4 ms·
What happens in the US is that municipalities will sign exclusivity agreements with certain companies (Comcast, AT&T, TWC) to encourage them to lay down the inf
by dguaraglia 12y ago
What happens in the US is that municipalities will sign exclusivity agreements with certain companies (Comcast, AT&T, TWC) to encourage them to lay down the infrastructure.
Imagine you are the mayor of Podunk, Arkansas and you want your constituents to have access to high speed internet. AT&T and Comcast won't rush to lay cables to your town because there's simply not enough business for them to compete for. So, as mayor of Podunk give AT&T an exclusivity agreement for 20 years in exchange for them laying down the infrastructure today.
The problem is obvious: now AT&T doesn't have any competition and they can do whatever they want with their prices. Your population is hostage to the exclusivity agreement for the next 20 years.
One possible solution for this problem would be the government to build the infrastructure and then invite companies to compete for it's usage. That's what happens in UK and other countries.
- rayiner 12y agoGranting exclusive franchises for cable have been illegal under federal law since 1992.
- stonogo 12y agoWhile true, your statement is completely irrelevant, as is that section of the law to which you refer. Local governments simply switched to leasing right-of-way access; cable companies now simply pay for exclusive access to that, instead of exclusive control of a given franchise area.
- rayiner 12y agoI don't know where you're getting that from. That is explicitly prohibited by 47 U.S.C. 253(a): "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." See: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7PgFYb5oASejoDwAQ&url=http://www.ctrc.maryland.gov/articles/pdf/Effect_on_Broadband_Deployment.pdf&cd=7&ved=0CCsQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFRz09nyLt0GFcF1V7JjkD0ynhKwQ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7Pg.... Section III(A). The NTIA has a 50-state survey of right of way laws here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7PgFYb5oASejoDwAQ&url=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/statelocalrow.html&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNF3tJ0t8xc34iXN5KMyx3jOJdpjXQ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7Pg...
- stonogo 12y agoIt is explicitly prohibited and done all the time. Investigate the current situation with Baltimore, Maryland regarding its Comcast franchise as an example of how these things are still a problem, despite Congress' attempts to prevent it. The executive summary here is that the laws you cite protect some services without protecting other services that may commonly be bundled. In the Baltimore situation I mentioned, only Comcast can provide cable TV. Verizon won't roll FiOS out to most of the city, because they wouldn't be able to sell television services alongside the internet and telephone services. It's rumored this also prevented Google Fiber from considering Baltimore as a target market. So, while the letter of the law agrees with you, that any entity can provide service, the city has signed an agreement with Comcast that makes it financial suicide to attempt it. It is not enough to parse the laws; you must also understand how they interact with the actual actions taken by real governments.
- rayiner 12y agoIts funny you mention Baltimore. I researched the issue extensively because I'm moving there in a month. Baltimore's agreement with Comcast is non-exclusive for television service: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-09-21/news/0409210094_1_county-council-baltimore-county-franchise-agreement http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-09-21/news/0409210094_.... The reason Verizon doesn't offer television service in Baltimore is because it doesn't have a cable TV franchise from the city. The reason it doesn't have one is not because Comcast's contract is exclusive, but because the city won't give Verizon one unless they agree to build out FiOS to the whole city. Verizon won't do that because it makes no financial sense to build fiber everywhere in a city where a quarter of the population is at or below the poverty line. It dramatically increases their cost per actual subscriber, which is already iffy for FiOS to begin with. Verizon hsd built internet service only to a few high end communities, something that doesn't require a city-wide franchise. Google won't enter Baltimore for the same reason Verizon won't. Google does not agree to build out requirements for Google Fiber. They demand the right to only build fiber in neighborhoods where enough people sign up to justify it: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/05/google_fibers_portland_deal_wo.html http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/05/g....
- steanne 12y agoalso, when AT&T wires up Podunk, they connect the government and school buildings for free.
- dguaraglia 12y agoAh, true! Forgot to mention that.
- sliverstorm 12y agoCoincidentally, the upside to having the Post Office in the letter-delivery business. They deliver to Podunk, Arkansas where a private company could easily decide it just wasn't worthwhile.