Bunnie Riedel writes:

Why is the story below important? This is something I've been hearing about
for two years. Verizon has been stripping copper wire out of houses where
it installs FiOS fiber. That means any land-line phone capability is being
stripped out.

Why are land-line phones important? When the power goes out, land-line
phones will still work. However, cable phone, verizon or at&t phone have a
limited back up battery (4 hours or so). This is a big deal for folks in FL
communities where hurricanes can knock out power and cell phone towers.
Additionally we are hearing that if a consumer wants to go back to a
land-line phone they are having to pay to reconnect the copper from the curb
to their house.

Verizon is primarily doing this so they don't have to lease their lines to
competiting phone or video service providers. The implications are huge if
you consider that it took about 100 years to build the telephony
infrastructure in this country, wiring coast to coast.

If you get Verizon service or your local equivalent insist that they not
pull out the copper wire. Also, I think it's time we get language into
franchise agreements that prevent Verizon and others from stripping out the
copper.

INTERNET/BROADBAND
VERIZON'S COPPER CUTOFF TRAPS CONSUMERS

[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Deborah Yao] Verizon's new
high-bandwidth, FiOS fiber lines are fully capable of carrying not only
telephone calls but also Internet data and television channels with room to
grow. But once the old copper line that once provided plain old telephone
service is pulled, it's difficult to switch back to the traditional phone
system or less expensive Digital Subscriber Line service.

And Verizon isn't required, in most instances, to lease fiber to rival phone
companies, as it is with the copper infrastructure. As it hooks up homes and
businesses to its fiber network, Verizon has been routinely disconnecting
the copper and, many subscribers say, not telling them upfront or giving
them a choice. More than 1 million customers have signed up for a FiOS
service, which is offered mainly in the suburban areas of 16 states. Verizon
spokesman Eric Rabe said customers should have been notified at least three
times - once by the sales representative when FiOS is ordered, by the
technician before copper is cut, and through paperwork given to the
customer. Some customers say that hasn't happened.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/08/ap3892179.html

* Cutting the Copper Means Less Competition for Verizon, Fewer Choices for
Consumers
http://www.consumersunion.org/blogs/hun/2007/07/cutting_the_copper_means_les
s.html

Riedel Communications
8775 Centre Park Drive #255
Columbia, MD 21045

410-992-4976
www.riedelcommunications.com

www.riedelcommunications.blogspot.com

With all the "bundling" offers bombarding us every day in print and TV media, it seems cable and telecom companies can rake it in. Giving a little something back into the community should not be such a big deal for these cash cows.

Washington Post:

Comcast's Bundled Services Generate 1st-Quarter Profit Surge

Comcast Corp. said its first-quarter net income more than tripled, rising to $466 million, boosted by sales of bundled services to customers interested in the cable company's Internet, phone and on-demand video services.

FROM OUR FRIENDS AT MASS ACCESS:

In the past few years, Verizon and AT&T have been trying to eliminate or weaken local, municipal cable franchising, arguing that the current structure of negotiating franchises with individual municipalities is too burdensome. Legislation WRITTEN BY VERIZON, mandating that franchising be done at the state level, was filed in Massachusetts by Senator Panagiotakos (Senate Docket 1987) and Representative James Vallee (House Docket 1298).

Verizon’s effort to have the Commonwealth’s Department of Telecommunications and Energy reduce franchise negotiations, drafting and proceedings to 90 days resulted in a packed hearing in August at which opponents outnumbered those in favor by 15 to 1. The DTE never issued a ruling.

• Everyone wants competition
Of the 40 communities targeted by Verizon for franchising in Massachusetts, 37 franchises have successfully been completed through local, municipal franchising. Clearly, Verizon is not having a problem obtaining new licenses. If Verizon would meet the contractual obligations of incumbent cable providers, most communities would gladly expedite a competitive license. In fact, Verizon has been unable to build out the systems for which licenses it has already received franchises.

A switch to state franchising, in which Verizon would not be required to meet the same conditions of the incumbent cable operators, might result in the suspension of the hundreds of existing local licenses, effectively removing the many benefits currently utilized by citizens throughout the Commonwealth.

• Local control over the public rights of way should be maintained.
Each community should benefit from the commercial use of its rights of way, through franchises that meet the particular cable related needs and interests of that community, including:
Build-out requirements (to prevent red-lining, “cherry picking”)
PEG access operating and capital grants
Institutional networks
Emergency override capability
Consumer protection/customer service standards

• Verizon is seeking to avoid build out requirements that ensure that everyone in the community has access to services.
Verizon wants to cherry pick which communities and neighborhoods it serves – bypassing those that may not be as financially lucrative.

• The past 30 years of local control have resulted in the involvement of thousands of volunteers as overseers of their telecommunications systems.
Countless volunteers have served on local cable committees – many of these individuals know more about their cable systems than the cable companies!

• Cable companies are doing well financially under the current system – why do things need to be changed?

From "What You Can Do to Oppose the Verizon Bill":

Last week, we wrote about a bill being considered on Beacon Hill that would change the way that cable franchising is done in the Commonwealth, You can read that story here . Here is what YOU can do:

• Contact your state legislators and those who are on the Joint Telecommunications Committee, and urge them to oppose the bill

• Contact your City Councilors and urge them to oppose the bill
• Come to the State House Hearing on June 5 at 10 AM in Rooms A-1 and A-2, even if you do not plan to speak, just your presence will have an impact. If you DO speak, talk briefly about your experiences as a user of CCTV’s services, and your fears that public access will lose funding under the proposal.

In the T&G online commentary, some fan , who apparently loves me from a distance, wrote some derogatory comments about "Mauro". I am not that important nor do I think anyone else is that important that it should matter what is said about me. I believe I know where my heart is. I feel however there is a possibility that the intent of comment may not really be about me, it may be about distracting people from the truth. Be aware everyone. While pointing fingers at me the truth is lost in the dust. That is a popular tool spin doctors use. It is called vilifying an opponent. Yes Mauro "works" for WCCA TV. Mauro receives a paycheck for his work at WCCA TV too. How many people in the U.S.A go to work and receive a paycheck? I volunteered for years at WCCA prior to an invitation to become the Executive Director. Part of my work is to advocate for the "people's channel", and that includes to speak out when I see something threatening to the public access process or the "mission" of the station. WCCA is an open forum available to everyone.

Before making false statements about subject matter and commentators who participate on this page, or any editorial page, try learning some facts. If you want to see what WCCA or I stand for, watch the channel or visit wccatv.com. WCCA is NOT a part of the city or Charter Communications. WCCA is a non profit institution.
My position on this subject has nothing to do with defending Charter. If you read some of my blogs or other editorials and even comments below you should see that.

Charters high rates have less to do with local franchise fees than it does other programming cost including to run CTR TV 3 and it's news program ( which cost more than WCCA by the way.) Franchise fees are based on a percentage of gross revenues, profits the cable company made. Do away with PEG access and the profits go into Charter's pockets instead of back to the community. There is no law forcing the cable company to pass the franchise fees on to their subscribers. In Fact, WCCA fought against that ten years ago during the ascertainment process. I have called for more legislation to mandate cable and phone company compliance, to allow cities to enforce compliance issues and to regulate rates, as well as to guarantee support for INET and PEG channels.

I am grateful for my earnings I receive at work. I am thankful to all who work to make OUR WCCA station a success. I include in my thanks the city administration and the council as well as WCCA volunteers and staff. WCCA is a team effort. Whether or not anyone at WCCA is “well paid” for the good work they do may be arguable. Self interest is not why most of us are in the business of non-profit community media. Many people are employed in public access centers across the state. I know them to be fine, good hearted, committed to media democracy and selfless. No one is making anything near Verizon’s upper management I can assure you. Another thing, I wish more people would not be so afraid to add their name to their comments. To the detractors anonymous I say, be a person (man or woman)enough to place your name with your comment. This subject is to big to become a personal issue. Get over me and stick to what is really important.
Mauro DePasquale

For Immediate Release Contacts: Sherry Conway Appel, 202-441-3160
April 3, 2007 Carolyn Coleman, 202-906-0240

Local Governments Ask Courts to Reverse FCC Ruling on Video Franchising

Washington , DC – Local government organizations representing municipal and county officials across America today asked the Federal courts to reverse the recent franchising order adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that would severely restrict the ability of local governments to protect their citizens, rights-of-way, community channels and public safety networks. In addition, the FCC order would lead to a tremendous reduction in the revenues received by local governments for use of their rights of way, as well as loss of cable services to many governmental buildings and schools.

The formal Petitions for Review filed today said the FCC order “exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority,” is “arbitrary and capricious,” “an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, and in violation of the United States Constitution.” The FCC order also “violates both the Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act’s public notice requirements,” according to the Petitions.

A City Hall insider lamented that Charter's subscribers levels are not as high these days as it could be. As if to suggest that may have an impact on PEG license funding.

The issue concerning the level of cable subscribers is a non-issue when it comes to franchise license fees because the license payments are based on a percentage of Charter's gross annual revenues NOT subscriber numbers. With cost for digital and expanded services and basic fees as well as, in addition to, phone services. Charter gross revenues are higher than ever.

IT IS NOT UP TO CHARTER TO DETERMINE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. IT IS UP TO THE CITY BASED ON ASCERTAINMENT RESULTS. City officials have a responsibility in this process to ensure community needs are met no matter how Charter plays it's political game at city hall.

Such a comment about subscriber levels is disturbing because it illustrates a lack of understanding about the process. It is not that person's fault. It appears, according to one councilor, that there is little briefing or updates on this issue. As I understand it the city has not entered into formal negotiations yet so it begs the question why are so many stakeholders or those who are concerned about the status of the cable franchise renewal feel like they are left in the dark on this issue? To be fair, it may be that the city simply does not know either. One has to cnsider, however, that the city solicitor and the outsourced expert are very experienced and knowledgeable about the subject of cable franchise renewal. City Manager O'Brien makes a point to personally pay attention to many matters and usually does a good job in taking care of business and yet, many fear the potential for this matter to fall between the cracks. If so, it will be devastating for ALL the stake holders. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

To void the process from the public eye at this pre-formal level, including from our city council members does a disservice to the citizens of Worcester and to those who are very interested in the fate of our public access channels. City leaders and the people deserve to know what is going on and in addition must be educated in the realities of the process. Public Access is a bastion for free speech, WCCA is an important institution to many in this city. It is as important as most other city business and should not be pushed aside. No one can tell you what is going on. It does not reflect well on the city that no one seems to know what the city's intentions are or about the status of the situation relative to the renewal process. The cable franchise renewal is a strategic opportunity for Worcester. Let's hope for some good news soon.

Some comments I found relevant to my last blog and to the subscriber level issue apply:

"Before you get too concerned about the impact that the recent drop in the number of cable subscribers is having on gross revenues (and consequently, on franchise fees and maybe PEG support funding), keep in mind that the cable industry continues to rake in record amounts of revenues."
Randy

"Our franchise fee and capital funding is based on a percentage of gross. Each is at an all-time high."
Alan

"So, dwindling market share yet higher gross profits - and this is the 'competition' that passes 'savings' on to the consumer - right?"
Michael

EDITORIAL
AS I SEE IT
The Telegram and Gazette does not allow the I SEE IT editorial section to be a debate forum. They will allow, however, anyone to submit a traditional editorial of not more than 250 words, to address or rebut an AS I SEE IT editorial. I have not had a chance to edit my rebuttal down to 250 words so here is the full version. When I have time I will edit this down to 250 words and submit it. ENJOY

This is in response to what I perceive as Verizons corporate propaganda “Competition for cable TV not as remote”, published March 7, written by Mat Hussey. Readers should know that Mr. Hussey worked more than eight years in the telecommunications industry, most recently for Verizon Communications before his present position at the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is a corporately funded free market think tank that writes special interest legislation that only benefits it funders and not consumers or municipalities.

The present local franchise system does not discourage competition or consumer choice. This twenty-five year old system has worked very well and for many communities in eastern MA there has been competition between RCN and Comcast for some ten years. Also, throughout all municipalities in the state there are two other competitors in the form of Satellite TV providers—Dish Network and Direct TV. In many communities Verizon is the Fifth provider of Multi-Channel Video Services, as defined by the FCC.

Presently, if new competitors want to enter into a city franchise they merely have to match the incumbent license terms. This is the level and fair playing field. But it appears Verizon simply wants to avoid being subject to local franchise terms. It appears that they want to move regulatory authority as far away as possible from our local cities and towns. So, when you have a complaint about customer service, or when you are not allowed access to their high speed internet or digital phone or TV service in your low income neighborhood that has been “redlined” by Verizon, you may have to go to the FCC in Washington or to the DTE in Boston to get satisfaction. Yeah, like that’s going to happen.

Are we all supposed to believe that statewide franchising will address Worcester’s specific needs? The present Verizon proposal for telecommunication reform in this state will harm our PEG channels, leave local Institutional Networks (I-Nets), which provide towns and cities with low cost telecommunication services, to wither and die after incumbent license expire. In exchange such so-called reform, there is no guarantee of statewide competition or lower prices for the long term. As of now, Verizon has only announced plans to seek licenses in 67 of the 351 towns and cities in MA, which means they will serve only 16% of the states municipalities. So, why do they need special interest statewide licensing?

Local franchise controls are necessary. The people have a right to get something back in return for the corporate use of the Public Rights of Way. Municipalities have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the PROW to our benefit and “We the People” are entitled to receive PEG services in exchange for giving these companies use of these Rights of Way.

Verizon already has licenses and is providing video content services in 48 communities in Massachusetts. They currently comply with local franchise terms and conditions in those cities and towns. The current franchise system didn’t stop them in those places and won’t in Worcester. But as of now, there is no guarantee Verizon has an interest in providing services in Worcester since they are not currently interested in urban or rural communities but only in the “495 Donut” around Boston with Boston as the hole.

What caused the cable TV bill to “skyrocket was not local franchise fees or PEG Access, but corporate profits, increased programming costs and the need to rebuild the cable networks to compete with the Satellite providers. Can the process be quicker? Of course it can! Worcester has for over 20 years set the template. During the 2006 ascertainment process for renewal negotiations with Charter, it has become very clear what Worcester’s community needs and interest are. Cable and phone companies merely have to engage in good faith negotiation. There is no reason why these negations can not be executed in a timely manner.

For over twenty-five years, cable companies have launched increasingly profitable operations in Massachusetts and given fair compensation to municipalities for the use of the public rights of way. Should Verizon now be allowed to do any less?

Submitted by
Mauro DePasquale, WCCA TV 13, “The People’s Channel”