RSSVerizon Calls On Congress for Fiber TV
By Ed Oswald | Published April 20, 2005, 8:07 PM
Two days after calling on broadcasters to support changing local regulations that are hindering its rollout of a television service, Verizon took its case directly to Capitol Hill to have the laws changed by the lawmakers themselves.
Appearing in front of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Verizon Retail Markets President Robert Ingalls said the benefits of allowing the company to enter the TV industry far outweigh any negatives. Action is needed immediately to "promote broadband deployment, new technologies and increased investment by any provider," he said.
In order for Verizon to bring its FiOS TV service to the market, it must apply for a separate local franchise, which can be a drawn out and complicated process - especially with pressure from cable companies.
Ivan Seidenberg, chairman and CEO of Verizon, says that his company should not need a second license, as FiOS TV is only an extension of its current telephone franchise. However, several authorities have said that Verizon's new service is akin to cable television and requires a new franchise.
"As a local telephone company, Verizon has a franchise to operate networks," Ingalls said. "Yet we're being asked to obtain a second franchise to use that same network to offer consumers a choice in video. We believe this redundant franchise process is unnecessary and will delay effective video competition for years unless a federal solution is enacted soon."
While some may view the moves by Verizon as a way to skirt regulatory fees for offering television services, the company promised Congress that it would remain sensitive to local issues such as fees and public access, and would work with those authorities.
Verizon has said it hopes to have the capability to offer the FiOS service in 3 million homes by the end of the year if it wins regulatory approval
sounds good to me then we could also have hs internet from them help bring comcast over priced service down
Score: 0
|How is competition a bad thing? Verizon just installed fiber in my neighborhood (and put the street back together just like it was...)
So if I have the option of satellite, cable, or FiOS, isn't this a good thing? The only reason congress would stall this is from heavy cable tv lobbyist.
And no, I'm not a verizon honk. I might not even go with them when they offer it to my house, but I would like to be able to make the decision, not have congress make it for me.
Score: 0
|Yes, I agree with you, but they are trying to get a law changed that is in place to prevent them from doing what has been done in the past - monopolize. I see the need for the law, but I also see it as a road block. A road block in that it will delay their efforts - most likely due to the politicians as well as the existing cable companies.
I am sitting on the fence for this one, because though having the competion is good and could bring down prices, there could be more to the story than what Verizon is letting on. What else could they be after? They have the money, pay the toll and begin the work. Why change the law? This couldn't have been an overnight decision for them to offer TV, so why now and the need to change the law?
Score: 0
|Because just now the regulators told them they would now need a second franchise.
I do not see how changing the wording of the law to say that if the service runs through the same infrastructure already installed to provide previous services, then there would be no need for a second franchise..
like cable companies, they use the same wires but don't need a second franchise.. I guess internet isn't a high end service?
Score: 0
|Right! Were cable companies required to obtain a second franchise license to offer internet service over their existing cable lines? And didn't Comcast have to run new lines to offer internet? They did where I live. They went from a cable ompany to an ISP/cable company.
Score: 0
|Also, Comcast is beginning to provide VoIP service to many parts of the Northeast, i.e., telephone service. They didn't need to obtain a license fot that either. I think the cable companies are already trying to form a monopoly. With Verizon competing against them in internet, video, and voice, I think it will at least level the playing field.
Score: 0
|What, they didn't know the law? It has been that way for years. Changing the law will only allow them to move into 3 million homes by the end of the year.
What isn't regulated these days. They are whinning because they don't want to pay the money and by the time that they do and start working, someone might have figured out what they were trying to do and get there before them. That's business. Snooze - you lose.
Again, I am for the competition, but there is more to this story than Verizon crying to the public that the rules are unfair. They always have been and will always be. The law is in place for good reasons. They want to side-step for profit.
Score: 0
|No! Individual companies were bought out by larger companies, and therfore in the acquisition of the smaller companies had the franchises to do as they wish. Public knowledge. Now, Verizon wants a peice of that, but doesn't want to follow the rules of the game. Should we change the law because they didn't forsee that far ahead? NOT!
Read what they give their reason:
"Action is needed immediately to "promote broadband deployment, new technologies and increased investment by any provider,""
They are saying that the only way in wich we can move technology forward in this industry, is if you let us break the law this once.
Score: 0
|