City Of Milwaukee Suing AT&T Over Planned IPTV Service — This should muck up the IPTV scene completely. Interesting development indeed.
A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday by the city of Milwaukee seeks to require AT&T to negotiate a cable franchise agreement to cover the Internet Protocol Television service it plans to begin offering in Milwaukee soon.
The agreement would force AT&T to make an annual payment to the city just as Time Warner Cable does under its long-standing franchise agreement with Milwaukee.But San Antonio-based AT&T contends the IPTV service now under construction is not a cable TV system as defined under federal law.
City Attorney Grant Langley declined comment on the lawsuit but said the city is in talks with AT&T on an interim agreement that would let the company “continue to build and operate” its system. Plans call for AT&T to provide a 200-plus channel service called “U-Verse.” A&T has launched the service in San Antonio and Houston and contends it helps consumers by adding competition for cable monopolies.
I will contend that it ISNT the Sity thats forcing the LAW…
Why should the city of Milwaukee discriminate against different types of data sent over broadband? It’s silly.
So if AT&T offers TV over their broadband capability then it is different than if someone other site offers streaming TV?
Speaking of that, why is it that cable companies have to pay the city they operate in? For monopoly rights or something? If so, why are cities letting cable operators have monopolies and how is that in the interest of public good.
And why do cable operators have to carry the (typically crappy) local access channels? Pre-cable I assume those were done via airwave broadcasts.
Although I am sure I don’t have a handle on all of the aspects/dimensions of this, this sounds like something begging for some sort of deregulation.
(Nor do I have a great deal of sympathy for these quasi-monopoly phone companies — there were 8 Baby Bells after the AT&T breakup and now there are only 3.)
#2
Cities discriminate because they can.
No, AT&T offering IPTV over broadband is no different then someone streaming TV. AT&T happens to have deep pockets ripe for picking.
Cable companies pay the city because once upon a time they needed access to public right of ways. They also were granted monopolies of sorts as part of the original deal. It might have been for the public good at one point in time in order to insure that an area was totally covered and not ‘cherry picked’ for just the higher profit margin areas. By the way the cable companies don’t pay the fees, the users (you) of the system do.
For the most part public access channels did not exist until the advent of cable TV. The cable companies offer them as a way of ‘giving back’ to the community and use the concept as a tax re-deduction.
Like pigs to a trough the politicians continue to feed on the same old slop as they have for decades, now that there is a new ‘farmer’ they want some more to eat.
I agree with #3 in principle, but disagree in application.
Everything does have a cost and providing city services is no different. Most cities do have contracts allowing utilities to service the city. These contracts provide for quality of service, subscription rates, and service access for the customers and the right to sell their service and use the municipal right of way.
Suggesting that the public’s representatives are just greedy politicians is wrong. If you don’t like the way they do something then vote for someone else or run for election yourself. We elect representatives to enact laws and regulate activity on our behalf. This is what the City of Milwaukee is doing; representing their citizens.
Cities do not discriminate because they can. They discriminate in the bests interest of the city. Is it always fair? Of course not, especially when you are the one being discriminated against. There are appeals however, if the discrimination is blatant or contrary to law.
If you don’t want your telco or cable company regulated, then let your representatives know your feelings. Taking the attitude they won’t do anything and so you won’t even try is just plain stupid.
This is the problem with American companies putting the cart before the horse.
We customers cannot even get VOIP running right and they are already starting something new for the “status quo” masses to spend their money on.
AT&T fed me their subpar cell service and push me off to Cingular, which still doesn’t work as promised.
2,
do you KNOW why you have Broadcast channels??
Or havent you wondered WHY none of the other channels…
Broadcast your weather.
ARE still UP and running in emergencies.
Are the best way to get important info FASTER then from some corp 200-1000+ miles away..
If you have a school closuer, It will be on Broadcast before you see it anywhere else, be it a fire, Snow, shooting…Why wait 1 hour when it will probably(if you have a good company) be on the air in 10-30 minutes.
I read about this the other day on arstechnia – they’re got a really in depth article – http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/u-verse.ars
I feel kinda sory for the network tech that have to deal with this headache.
#4 “Suggesting that the public’s representatives are just greedy politicians is wrong.”
No, it is greed. They see a sweet deal going down the tubes and they want to protect their revenue stream.
I can prove the greed is the motivating factor. What is the punishment for a minor traffic violation? A cash outlay to the local government. If greed was less of a factor than say, public safety, there would be no “buy your way out of trouble” option. People would not be able to rack up hundreds or thousands before loosing the privilege to drive. Drivers training would be mandatory after the first infraction. But doing so would be a cash drain instead of a cash boost, so it is not done, even though millions of lives could be saved.
Another traffic example, why are cars made in such a way as to allow a choice whether to wear a seat-belt or not. Technology exists that could make the seat-belt law pointless. But they don’t mandate an engineering solution, why? There are laws that require airbags and such to be built in to cars that act automatically. Why not seat-belts, BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT.
#8, you are full of crap. Society elects our leaders. They are there by our choosing. Government is US, not an us and them thing. You don’t like them then vote for someone else BUT don’t forget to blame yourself because in your paranoid delusional mind you didn’t do anything to fix the problem. You are in that 50% that refuse to vote because it won’t make a difference.
When someone pays a fine, what do you think happens to the money? Oh, right, it goes to THEM !!! No it doesn’t. It goes into general revenue funds in most cases and used to fund OUR societal needs. Things like roads, fire protection, social services, schools, hospitals, military, and all those other uses WE ask our representatives to enact. Then it also pays for the police to protect us from those idiots that disobey traffic laws. (* in some cases fines pay for the justice or transportations systems)
Several years ago there were several vehicles that used automatic seat belts. I owned two of them, a ’93 Grand Am and a ’95 Escort. They interfered with entry and exit from the car. When voluntary compliance reached a set level, the Federal Transportation Department relaxed their use. Seatbelt use reduces the severity of an accident by up to 95%.
#9, well I can see how many wheels your vehicle would have. Anyone with an IQ over 90 realizes that intelligence doesn’t equate to any skill. I can really see Stephan Hawking driving a car.