchises in 5 to 45 days. As noted in a comment above, there’s no reason why the cable licensing process can’t be completed within 90 days. It’s done all the time in states all over the country. All of our signed contracts are public documents and most of the terms are the same. This proposed legislation cuts unneeded steps out of the process and gets both sides to the negotiation table right away. We've shown in several communities in Massachusetts that it can be done in 90 days. As to funding PEG, Verizon supports funding local access programming. The bill provides funding of up to 6 percent of gross revenues to support the community’s cable-related needs. On an conservative $50 cable bill, that generates $70+ million a year to support local cable organizations if the funding structure was implemented statewide for the state's 2 million-plus cable subscribers.

Phil Santoro
Verizon Media Relations

up
Voting closed 0

except on issues such as fair housing, gun trafficking etc

up
Voting closed 0

What we heard repeatedly at yesterday's hearing is that Verizon has been unable to meet 90-day deadlines. If Verizon were willing to substantively meet the same obligations required of the incumbent service provider, the process could effectively be shortened.

Introducing what is happening in other states is a slippery slope...public, educational and governmental access centers have reported marked decreases in revenue, and in some instances, have been shut down entirely. This is not a compelling reason to have Massachusetts follow suit.

If Verizon would spend a fraction of the time spent trying to change the rules on meaningful negotiations with cities and towns in Massachusetts, the whole thing could be wrapped up in a few years.

up
Voting closed 0

And we testified to our experience using the current 10-step franchising process, which was designed 30+ years ago when no on had cable and communities needed to vet the abilities of providers to offer service. In nearly 100 franchises, it now takes us a year on average to secure a franchise. The fastest was three months, and some towns took almost three years! If you eliminate uncessary steps, over one-third of the our franchises were negotiated in 90 days. So we've shown we can reach agreement on franchises quickly if the process was streamlined. We also demonstrated how a year's delay in competition cost consumers in a town of 10,000 subscribers $3.6M in lost savings. On matching the incumbent's agreement, why would we agree to match the incumbent's agreement when the town can't give us what they gave the incumbent, which is first-provider access to the entire community? If we can't get the same value as the first provider in town -- essentially a monopoly agreement -- why would we automatically agree to the same terms? Finally, the sweeping generalizations you make about other states don't apply to the Massachusetts legislation....again if fully applied to all consumers, conservatively $70 million to fund PEG across the state (more than a $100 million if you use a more realistic $70 bill). No one at the hearing make a cogent case as to why that's not enough money to support local programming in Massachusetts. We could have told our own stories of municipal delays, like the town that asked us for cell phones, street lights and a parking lot as part of the cable franchise, but this type of he said-she said dialogue does nothing to advance reasonable improvements that will help bring better cable and broadband services and competition to more consumers.
Phil Santoro
Verizon Media Relations

up
Voting closed 0