Slashdot Log In
Time Warner Wins Ohio-Wide Cable Franchise
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Dec 16, 2007 02:48 PM
from the bye-bye-local-access dept.
from the bye-bye-local-access dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Time Warner Cable has received a state-wide franchise agreement in Ohio. Time Warner's agreement covers 260 communities in 60 of Ohio's 88 counties, for 10 years. AT&T was the first to earn a state-wide franchise contract, after a law was passed in September that allowed operators to negotiate a single state-wide agreement. In the past operators negotiated franchise agreements at the local level."
Related Stories
Submission: Time Warner Cable Wins State-Wide Cable Franchise by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
"On June 25, 2007, Governor Ted Strickland signed Senate Bill 117, which created the one-stop, statewide video-service authorization process. Previously, cable or wire video-service companies had to negotiate local franchises with each municipality or township."
This isn't a state sanctioned monopoly, it is authorization to operate within the state. Previously, there was no mechanism for video services to operate at the state level since the were no real laws dictating any boundaries for them to operate in so they had to get authorization from and make contracts with individual municipalities so that they could actually operate their business. The state, decided that working with hundreds/thousands of townships/cities was asinine so they created a statewide authorization with some of the more strict rules that many municipalities imposed on the companies.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately, I'm lucky enough to be in a rural area with this excellent local phone company which has just started laying fiber all around town (which provides IPTV). Time Warner has sent a drone to my house three times trying to switch me to their shitty service. One of them actually claimed that I wouldn't be a
Re: (Score:2)
On a more serious note, what part of Ohio are you in? I'm currently about an hour south of Columbus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Chillicothe at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explanation, please? (Score:2)
Re:Explanation, please? (Score:5, Informative)
It's called "removing control at the local level, and moving it to people easier to reach to bribe". Traditionally, cable franchises (the right to do business in a market) are granted at a local municipality level. Cable operators are required to list on their bills the contact information for the market's franchising authority. This is so consumers can complain to them about service from the provider.
Because this office (which is usually connected to the local government) is the one who decides whether a cable company gets to stay in business in an area, as well as grant additional licenses to new providers, they are an important enemy to cable companies in individual areas. If a cableco was providing very poor services, the franchising office could grant a second company to provide services on their own overbuilt cable network to provide competition, or could simply pull/not renew the license of the original operator, forcing them to sell the market to another provider (this is more likely in small towns were more people may be on satellite or there are multiple cablecos located nearby).
With a statewide license, this sort of stuff isn't going to happen. Because obviously the state government is not going to kick a cableco out of all Ohio over problems in Tinytown, OH. Whereas before, the licensing board for Tinytown (the mayor, treasurer, and postmaster) might have done something about it.
The TFA (which is really just a state press release) says this is being done to promote penetration of broadband service in the state. Unless there are actual terms in the agreement that Time-Warner will service areas of __ population density or greater that's not going to happen. Time Warner will continue to push access in large cities, and let older rural cable networks degrade, confident they can still hold the market for 10 years at least.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T is not a cable company last time I checked. U-Verse is only available in limited areas, in other parts AT&T has agreements with satellite providers to provide the "video" portion of the coveted "triple play". Will any other cable companies be allowed in Ohio under this agreement? Are there any other cable companies right no
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, Wideopenwest [wowway.com] is available in some areas. I call them about once every two months to see if they have service in my neighborhood. I had them in the place I lived about 5 miles from where I am now. They were great. The service worked almost all the time, and when it didn't they always tried to be helpful about getting it fixed. For broadband, you bought (or rented from them) your cablemodem, so you had a choice to buy something decent and not get stuck w
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might really do have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the type of technology used to deliver service does matter to many consumers. There are people who want high-speed internet but have their issues with DSL or Cable Modem service. Same with preferences of satellite verses cable for video. If the results of this agreement lower the number of cablecos in a areas where there a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, AT&T is not a cable company. It is actually you who is incorrect, as I will show in a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is where it becomes truly horrific: you're looking in a mirror. See my other reply to you, especially the last link.
Nope, really wrong this time. Once again, see other reply. I'm the customer your bosses hate because because I want too little.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, this may lead to lower prices for consumers. After the trust busters went after Standard Oil, the price of gasoline went up. Not because Rockefeller was mad that he lost, but because now profits had to be made at every step of the process, where before it was much easier to run some processes at cost, as long as the company showed a profit at
Re: (Score:2)
Time-Warner wont overbuild. Today its cheaper to buy an existing cable company out instead of build one from scratch. Plus, I don't know how this effects the current providers already in the market. It may nullify their existing agreements, requiring them to leave. If not Time-Warner can purchase them now without worrying if the local franchising authorit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since you have all the answers, why don't you tell us how long the current franchise agreements in Ohio are good for then, because my guess is not long. Certainly not longer than 10 years, which means sooner or later everyone who doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the "Plain Old Text" setting is for on the reply form. I use it for all my replies. You can change it in the preferences so it defaults to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for me. The morning gets more call volume judging my the logs. If there's a shortage of reps on the phones in the evening, it might be due to difficulties staffing the night shift proper
"State-wide" agreement? (Score:4, Informative)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Rob
What the hell? (Score:2)
It really could be much worse (Score:2)
Utility monopolies are the norm in the US. Get over it. What is definitely needed, though, is a utility commission that actually regulates t
Not exclusive! Not monopoly! (Score:4, Informative)
I did a quick check of TFA and could not find the word "exclusive". So quit your whining about "monopoly" this and monopoly that.
If you're going to insist on anti-corporate whining, at least whine about the right reason. FTFA: "Previously, cable or wire video-service companies had to negotiate local franchises with each municipality or township." This merely prevents them from having to individually deal with every little rural hick town and arrogant bedroom community in the state, some of which may indeed have already negotiated exclusive "monopoly" deals with another provider.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Previously, Time Warner (or whoever) would come to a "little rural hick town" (fuck you too, by the way) and have to negotiate with the community leaders. Maybe they'd be required to offer a few channel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not exclusive! Not monopoly! (Score:5, Interesting)
In that instance individual town licenses were a barrier to competition, not an encouragement for it. Somehow the state senators and reps in RI grew big enough balls to tell their local piddly town governments to screw off and they just gave Verizon a state-wide license. Result? Statewide fios deployment in RI.
Verizon's looking to do the same thing right now in Massachusetts. Each town wanted a bigger bribe than the last just to be able to offer fiber optic internet service to the residents. So this past summer, fed up with greedy local governments, Verizon pulled out of all local negotiations in progress and has announced they won't be applying for anymore. They want a state-wide license like time-warner just got here in Ohio and like Verizon already has in RI. Until they get it, no more fios expansion to any new towns in Mass.
There, so now that that's out there now try and tell me how a state-wide franchise is going to hold back progress any more than the old town-by-town franchise scheme. I know Telco companies aren't the epitome of business ethics and they could be upgrading their networks a lot faster but these local town governments aren't exactly making it easy.
Parent
Re:Not exclusive! Not monopoly! (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank you, I was beginning to wonder if I had wandered into bizarro-land or something! I cannot for the life of me fathom the negative reaction to this. Wisconsin is currently passing a similar bill, and I am 100% in favor of it. Previously, when a new provider wanted to enter a community, they wouldn't be able to, because some other cable company was granted an exclusive contract for that community.
Now, if Time Warner wants to compete with Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, or whomever else, they can. They get the statewide contract, and no more messing around with local politicos with delusions of grandeur. It levels the playing field so that anyone can compete.
There's a reason that the cable companies have been running a campaign against such bills... they don't want to have to compete. They like the cushy exclusive local contracts because it means they only have to worry about actually doing enough of their job to make it look good every few years when the contract comes up for renewal... then pay off enough politicians to get them to either be in favor of the new contract without even reading it, or better yet, be 'sick' on the day it's up for renewal.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Less than the summary implies (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, "The Director does not have any authority, however, to regulate the rates, terms or conditions of a provider's service - including the networks or television stations that the video-service company decides to carry", so it is not clear if this "authorization" has much meaningful effect.
What this really means (Score:5, Informative)
Time Warner has merely been granted, or has renewed, permission to provide cable in these areas. In exchange, these localities will charge Time Warner a fee per subscriber for the privilege of serving these communities. Franchise agreements almost always contain language regarding quality of service, customer compensation in the event of a missed appointment, and other requirements.
A franchise agreement is not a monopoly in and of itself. A franchise agreement is neither inherently good nor evil; it is a business contract much like any other. Any other company is welcome to petition City Hall or the state government for a franchise for these same areas. It is up to the state and local governments to decide who can provide service, and who can not. You may have read about Verizon and AT&T getting their wrists slapped for installing their product in a few area where they did not have a franchise. The affected town governments were not upset at the increased competition; rather, they wanted Verizon and AT&T to pay their cut!
This law regarding statewide franchises will benefit local entities as well as TV providers. Negotiating franchise agreements with every little town in the county is often a long, drawn-out tedious affair. Some small town governments have refused to allow other companies to start providing a competing service. You can't blame the industry itself for monopolism in these cases. Now, a single agreement will provide access to these towns while TW, AT&T, the 2 major satellite companies, and any other companies with a franchise all compete. 4 major players, all providing ESPN, et al...I personally fail to see the monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
There's another aspect, though. One thing localities are worried about is cherry-picking. Most of the local franchise agreements have a clause in them requiring the company to provide service to everyone in the area served. This prevents companies from wiring up only the most profitable areas and leaving less-desirable portions of the city (eg. poor neighborhoods or outlying areas with low density) without any service at all. The state-wide franchise agreement doesn't contain any such clause. This would all
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the local franchise agreements have a clause in them requiring the company to provide service to everyone in the area served. This prevents companies from wiring up only the most profitable areas and leaving less-desirable portions of the city (eg. poor neighborhoods or outlying areas with low density) without any service at all.
In other words, you want state sponsored socialism of service. You may not realize it, but that's exactly what you're asking for. It costs big money to lay down copper/fiber as it's a long term investment that takes years to pay off. What you call "cherry picking" is capitalism at it's finest. That is of course, if the state and/or city will allow for parallel communication service providers (competition) to occur per district. As such, they shouldn't be forced to cover every single human habitation be it
Good job you chaps won the cold war. (Score:2)
Otherwise people would have no choice in where they bought their services. And they would have to queue for food [bbc.co.uk].
Ain't capitalism great!
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't somebody in jail over shit like this?
How is a monopoly granted by the state any different than a monopoly put together one city at a time?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I hate when socialist-leaning people talk about the failure of "the free market". What free market? Maybe "the free market" is as illusional as true communism as a goal, but I think working towards a free market is less harmful than working towards true communism.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is not a socialist breakdown of the free market, it's exactly what happens in free markets with no regulation - the move towards monopolies. That's always where the most profit can be extracted. Every commercial organisation wants to increase its market share and reduce that of its competitors. This is exactly why markets need regulation - regulation which demands competition and restricts firms for growing into
Re: (Score:2)
Another example is energy, oil companies are so large that if someone enters the market that can produce the product as well, the oil company can simply buy out the new produc
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't. I never said it was. Exclusive right to any part of a market, no matter how small, is wrong on a fundamental level, and actually goes against the idea of a free market. Where there is no competition, there IS no free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially better for competition, not worse.... (Score:5, Informative)
Before this law, cablecos & telcos who wanted to provide service would have to negotiate (and pay kickbacks) to each and every locality. Now, they can do it all at once.
This way, there's only one big authorization (and one big kickback!) and a competitor can start rolling out service in the entire state. No seperate deals required for Cleveland and Canton and--whoops, Cincinnati has signed an exclusive agreement with another provider, so we can't roll it out there...
Now, this doesn't change the fact that there are all sorts of other barriers to entry...but it does help with some of the red tape.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even granting franchises on a city by city basis doesn't guarantee competition. Once one operator goes in an area and picks off all the easy business, nobody else can afford to pick up the crumbs.
What this may mean (if written correctly) is that Time Warner, AT&T, whomever, will have to provide uniform terms of service throughout the territory. At least that's the way I'd write an agreem
Mod Parent back up. (Score:2)
This is how the "free market" works, eh? You scratch my back I scratch yours? Is this a spillover from Reaganomics?
If you were union, you were broken in any way possible.