AT&T, Verizon get holiday gift from FCC: ruling eases IPTV regulations
By Cyrus Farivar 
posted December 22nd 2006 4:49AM
posted December 22nd 2006 4:49AM
On Wednesday the FCC handed down a new ruling that will make it easier for telecom providers to roll out IPTV services, which would bypass traditional cable company offerings. The commission voted 3-2 that AT&T and Verizon shouldn't have "unreasonable conditions" imposed on them by local municipalities whose rules often differ from one city to the next. However, the two dissenting Democrats cited the fact that it may become more difficult for municipalities to require providing public access to television channels over the internet. Further, these same commissioners remained concerned that the phone companies would select more affluent neighborhoods over lower class ones because the new ruling eliminates the long-standing policy that the same level of service must be offered to all residents in a given area. Based on those arguments and others, the new ruling is likely to be challenged in court and possibly by Congress; Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who will be heading the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in January, will also be checking whether or not this falls under the FCC's purview. In other words, it ain't over until that fat bandwidth pipe really sings. [Via Slashdot]
Read - Ars Technica
Read - The Washington Post
Read - Los Angeles Times
I'm for anything that gives Cable companies some decent competition. I have to pay $50/mo just for the basic cable package with Time Warner. No pay channels, no movie channels, etc. All I want are the standard cable channels that have been around forever.
If phone companies can give me a better price I'll jum pon their band wagon in a second and tell TW to go screw themselves.
It is about time the government ensured the rules are the same for all companies. We can now see cutting edge IP based services, like Video, High Speed Internet and Voice from ATT and Verizon without the unfair laws and regulations. Sign me up. :D
You guys aren't seeing the full picture. As Ed Markey points out, now IPTV companies can choose to only give IPTV to certain areas, and don't think that they won't use that to their advantage.
As with so very, very many things in life, the answer is less government. Stop making retarded rules about who can do what with their services and let capitalism sort it for you. If AT&T offers a better service than Comcast, more people will buy it. If Time Warner does better, they will get money -- this is not fucking rocket science. And I'm sick and God-damned tired of pols acting like TV is a fundamental human right -- if it's not economically viable to run high-end, high-bandwidth fiber into a low-income neighborhood, maybe there's a reason for that (e.g. people will not buy enough services to recover the investment). And if they are forced to do it, and take a loss, who makes up for it? Do they say, "Sorry stockholders, you don't get any money this year." Fuck no, they charge you and me more for our packages to cover the difference. I still can't believe how many people lack even the most fundamental understanding of economics -- and how many of those people have made it into the U.S. Congress.
Screw Time Warner. Verizon FiOS is the best service ever! I get 180 digital tv channels, 5mb internet, and phone for about $100 a month. I was playing $50 alone to Time Warner just for their sorry internet which goes out in the rain, and don't even get me started on peak usage hours. I'll be lucky to get 4mb when it's 4pm.
Plus FiOS is a free installation, they set up my computer and everything for me. And the tech were really friendly and professional.
"As with so very, very many things in life, the answer is less government. Stop making retarded rules about who can do what with their services and let capitalism sort it for you."
Well . . . when Congress deregulated cable pricing in 1998, and immediatley cable companies began a steady rise of their rates (upwards of 80%). In the few areas where telcos have introduced video services, prices have remained virtually the same as cable services(just another way of saying 'competitive'). So if you want unregulated capitalism - you're going to pay dearly for it! And it's not about 'less government' - it's about 'good' government - something few of us remember anymore.
As for the Telcos. The FCC ruled in 1993 that they could start offering video services. Since then, they have received an estimated 200 billion in government subsidies and tax abatements and now they want major legislative concessions before they start offering their services.
The bottom line is that the telcos do not want to compete with the cable companies under the same video franchising rules that cable companies currently operate under. Instead the Telcos want greater concessions from local, state and the federal government. These concessions include the near elimination of public, educational and governmental access channels - and the elimination of support for institutional networks (that tie hospitals, libries and local governments together). And finally, no enforcable policies on economic red-lining within communities they service. Lastly - net neutrality - the telcos don't want it defined and the FCC complied. In fact, the FCC ruling gave the telcos everything they wanted, in a 3-2 republican-democratic vote.