Verizon is pushing a bill that would permit them to obtain a single statewide franchise,
eliminating the important role of local governments in the franchising process, and giving them an
unfair regulatory advantage over other providers like Comcast.
There have been six hearings before committees of the Pennsylvania House and Senate. At these hearings, Verizon and their "supporters" (mostly thinly veiled front groups) have testified that the local franchise process is a barrier to entry. They argue that a new law is necessary so they can bring lower prices and bring new technology to Pennsylvanians.
On the other side of the issue, Pennsylvania’s municipal governments; public, educational and government access programming providers; community groups; concerned citizens and others, have effectively argued that the law does not need to be changed.
Local franchising does not slow Verizon down at all, they said, and the important role of local governments in the franchising process must be preserved.
Cable operators like Comcast and the other members of the Broadband Cable Association of Pennsylvania (BCAP) and the American Cable Association (ACA) stand with Pennsylvania's local governments in opposing this legislation.
To date
Verizon has obtained 35 local franchise agreements in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties under current law. Additionally, 125 municipalities across the state are already served by competitive video providers like RCN that obtained local franchises under the existing system.
Local franchising works in Pennsylvania!More than
230 Pennsylvania municipalities, and organizations representing hundreds more, have already
passed resolutions opposing Verizon’s scheme, and the list grows every day.
So, in summary, Verizon wants special deals made for them so they don't have to be controlled by the local franchising authorities of the townships and boroughs that would (or would not) get served. A statewide franchise would allow them to pick and choose which neighborhoods to bring service to, predictably ignoring rural and poor urban areas.
Under the local franchising system, typically the agreement that Comcast has with the municipality is that service has to be available to every resident of the community. Also, the municipality receives a pretty decent amount of money in franchise fees that go towards things like police office salaries, snow removal, street repair, and other public works projects. With a statewide franchise agreement, those municipalities wouldn't see nearly as much of those funds, if any at all. For example, I heard from someone at work say that Lower Paxton township gets over
1 million dollars a year from the franchise agreement with Comcast and Lower Swatara gets about
3/4 of a million.
Agent, if you lived out in the country, or in a poorer neighborhood, there is a very, very good chance you would
never see any Verizon fiber in your neighborhood, whereas Comcast has fiber running through every neighborhood of every borough/township that we service. This issue is not about preventing Verizon from entering the television market.
We welcome them to enter and compete, it will only drive us to become better. But if they want to
compete, they have to do so under the same laws as the existing video franchises across the state do, not get special exceptions just because they are looking for an unfair advantage.
Remember, Verizon is a monopoly too. Don't expect them to treat you any differently than the millions of other customers they service. Sadly, you're just an account number to them. I'm not saying Comcast is any better in this department, it just seems you all have this idealistic, the grass is greener on the other side attitude towards Verizon. One thing to remember is that if the grass is greener, it's probably because that grass has a lot fertilizer (aka bullsh*t) spread all over it.
Topic: I'm getting FiOS wOOt! (Read 2426 times)