3 ms·

All such agreements are non-exclusive, by law, as you pointed out. It is fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout and public-acc

by stonogo 12y ago

All such agreements are non-exclusive, by law, as you pointed out. It is fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout and public-access channel service in exchange for certain amenities the local government can provide. In the case of Google Fiber, they chose not to pursue a TV franchise and Baltimore was smart enough to stick to their buildout requirements. It has the same effect: Google can't sell TV service on terms it likes, so Baltimore is not a market. In the case of FiOS, it's far more likely that Verizon would like to have -- and could not get -- a piecemeal franchise in the city, and simply decided that not being able to sell TV meant it was more cost-effective to try selling 4G access as broadband in the city. In either case, Comcast signed a buildout/franchise agreement, and the economy has shifted since then to render such agreements less profitable. That, combined with Comcast's boilerplate 'most favored nation' clauses it generally gets into their agreements, renders all of your arguments moot, as far as the end result for the populace goes: there is only one game in town. The fact that it technically shouldn't be that way is just academic. The Sun article you linked regards Baltimore County. Baltimore is not in Baltimore County. I wish you better luck with your future research.

rayiner 12y ago
Give me a break, they both signed agreements in 2004 and I posted that at 2am... This page has excerpts from the city's franchise agreement with Comcast. As you can see, it's non-exclusive: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/FranchiseAgreement/FranchiseAgreement.html http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/Franc.... This directly contradicts your assertion claim that Baltimore gave Comcast an exclusive franchise for television. > It is fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout and public-access channel service in exchange for certain amenities the local government can provide. In the case of Google Fiber, they chose not to pursue a TV franchise and Baltimore was smart enough to stick to their buildout requirements. It is fairly universal, but it is also what suppresses competition in the market. Verizon and Google won't touch those terms with a 10-foot pole. Its not smart of Baltimore to stick to those requirements, because it means people in Baltimore won't get fiber. > That, combined with Comcast's boilerplate 'most favored nation' clauses it generally gets into their agreements, renders all of your arguments moot, as far as the end result for the populace goes: there is only one game in town. The fact that it technically shouldn't be that way is just academic. Sure, there is one game in town, but my argument isn't about that. Your claim, an oft-repeated bit of misinformation, is that cities get around 253(a) by granting exclusive right of way to certain providers. Or maybe your claim is that cities get around 253(a) by granting exclusive franchises for television to a single provider. The implication is that a competitor is legally precluded from entering the market. However, the reality is that cities don't do those things. What they do instead is succumb to class warfare politics, and make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors. The question is: who is to blame. People on HN like to make it seem like cable companies negotiated themselves sweetheart exclusive deals. But the reality is that municipalities are to blame. Between the build out requirements and random cash grabs for public access, cities put up massive roadblocks to potential competition. Only the incumbents are willing to put up with them. The bottom line is that companies like Verizon and Google are ready and willing to build fiber in places like Baltimore. But the city won't let them unless they agree to ridiculous terms. The fact that even Google refuses to agree to such nonsense in Fiber cities should tell you who is at fault here.
- stonogo 12y ago
  I'm very sorry if you feel I've attempted to mislead you, but the end result is the same: in most US cities, there is only one television provider, and it's always one that has negotiated a favorable contract with the local government. I know you don't think this is possible, that it's been outlawed, and that you're prepared to spend your life asserting that there is no way for a government to cause an exclusive franchise to exist, but there is, and they do. In my city, for example, the government just outright sold land to Time-Warner. Time-Warner doesn't pay for access to the right-of-way because they don't have to any more. In return, my city (and the county it's in) got fiber rolled out city wide. I'm also unsure why you think that a simple business decision by Google is some sort of Moral Designator. It is the job of a city government to protect the less fortunate. They're not going to achieve that by letting corporations serve rich neighborhoods and ignore poor ones. I'm not sure how a city can "make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors" by holding them to the same terms as the existing franchisees. I'm not really interested in having some kind of politically-charged debate with you about it, and now that you're throwing around phrases like 'class warfare,' I've realized you don't have any other actual motivation here. Sorry to have wasted your time on the matter.

by stonogo 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Give me a break, they both signed agreements in 2004 and I posted that at 2am... This page has excerpts from the city's franchise agreement with Comcast. As you can see, it's non-exclusive: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/FranchiseAgreement/FranchiseAgreement.html http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/Franc.... This directly contradicts your assertion claim that Baltimore gave Comcast an exclusive franchise for television. > It is fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout and public-access channel service in exchange for certain amenities the local government can provide. In the case of Google Fiber, they chose not to pursue a TV franchise and Baltimore was smart enough to stick to their buildout requirements. It is fairly universal, but it is also what suppresses competition in the market. Verizon and Google won't touch those terms with a 10-foot pole. Its not smart of Baltimore to stick to those requirements, because it means people in Baltimore won't get fiber. > That, combined with Comcast's boilerplate 'most favored nation' clauses it generally gets into their agreements, renders all of your arguments moot, as far as the end result for the populace goes: there is only one game in town. The fact that it technically shouldn't be that way is just academic. Sure, there is one game in town, but my argument isn't about that. Your claim, an oft-repeated bit of misinformation, is that cities get around 253(a) by granting exclusive right of way to certain providers. Or maybe your claim is that cities get around 253(a) by granting exclusive franchises for television to a single provider. The implication is that a competitor is legally precluded from entering the market. However, the reality is that cities don't do those things. What they do instead is succumb to class warfare politics, and make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors. The question is: who is to blame. People on HN like to make it seem like cable companies negotiated themselves sweetheart exclusive deals. But the reality is that municipalities are to blame. Between the build out requirements and random cash grabs for public access, cities put up massive roadblocks to potential competition. Only the incumbents are willing to put up with them. The bottom line is that companies like Verizon and Google are ready and willing to build fiber in places like Baltimore. But the city won't let them unless they agree to ridiculous terms. The fact that even Google refuses to agree to such nonsense in Fiber cities should tell you who is at fault here.

stonogo 12y ago
I'm very sorry if you feel I've attempted to mislead you, but the end result is the same: in most US cities, there is only one television provider, and it's always one that has negotiated a favorable contract with the local government. I know you don't think this is possible, that it's been outlawed, and that you're prepared to spend your life asserting that there is no way for a government to cause an exclusive franchise to exist, but there is, and they do. In my city, for example, the government just outright sold land to Time-Warner. Time-Warner doesn't pay for access to the right-of-way because they don't have to any more. In return, my city (and the county it's in) got fiber rolled out city wide. I'm also unsure why you think that a simple business decision by Google is some sort of Moral Designator. It is the job of a city government to protect the less fortunate. They're not going to achieve that by letting corporations serve rich neighborhoods and ignore poor ones. I'm not sure how a city can "make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors" by holding them to the same terms as the existing franchisees. I'm not really interested in having some kind of politically-charged debate with you about it, and now that you're throwing around phrases like 'class warfare,' I've realized you don't have any other actual motivation here. Sorry to have wasted your time on the matter.