Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Networking Media Television Your Rights Online

Time Warner Wins Ohio-Wide Cable Franchise 155

Posted by kdawson 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time Warner Wins Ohio-Wide Cable Franchise More

Time Warner Wins Ohio-Wide Cable Franchise

Comments Filter:

  • well (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frosty-B-Bad ( 259317 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:52PM (#21719090) Homepage
    I for one love less choice!
    • I'm not sure why this is considered "news" for nerds. This happened two months ago in Illinois when AT&T was given a statewide TV franchise in order to compete with Comcast, RCN, and others. Does this mean we're going to see 48 more of these stories on Slashdot as the concept spreads across the rest of the country? Talk about a waste of bandwidth.
      • "Does this mean we're going to see 48 more of these stories on Slashdot"

        No, now that they have moved it up to the 'state' level, they are going to push it up to the next level. So, there will be one more story, where some company will be given the US-wide right to provide cable service, to provide uniformly poor cable service to everyone in any kind of a population center. If you happen to live outside of a population center [namely outside of an incorporated city, or inside an incorporated city with fewe

        • you will be required to settle for over-the-air reception only.
          I already get more HD channels over for the air for free than I do from Comcast for $14.99/month, so I'm not too worried.
        • Why would you think Fox News watching was the reasoning behind this? The state recently (2006) went from republican control to democrat control. Gov' Ted seems to be behind this too.

          My biggest question is, would this be a franchise in the traditional terms of only being one person in the market or it this a newer franchise in the sense that it can operate in the jurisdiction? It might be that it isn't a move to limit cable operations to one specific company but as a way to get competition in the door easier

        • Bizarrely, everyone will find that they receive FoxNews with the clearest, best reception, and that all other channels seem to have more snow...

          It's disturbing that Time Warner would block it's own news services while making sure everyone will get it's competitor FoxNew clear. Perhaps I should file a shareholder resolution to stop this and if that doesn't work file a lawsuit against the board of directors for not exercising fiducial responsibility.

          Falcon

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by theskipper ( 461997 )
      The married slashdotters are always easy to spot.

    • Re:well (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:34PM (#21719482)
      From the article:

      "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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by afidel ( 530433 )
        Yeah and now everyone will be screwed. The local franchise agreement is the only reason I got cable internet access in a timely manner. Adelphia was in be-acquired mode and wasn't about to put any expenses on the books but our city council put pressure on them to live up to the terms of their franchise agreement and finish the rollout on time. If it weren't for the franchise agreement we would have been screwed and had no broadband for at least a year or two because TW wouldn't have done the rollout right a

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jbeaupre ( 752124 )
        Yes, but sit back and enjoy as everyone talks about monopolies, lack of competition, etc. As I understand it, the law actually does the opposite. Now the phone company can start to roll out tv services. Yes, there is a plan by some to use this law to do just that.

    • I, for one... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kamokazi ( 1080091 )
      ...hate living in Ohio. So far this year, they've given my SSN away to crooks, gave the guy that lost it less than a slap on the wrist, then wasted taxpayer money on a 'fix' for it, and now this.

      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
      • Look at it this way - The year's almost over :P

        On a more serious note, what part of Ohio are you in? I'm currently about an hour south of Columbus.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sanat ( 702 )
          I'm near Burr Oak... no cell phone service yet. don't own a TV. Most people here use DirectTV that do own own one.
        • From a little town called Celina, about 2 hours NW of Columbus up US 33...I've got a good friend who lives in C-bus, I go there fairly regularly...mostly to watch the Blue Jackets lose (although they're doing a little better this year). www.wabash.com is the website for the local telco with fiber (they're in an even smaller town to our west)...they currently have about 15% of the town covered, planned to be 85% in three years (and the seem to be on track). I'm getting a nice 7 down 2 up connection for $45
      • ... don't always like Ohio politics and the stupidity of certain people in this state, but generally it's not as bad as you're making it out to be in this particular situation. C'mon, the kid that lost all the SSNs was a DeVry student working for an incompetent fool. The guy that needed the royal beatdown was his supervisor, but obviously that never happened because of politics. Or maybe I'm just jaded on the incredibly poor general leadership of the state that we've had for the past 8 years... hopefully St

    • I for one love less choice!

      Me too, except for in standards, where, of course, I want as much choice as possible.

  • I live in Columbus, and have never heard of this. I hate T/W, but they're the only cable option where I live. Can someone please explain in English what this means or provide a link to something more substantial? I RTFA (which is just a press release from the mouth pieces downtown) but don't understand what this is? It mentions "increased competition" - but does nothing to explain how that is achieved? AFAIK, I still don't have an option to switch to another cable provider, but I haven't called them in

    • Re:Explanation, please? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:12PM (#21719280)

      Can someone please explain in English what this means or provide a link to something more substantial? I RTFA (which is just a press release from the mouth pieces downtown) but don't understand what this is?


      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by dlenmn ( 145080 )
        I don't know the details of how things work in Ohio, but this may not be a 100% bad thing. In some areas local control results in only one cable company being allowed in a municipality. Removing local control eliminates the possibility of this monopoly -- according to TFA both Time Warner and AT&T are now allowed to do business in all areas of the state.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by SeaFox ( 739806 )

          Removing local control eliminates the possibility of this monopoly -- according to TFA both Time Warner and AT&T are now allowed to do business in all areas of the state.

          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)

            by horatio ( 127595 )
            Are there any other cable companies right now?

            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

            • Good luck getting T/W to acknowledge you have a problem that isn't somehow your fault.
              TW has been great when I want equipment replaced. No questions asked, no intense interrogation. Just "I think it's broke because of X", over the phone to see if they have any other suggestions, and then a quick swap.

              I think you might really do have a problem.

            • For broadband, you bought (or rented from them) your cablemodem, so you had a choice to buy something decent and not get stuck with some used/broken POS. Good luck getting T/W to acknowledge you have a problem that isn't somehow your fault.

              I had my ISP service through Time Warner, now ComCast, and once I started having trouble with my connection so I called TWC. I didn't have to wait more than 5 minutes to talk to a tech. He took me through some tests, which took a few more minutes, then he said the mo

          • Sorry to correct you on this obviously erroneous piece of information, but AT&T IS a cable company. In many markets, before they were acquired by either Comcast, CableVision, or Time Warner, AT&T's cable division (which by the way is called AT&T Broadband) acquired markets that were controlled by financially struggling companies like Intermedia, MediaOne, etc. and fixed what was wrong financially and then sold them off to larger companies at a profit. FYI, Comcast used to be in Ohio, but gave

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by SeaFox ( 739806 )

              Sorry to correct you on this obviously erroneous piece of information, but AT&T IS a cable company.

              I'm sorry, AT&T is not a cable company. It is actually you who is incorrect, as I will show in a bit.

              In many markets, before they were acquired by either Comcast, CableVision, or Time Warner, AT&T's cable division (which by the way is called AT&T Broadband) acquired markets that were controlled by financially struggling companies like Intermedia, MediaOne, etc. and fixed what was wrong financia

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by nolife ( 233813 )
        says this is being done to promote penetration of broadband service in the state

        Yeah. Just like the limiting of open access to cable lines was to increase broadband access, just like the long term contracts and monopoly status in areas were to increase broadband access. Just like promises of upgrades for certain tax breaks and rate increases were to increase broadband access.

        Cable and phone companies perpetual promise to deliver if... rinse, lather, and repeat.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grumling ( 94709 )
        And don't forget that it will allow TW cable to go into markets that they currently are not in, overbuild and squeeze the current provider out of business.

        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)

          by SeaFox ( 739806 )

          And don't forget that it will allow TW cable to go into markets that they currently are not in, overbuild and squeeze the current provider out of business.

          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

          • OMG, you really don't read industry papers and the fine print of bills that are passed, do you? The general language of statewide franchise agreements is worded so that local franchise agreements are not affected by the new law UNTIL their franchise agreements expire; at that time, then the local companies are subject to the new rules.

            Before continuing this discussion, would you please read the bill itself so that others don't have to break it down into kindergarten-level English for you and point out t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by SeaFox ( 739806 )

              OMG, you really don't read industry papers and the fine print of bills that are passed, do you? The general language of statewide franchise agreements is worded so that local franchise agreements are not affected by the new law UNTIL their franchise agreements expire;

              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

      • Easier to bribe? Not sure what country you are from, but all the local governments I've seen get more corrupt as the more local you go. Want to be a cop? Better know someone. Problem with our plumbing codes in our condo complex - town can't find the records and the building inspector quit after being charged with taking kick backs. At least at the state level they make more money and would require large bribes. I'm not saying officials at the state level are completely honest either (I am from NJ of

      • 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.

        I'm not neccesarily sure if that is a correct assessment. SBC which is now AT&T had a problem with their phone lines going to a facility I worked with. They kept blaming it on the phone system inst

  • "Time-Warner Buys Ohio-Wide Cable Monopoly"

    Why isn't somebody in jail over shit like this?

    • "Time-Warner Buys Ohio-Wide Cable Monopoly"

      Why isn't somebody in jail over shit like this?
      Because government fundamentally exists to facilitate commerce and the free market isn't so free.

      How is a monopoly granted by the state any different than a monopoly put together one city at a time?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by selfdiscipline ( 317559 )

        How is a monopoly granted by the state any different than a monopoly put together one city at a time?
        It's much less work (:

        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.

        • Yeah, I hate when socialist-leaning people talk about the failure of "the free market"

          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

          • 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.

            Many regulations create monopolies. When a regulation makes it hard if not impossible to enter a market then you have monopolies, duopolises, or otherwise are restricting competition and the market. One way to solve this is by having locals, whether they be a coop, city or county government, or nonprofit organization own the physical infrastructure and man

      • How is a monopoly granted by the state any different than a monopoly put together one city at a time?

        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)

      by grumling ( 94709 )
      Time Warner has a giant call center in Columbus.

  • "State-wide" agreement? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:58PM (#21719164) Journal
    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.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Rob
  • I cannot understand for the life of me why this is allowed, much less encouraged by the government. It's a state-sanctioned monopoly, pure and simple, and it's killing competition and forcing people to go with TW, which sucks shit. Just ask how well that Adelpia merger went and how well it's still going in their godawful email system. Seriously, what happened to the goddamned competition creating a more innovative market? Shit like this leads to stagnation, which is why cable internet still sucks ass when t
    • This is one of the rare cases when a state will sanction a monopoly because it more or less makes sense to. For every competitor, you're going to have another cable run through your town. It's the same reason you can't choose where you get your electricity from. Everyone saves money if we can have 1 wire rather than 10. Not sure if they can have multiple competing carriers running over the same length of coax (although they do it for internet where I live).

    • I cannot understand for the life of me why this is allowed, much less encouraged by the government. It's a state-sanctioned monopoly, pure and simple, and it's killing competition and forcing people to go with TW, which sucks shit.

      Did you RTFA? I know many /.ers don't read articles, so they miss out on what TFAs actually say. In this case it says that not only has TWC has applied for authorization, as has ATT, but that 8 other companies have too. Maybe it's not as many choices as some would like but i

  • You're boned.

    Welcome to less competition and more control over you the evil customer. I strongly suggest you voicing your outrage to your state government and getting others to also voice their outrage with promises to make sure they will not ge re-elected for what they did if they do not repeal it right away.

    Franchise agreements are how cable companies make sure they can have a legal way to force out competition. It helps the state and localities as they are offered a kickback to their coffers in a form o

    • Potentially better for competition, not worse.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Foerstner ( 931398 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:22PM (#21719376)
      This is not an exclusive arrangement.

      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.
    • No kidding. This reminds me of why I don't miss living in Ohio; the politics of that place suck. How anyone thinks instituting a monopoloy is a good idea is beyond me. It flies in this face of economic and common sense, hence, the Ohio government thinks it's A Good Thing.... idiots.

      • No kidding. This reminds me of why I don't miss living in Ohio; the politics of that place suck. How anyone thinks instituting a monopoloy is a good idea is beyond me. It flies in this face of economic and common sense, hence, the Ohio government thinks it's A Good Thing.... idiots.

        As it says nothing about granting an exclusive license it say nothing about being monopoly.

        Falcon
  • The first positive point of this is that AT&T didn't get any sort of exclusivity rule. If you think TW Cable is bad, try dealing with Ameritech^H SBC^H AT&T. Secondly, many of us are already stuck with TW Cable, so it won't get any worse. Although it's too bad for those areas that were previously covered by Cox Cable, which has a much better consumer reputation.

    Utility monopolies are the norm in the US. Get over it. What is definitely needed, though, is a utility commission that actually regulates t

    • The first positive point of this is that AT&T didn't get any sort of exclusivity rule. If you think TW Cable is bad, try dealing with Ameritech^H SBC^H AT&T. Secondly, many of us are already stuck with TW Cable, so it won't get any worse. Although it's too bad for those areas that were previously covered by Cox Cable, which has a much better consumer reputation.

      If Cox Cable provides good service and all the others offer horrible service why would any Cox customers switch? Or are you saying that

  • AT&T was the first to get a state-wide agreement in Ohio, so they could deploy their half-assed next-gen U-Verse. People in Lakewood are not happy. [lakewoodobserver.com]

  • Not exclusive! Not monopoly! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Megane ( 129182 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:16PM (#21719316)

    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)

      by ZombieRoboNinja ( 905329 )
      How about I insist on anti-corporate whining by pointing out that the state has basically just undermined local authorities' ability to negotiate better rates, service, etc. from Time Warner without the state actually getting negotiating power in return (except for the few bullet points in the press release)?

      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)

        by SEE ( 7681 )
        Previously, Time Warner (or whoever) would come to a local franchise authority and have to negotiate with the community leaders. These community leaders would then be bribed by the local cable monopoly, established before the 1996 Telecommunications Act outlawed exclusive franchises, to impose huge new franchise fees and onerous "community service" requirements. The goal was to drive off the interested competitor and maintain the old franchise's monopoly. No more! Now Ohio has done its citizens the great s
      • He wasn't insulting you; he was insulting the "little rural hick town" politicians that like to keep their rural towns little, and hick. Of course it's a generalization, but this new law doesn't forbid other companies from also offering services in those little towns. If the other companies are better at negotiating with the "little rural hick town" politicians to allow them to begin providing service to that town, then more power to them!! Both Time Warner and those other companies will start trying to out

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
        I'm in an Ohio town of about 25k people, everyone is migrating to satellite anyway. The only thing worth the cost from Time Warner is their 3-in-1 package of internet/phone/digital cable... until they randomly jack up the price and you realize that it's cheaper for satellite and you get many more channels that come standard.

      • It's still not exclusive therefore it's not a monopoly.

        Falcon

    • Re:Not exclusive! Not monopoly! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by potat0man ( 724766 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @04:11PM (#21719784)
      I think you're onto something here. Rhode Island passed something similar in the past year allowing Verizon to sell FiOS statewide without having to negotiate with each little town. What was happening before was Verizon would have to go kiss every little town selectman's ass handing over fist-fulls of money at a time just to have permission to offer FiOS tv and internet in their town. Negotiations were taking over a year in some instances and ended with Verizon handing over millions of dollars just to be able to offer people faster internet access.

      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.

    • Re:Not exclusive! Not monopoly! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LoadStar ( 532607 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @08:04PM (#21721344)

      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.

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by misanthrope101 ( 253915 )
        The reason is that people are just wrong about what the article means. At first blush, it looked like the company was getting a statewide monopoly. After further reading, it appears that the first impression was wrong. People can be wrong, and we have to credit each other with the ability to assimilate new facts and adjust our opinions accordingly. That generosity will sometimes be found to be unrealistic, and that's fine, but to have a conversation untained with acrimonious, contemptuous comments, we

  • Less than the summary implies (Score:5, Informative)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:24PM (#21719394) Journal
    There does not seem to be any exclusivity here, the press release notes that AT&T got the same authorization in November and eight other companies have applied for authorization.

    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.
    • I believe that the franchises will go under the control of the public utilities commission in ohio. While they aren't able to set rates and contract terms, they hold an awful lot of power in setting things right when a regulated company has wronged people. I seriously don't think the PUCO has been utilized enough by the people with their existing grievances.

      I know one person who got here $200 cell phone bill removed because when replacing a damaged phone, the company had her sign a new contract without info
  • I lived in Ohio for the last 4 years and I have to say, their cable sucks across the board. However after our cable company was bought out by Time Warner we saw improvements right away: We went from 4 HD channels to 20. Instead of waiting up to 4 weeks for a tech, they would come that day or at most 72 hours later. Our ondemand also gained lots of new free programming. I think Ohio could have done worse, I just hope that Time Warner continues to make changes to the basic infrastructure throughout Ohio even
    • I've been in Ohio for 8 years or so, and to be honest I've never had any problems with TW. No throttling of any sort, and when the techs came to install our broadband stuff rather than bitching that I had Linux (They officially only support Windows 'n Mac) they pointed me towards drivers for the wifi cards they gave us. With all the complaints I'm hearing about Comcast and the like I'm pretty happy. It'd be nice if I had another choice, though.
      • The only real problem I have with time warner is that they won't carry the buckeye games. TW was the only choice I had at one time, a tree on someone else's property blocked satellite choices for me. Now I live in an area that is only satellite and I have to complain that Time warn thinks it is too expensive to run a cable 200 yards to my house. That is all the further it is from the intersection where everyone else has cable and highspeed. luckily I can get highspeed from verizon which at 3 meg service is

  • What this really means (Score:5, Informative)

    by teebob21 ( 947095 ) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:48PM (#21719612) Journal
    Since very few ./ readers actually work in the cable or satellite industries, I can understand the boo-hooing and the "welcome to the evil government-sponsored monopoly" comments that have been posted so far. Let me explain what has actually happened here, and how franchising agreements work.

    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.
    • Finally!!!! Someone who either works in cable or satellite that understands what is going on so that we can explain it properly to all the little people who want to whine and complain even more about their service!!! Franchise agreements are not monopolies, they are just contractual agreements that cable and satellite companies use to pay for the privilege of providing you with your entertainment services!!!

    • 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

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Nope, simple utility rules. It's not in the interests of the municipality for some of it's citizens to not have telephone service or electricial service just because the telephone company or power company can't make as much of a profit in those areas as it'd like. Similarly, the municipality has decided that it's not in the public interest for cable television to be limited to only the most affluent neighborhoods just because the cable company finds that most profitable. This is why regulation exists, becau

    • I personally fail to see the monopoly.

      Because it appears you RTFA and understood it instead of just scanned the title. I bet most of those who have post about this being bad did not read the article.

      Falcon

  • 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!

  • Choice?...sounds un-American to me! People demanding choice sound get a one-way trip down to Gitmo for some waterboarding and tazer treatment! Get your ass to the Diebold voting machine and vote for the only choice...Time Warner!

    I like the fact Time Warner is now the only game in town, especially here in the Cleveland area. I surely do not want more channels, faster internet connection, or competitive pricing.

    I am of course being sarcastic, but it could it worse...Comcast could have won the state w

    • I am of course being sarcastic, but it could it worse...Comcast could have won the state wide agreement. I take dial up over those fuckers!

      If ComCast gets authorization, they are one of the 8 companies that applied other than ATT and TWC, there's more competition so there should be lower prices and or better service. I which I had 10 choices as to who I got my service from.

      Falcon
  • like the BS that is being passed by the Wisconsin legislature to make all contracts at the state level with pathetically watered down consumers bill-of-rights? I will bet you that AT&T was praying for exclusivity after buying the legislation in Ohio, even though T/W is now second fiddle and no better.

    I have DirecTV. Will not use U-Verse or Time/Wasted. I have had zero transport problems with DirecTV since I have been with them. The only issue that I have had was when a new HD box shot craps. It was repl

    • I will bet you that AT&T was praying for exclusivity after buying the legislation in Ohio

      Can you show me anywhere where it says it's exclusive? Or did you just make it up?

      I have DirecTV. Will not use U-Verse or Time/Wasted. I have had zero transport problems with DirecTV since I have been with them. The only issue that I have had was when a new HD box shot craps. It was replaced in no time at all

      My service is delivered through TWC, well ComCast now, and the only problem I had was trouble with m

  • Good (Score:2)

    by saikou ( 211301 )
    Because it's much more difficult into getting a statewide monopoly, and because both ATT and Time Warner now have state-wide right to provide the service.
    Have you seen that many local authorities grant multiple licenses? No. Because it's easy (and probably fun) to talk over a group of local politicians into locking everyone in your town into exactly ONE provider "for your own good". You also pay for this wonderful right by dishing out extra 4 bucks for "franchise fee" and only get to have one cable company.
  • I have had time warner at my house for years, and RELATIVELY speaking, I'm lucky. I don't have AT&T, Comcast, or any of those other crooks that other people are forced to deal with. Time Warner, at least in -my- area of town, is reliable enough to only go down perhaps once or twice a year, which I can live with. Their speed is still good enough, and they don't pull that of that censorship business.... yet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close