Verizon claims that going through local licensing authorities (city and towns) takes an average of 15 months to win approval and they want the state to stream-line that process to about 15 days by ending local licensing and giving it to the state. (Even better for Verizon, according the above article, they could conduct telecommunications “redlining” by allowing Verizon to offer fiber cable/internet to just certain neighborhoods in a community-no doubt offering fiber services to the rich neighborhoods and skipping over the less profitable neighborhoods?but I digress.)
I live in one of the 35 communities Verizon presently offers cable to-and I am a Verizon cable subscriber, currently saving about 30% off my combined cable, phone and Internet services I got with Comcast. I followed our local licensing process with Verizon very carefully and it did take us about 15 months from the time Verizon initially applied to the final approval.
BUT about 80% of the delay was all Verizon’s fault. It was obvious that Verizon dragged their feet waiting for federal legislation (the same legislation that included the “net neutrality” issue) that would have stripped licensing authority from both the local and state levels. After that went south last Spring, Verizon stalled last summer and filed a petition with the state’s Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) to again give the DTE licensing authority. That effort failed and now they are trying legislation to give DTE final authority. All the while, Verizon drags their feet with local authorities-to prove their point that the local level takes to long!
There are merits to Verizon’s argument-just as there is merit to local authority, particularly when it comes to protecting local cable programming. But Verizon is so disingenuous to complain about the length of the local franchise process, when they are in fact the primary cause of the delay. (At least in my town.)
Frankly Verizon has no interest in engaging anyone when it comes to Authorizing Bodies and that should be expected, given the monopolistic culture they come from. I just hope people don’t get duped by these folks and realize they are being conned by Verizon
I don’t mind state influence on permitting, but there’s some nuance…
<
p>
1. You want the town — you serve the whole town. Period. We’ll even help you string fiber if need be (when appropriate and cost effective), but you’ve got to serve everyone.
<
p>
2. Working with towns on the physical wires is essential. Maybe even working with towns to get more wiring under ground, either buried or in under-sidewalk conduit.
<
p>
3. Have a plan for “the last 100 feet”. Let’s get fiber to the home, not just the local phone box. It will make a huge difference in the long run attractiveness of Massachusetts — we’re a tech hub, and fiber to the home is an attractive feature, not to mention one that helps stimulate very small business and helps people telecommute.
<
p>
There’s no reason for permitting to be foolishly slow, but towns have a right to influence the infrastructure within their borders. The town has the greatest interest — maybe the only interest — in maintaining character, attractiveness, and sanity within the borders.
…but the only real difference I see is a better picture (on my standard TV). I do have 15 megabits per second transfer rate on the net service…but it has made no real difference compared to my cable modem because there are still lots of bottle necks in the WWW to slow down the network before it gets to my fiber-to-the house.
<
p>
But to emphasis–the licensing delays that Verizon whines about are wholly their fault (at least in my situation) because they wanted to create the appearance of slowness–so they could make the argument that the process should be streamlined.
<
p>
Straight out of Catch 22
Hello again stomv, I’ll watch the language this time.
<
p>
1. In your first item you said you demand that Verizon offer service to the whole town. Why? If I am not wrong, Verizon is a private business and is motivated by money. That motivation will drive them to offer service where there is demand. Why make them offer service in areas where there is not demand?
<
p>
2. I agree; towns should be able to dictate how cables are run within their borders.
<
p>
3. I agree and see the biggest problem with this how Verizon and Comcast subcontract out the final portion of the connection. I have a particular problem with subcontractors, but there seems to be little quality control. One subcontractor may take time and do a professional looking job while others leave the wires looking like a mess. Not sure how to correct this other then calling to complain if you get a bad job.
<
p>
As far as some of the other observations regarding the towns not really being an issue. I will have to disagree with that based on my own experience. My company has actually been working with Verizon on some of these local permit issues, specifically the local Conservation Commission approvals. One of the key aspects of this is that there is very little consistency from town to town in regards to their requirements. The situation is that Verizon is running this fiber optic cable underground within roads or sidewalks. When those roads or sidewalks come within a certain distance to a wetlands (100 feet) Verizon is required to get local approval from the Conservation Commission. In some towns, that is a simple as filling out a very short form and having a representative appear at a monthly meeting. In other towns however, the representatives have attended as much as 5 meeting (which only occur once a month) and have repeatedly been asked for additional information to be submitted. In some cases it has been clear that the members of the conservation commissions had an axe to grind (maybe they didn’t like their bills) and were being spiteful. Some consistency in the implantation of the requirements is really needed.
<
p>
One other quick note. From my experience Verizon is using specially trained crews to install the fiber optic lines. They had started the installations and then one town made them stop due to the Conservation Commission requirements I discussed above. When that happened they examined the need for similar approvals in other towns (should have been done before starting in my opinion but someone obviously dropped the ball). When they realized the delays to comply with this requirement, they sent the special trained crew to another area (Rhode Island for the guys I talked to) to continue installing this line in other areas. I believe they didn’t plan to resume installing around here until they had all of the approvals in place and that could be responsible for some of the delays.
<
p>
Hope this post wasn’t to rambling for you stomv;)
Verizon is providing infrastructure, so the towns should be able to regulate them however they see fit. If a town wants Verizon to connect the whole town or none, it is up to Verizon to make that choice. The main reason a town would want to do this is so that the town doesn’t end up segregated into the high-speed connection parts and the non-connected parts. This could easily increase any existing economic differences between neighborhoods. If half of a town is wired for high-speed access and the other half isn’t, where do you think people who want high-speed internet will end up living? How would you expect enough demand to build up in the non-high speed part of town to ever justify installing the wires from a pure profit perspective?
I don’t necessarily agree the your position.
<
p>
Public infrastructure (i.e. sewers, water lines, road work, etc.) is often not equal in different areas of the same town. The down town area may have public water and sewer but areas on the outskirts of town have private septic and wells. The decisions as to where to offer those services is economically driven. Why can’t similar factors come into play for high-speed internet, a service that is not required for building occupancy unlike water and sewage disposal?
<
p>
Your concern regarding existing economic differences is not valid in my opinion either. Why should your social progressive views prevent me from buying a service that is leagal? I have the money, am willing to pay for the service and Verizon is willing to offer it. Why should it be ok for towns to hold Verizon for ransom by making them install the lines in areas of the town where the service is not economically viable? We don’t make Dunkin Donuts open stores in locations of towns where they won’t be economically viable to try and even out differences from the non-DD side of town compared to the DD side of town. Why is this any different?
<
p>
As far as “where do you think people who want high-speed internet will end up living?” The answer is where ever they want. If high speed internet is important to them, they will live in areas that offer it. I don’t think its the responsiblity of towns to try and stop this kind of difference from developing. And if that is important to a home buyer or renter and a town prevents Verizon from installing the service in the portions of the town where it is economically viable, the people who feel it is important will choose to live in another town.
<
p>
And for your last question “How would you expect enough demand to build up in the non-high speed part of town to ever justify installing the wires from a pure profit perspective?” Honestly, I don’t care. If it builds up and more people want the service, good for them. To keep with the coffee shop examples, do you expect there to be the same demand for a Starbucks in Dorchester as there is in downtown Boston? Would you prevent the Starbucks in downtown crossing from opening unless they also put one at the Ashmont T Station?
<
p>
One other point, the cost. If towns make Verizon install lines in areas where it is not economically viable, who do you think will pay? Do you think Verizon will just absorb this cost as some sort of charity? No, the people who do want the service will end up paying for the unviable installation in higher bills then they would normally be.
Despite providing much needed caffeine, DD is not a steward of the public trust. What we’re talking about here is not strictly internet (or coffee), but FiOS television service – in essence, cable TV.
<
p>
Exhibit A: Consider 47 U.S.C. § 151, the statute establishing the purpose for the regulation of the telecommunications industry:
<
p>
“For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges . . . .”
<
p>
Exhibit B: Consider 47 U.S.C. § 522, the section of the U.S. Code that states the purpose for regulating the cable industry:
<
p>
The purposes of this title [47 USCS §§ 521 et seq.] are to– (1) establish a national policy concerning cable communications; (2) establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community; (3) establish guidelines for the exercise of Federal, State, and local authority with respect to the regulation of cable systems; (4) assure that cable communications provide and are encouraged to provide the widest possible diversity of information sources and services to the public; (5) establish an orderly process for franchise renewal which protects cable operators against unfair denials of renewal where the operator’s past performance and proposal for future performance meet the standards established by this title [47 USCS §§ 521 et seq.]; and (6) promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems.
<
p>
While I concede that requiring Verizon to serve an entire town, and not just its richest areas, may be an “economic burden,” note that subsection (6) is but one factor that has to be balanced against (i) a congressional intent to serve all Americans [47 U.S.C. 151]; (ii) an intent for cable systems to be “responsive to the needs and interests of the local community” [47 U.S.C. § 522(2)] – not the local, affluent, community; and (iii) an intent for these companies to “provide the widest possible diversity of information services” – not just services targeted to the rich and well-off [47 U.S.C. § 522(4)].
bostonbound,
<
p>
I appreciate the breakdown of the FCC rules, as boring as that may have been, but I do not see anything that changes my arguement or contradicts my thinking. In fact there are specific sections that back up my opinion on the subject.
<
p>
First and foremost, as you have already pointed out, “promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems.” I don’t think there is a need to discuss this one further.
<
p>
Second, “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex,”. Verizon is not choosing where to install the service based on any of these factors, they are doing so based on economics.
<
p>
Third, “encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.” To this I say a) requiring Verizon to install the lines to the entire town is not encouraging growth and b) by installing the lines where there is demand for the service is being responsive to the “needs and interests of the local community.” Installing the lines where there is no “needs and interests of the local community” is not a good business decision. If the local communities happen to be the more affluent so be it. It would still be discrimination if you prevented offering the service to rich people simple because they have money.
<
p>
Fourth, “provide the widest possible diversity of information sources and services to the public.” I think you are misinterpeting the word “diversity” to mean to the most people. I read this as diversity of programing. In other words, a Verizon can’t decide not to carry el telemundo because they don’t like hispanic people or not to carry BET because they don’t like black people.
<
p>
Like I said, I don’t see anything in your post that would justify forcing a private company to make decisions that are not sound economically.
<
p>
2. “to make available, to ALL the people . . . ” So Verizon is discriminating not on the basis of wealth but on the basis of wealth. Great. Wonderful. How you square that with the “all the people” language must make for smart politics. Try selling that to local councils or Ed Markey.
<
p>
3. “requiring Verizon to install the lines to the entire town is not encouraging growth.” So more physical lines, greater broadband penetration, and increased network effects do not amount to growth? Interesting economic theory.
<
p>
You’re conflating “growth and development of cable systems” with “needs and interests of the local community.” Correctly read, the Congressional statute (not “FCC rule”) reads as follows: “establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems AND [establish franchise procedures and standards] which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.” Thus, the “needs and interests” concern the “franchise procedures and standards,” not the “growth and development of cable systems.” Having statewide or nation-wide franchise requirements do not “assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.”
<
p>
“Installing the lines where there is no ‘needs and interests . . . ‘ is not a good business decision.” Okay. If you say so. But this is not the sole Congressional consideration. I won’t repeat this argument.
<
p>
“If the local communities happen to be the more affluent so be it. It would still be discrimination if you prevented offering the service to rich people simple because they have money.”
So somehow this economic discrimination is not okay whereas the one above is? Besides, if a town refuses to grant Verizon a franchise because they won’t build out, no one will get service – rich, middle class, or poor. Thus, no economic discrimination.
<
p>
4. “‘provide the widest possible diversity of information sources and services to the public.’ I think you are misinterpeting the word “diversity” to mean to the most people. I read this as diversity of programing. In other words, a Verizon can’t decide not to carry el telemundo because they don’t like hispanic people or not to carry BET because they don’t like black people.”
<
p>
I’m fully aware that diversity of information sources and services means what it says. But what do you think happens if Verizon sells its services to no one but the wealthy? There won’t be much of a need to carry, say, BET or Telemundo. So, in effect, diversity of programming would suffer because of a paucity of consumer diversity.
Just a couple of quick things because we appeal to just be going in circles, both staying by our opinions.
<
p>
2. Offering a service to people who want and can pay for the service is not descriminating against people who can’t afford and/or don’t want the service. I square the line “all the people” in that it does not mean you have to give it to every single person in the country, it means you can’t refuse service to people based on “race, color, religion, national origin, or sex”.
<
p>
3. No it is not economic growth if you are forcing the company to do it. If it is econimically driven (i.e. customers who want and can afford the service) it is economic growth. That is pretty simple econimic theory.
<
p>
I do not agree that I am incorrectly combinding the economic growth and needs and interest sections. More importantly, I don’t see anything here that would require the installation of lines in areas where they are not economically viable.
<
p>
In response to the economic descrimination arguements, my point in this arguement was that descrimination works both ways. If you prevent people who can afford a service from getting it because there are people who can’t afford the service then you are discriminating against the people who can afford it (even if that means no one in the town gets the service). Again, economics should decide this and social policy does not need to be added into this decision making process.
<
p>
4. “There won’t be much of a need to carry, say, BET or Telemundo. So, in effect, diversity of programming would suffer because of a paucity of consumer diversity.” So there are no wealthy black or hispanic people? There are no wealthy white people that want to watch BET or Telemundo? OK, sounds like a kind of bigoted statement to me. For myself, I am a white male and watch both of those channels from time to time. They have really hot chicks on Telemundo in skimpy outfits.
In Illinois, where they’re battling with a Chicago suburb over whether their fiber service constitutes “cable service,” for which they would need franchise approval (and to abide with “build out” requirements). This has generated litigation, which they’re now using to show that the towns are stubbornly standing in the way of real competition and lower prices.
<
p>
See this article for more on ATT’s ugly tactics: http://arstechnica.c…
We approved Verizon recently in Tyngsboro. They’re sneaky, they tried to define their “cable system” as being strictly the coaxial cables so that in 2 years when they start running the picture over fiber, we’re not regulating their cable system at all. Lots of tricky stuff like that, our lawyer (we retained a specialist) had seen it all before and we wound up settling right where we all knew we would at the beginning.
<
p>
The key part of these contracts is most of the time the town manages to extract a small percentage of gross revenue to run the public access TV station, pay a media director, buy editing equipment, etc. If it wasn’t for that specific earmarked revenue, Tyngsboro might have eliminated our program by now in the face of all the other layoffs and reductions we’ve had to endure.
<
p>
If the state licensing mechanism had fair provisions for towns and didn’t morph into legislative campaign contributions substistuting for Public Educational Programming funds, I’d be ok with it. And don’t let them sneak in any provisions about not having to service those “hard to reach” areas either. They should take a good hard look at all of the licenses granted over the state in the past year. Build those into a set of standard terms and give towns the option to yes/no vote the standard terms on a cable company’s way in and that would be fair to municipalities. As long as we’re not just getting kicked in the teeth again, I can see efficiencies in avoiding every town having to pay counsel while Verizon’s lawyers criss-cross the state making the same deal over and over again.