|
Post by coolboy on May 5, 2006 15:15:05 GMT -6
Hi Zoe,
Excellent, excellent point about LCG being a group of "keystone" form of government. Some of them are legitimate businessmen, but they can't seem to agree on simple issues such as whether or not the sky is blue.
One good aspect of all this is that, if nothing else, the fiber to the home system can create competition, which may lead to lower costs for services from Cox and BellSouth.
Also, if adult channels are included in the system, wouldn't this be somewhat unethical? Peddling smut to the homes? I'm not a prude, but I hope that type of programming isn't included.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on May 8, 2006 11:25:55 GMT -6
That, Coolboy, is exactly my point. You have preferences as does everyone else. In a taxpayer supported environment, who will control what is available ? Free market ? Some people like Jerry Springer, some like Jerry Seinfeld, and some like both, so who in government do you want to choose for you ?
And if in fact this is a "level" playing field, why does BellSouth need legislation to get into the cable tv business? Why is LUS blackmailing BellSouth to drop its legislation if BS drops its suit?
|
|
layne
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by layne on May 13, 2006 18:53:01 GMT -6
Zoe, in response to your question about why BellSouth needs legislation to get into the cable business: It doesn't. There is absolutely nothing in place right now that prevents them from proceeding. It's just that they want the legislature to take steps that will guarantee them killer profits before they jump in.
The franchise bill that's in the legislature right now is BellSouth's baby. They want it passed before they begin their cable TV business because it would exempt them from two things that they don't want to do: 1) pay franchise fees to cities for use of their rights-of-way for infrastructure; and 2) build their cable network in every part of town, not just to the top 10 or 20% in terms of profit.
Looked at this way, it's obvious why Cox is opposed to the franchise bill. It would let Bell go into the cable business without having to do two expensive things that Cox is REQUIRED to do as a cable provider. Bell is trying to ensure that the playing field is NOT level, but is heavily tilted at their end.
Your information that LUS is blackmailing Bell to drop the legislation is confused. Bell filed suit to hold up LUS's fiber plan, then agreed to drop the suit if Lafayette would agree not to oppose the Bell - AT&T merger and make some other concessions. 'Twas Bell that was apparently doing the blackmailing.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on May 16, 2006 2:18:50 GMT -6
Layne, the point was correct as stated;AT&T was not allowed to use its existing entry into everyone'e home which was already there via the telephone lines. I agree that the franchise fee is an issue, but i wonder, will Lafayette Parish waive its franchise fee that it receives from Cox if LUS enters the business ? The fact is, At&T/BellSouth is already wired everywhere, and could easily infiltrate the cable tv business, which will lower prices or offer better service or both.
With regard to LUS versus AT&T, do you actually think LUS could have the slightest impact on the AT&T BellSouth merger ? LUS is a relative gnat to them, and congress/FCC. You will see how paltrey LUS is relative to Cox/AT&T if there is true competition, and no cross subsidy from our already overpriced non-competitive utility.
|
|
layne
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by layne on May 17, 2006 15:44:37 GMT -6
No, Zoe, I'm right on this. I know lots of folks who are working with this legislation, and this fact isn't disputed -- there is nothing preventing Bell from providing cable right now. They won't proceed yet, though, because they want the legislature to take steps that will reduce their costs. I watched the Commerce Committee hearings on this legislation; Bell was there and didn't dispute the fact. The money will come, sooner or later, out of your pocket and mine because this legislation would deprive municipalities of a source of outside income.
Bell has the most paid lobbyists working in the Louisiana legislature, and is accustomed to getting its way. Actually, they're accustomed to writing the legislation they want and simply handing it to one of the many politicians they've given money to for presentation to our lawmakers. This is yet another one of those cases.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on May 17, 2006 16:18:11 GMT -6
I've seen this written before about Bell South having more paid lobbyists than anyone else in the state, and also how they write their own bills. Do you have data to verify those facts, I'd really love to see it for myself.
|
|
john
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by john on May 17, 2006 16:20:21 GMT -6
Zoe, You are mistaken if you think that there is any legal impediment to BellSouth offering video services in Lafayette at any time that it wanted to go through the motions to do so. BellSouth's position (and more importantly, the position of AT&T who is buying BellSouth and will be the one operating under the new state-wide franchise law) is very clear: IPTV, the technology that they are using for cable services, is an "information service"' and NOT subject to franchise fees. Just days ago Whitacre, the AT&T CEO, said so plainly. Whitacre said after his speech, noting that Internet-based TV is not cable TV and therefore existing regulations don't apply.
"Could we just come in and do it? Sure," he said. "We're still contemplating that. But we'd rather work within the system. We hope to make friends." vh10624.moc.gbahn.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/BIZ/605090342/1001/BIZThere is no exclusive cable franchise here or anywhere in the country--it was outlawed by the feds in '96. Such contracts were rare and Lafayette never had one. If they really wanted to be friends and if they really wanted a level playing field and if they really wanted to get a franchise quickly they'd simply step up and offer to adopt the current cable company franchise. The council would approve it the night it was offered--if for no other reason than pure politics. In fact the Louisiana Municipal Association offered a 60 day, guaranteed franchise as an amendment to the current bill that would have done all of the above. BellSouth opposed it. The real issue is just as Layne painted it: ensuring a competitive playing field tipped dramatically in their favor. They want to redline and cherrypick and they are concerned that if the state doesn't limit localities rights to make valid contracts for the use of property the cities (we) own then the cities will require them to offer service to everyone. That's a good bet--it is what the cities have required of the cable companies. People need to understand clearly what this law is: it is a "taking" of EVERY local community's rights to write valid contracts concerning the use of land it owns and actively maintains. It will chiefly benefit one company: BellSouth. BellSouth who just happens to have the state's largest lobbying force and is the most prolific single campaign contributor around. Cable franchise fees are currently 25% of the LCG budget. New Orleans gets around 5 million for the use of its property. Make no mistake: if BellSouth succeeds the long-term effect will be higher property or sales taxes. As to the issue of whether LUS could effect the decision made on the AT&T/BS merger. It's hard for me to see. But what I think--or you think--is not the point, what BellSouth thinks is: And it's a condition BellSouth insisted on in order to drop the 11th hour lawsuit it slid in via fax on midnight on the closing date. BellSouth apparently thinks so. (I've got no sympathy for Cox generally, but I do understand that the purpose of this law is to 'get" the cable companies. Our local communities are just in the way.)
|
|
|
Post by abbd on May 17, 2006 17:24:16 GMT -6
There it is again, that claim that bell south has more lobbyists than any other company in the state of Louisiana. Show me the numbers that prove that bell south has more lobbyists and contributes more money than anyone else. Knowing the insurance companies and their lobbying power and force as I do I find it hard to believe that bell south's is larger.
|
|
john
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by john on May 17, 2006 18:57:25 GMT -6
BellSouth: I count 27 registered lobbyists, including Billy Tauzin III and John Breaux, Jr. State Farm: 13 with no famous names. Your turn.... You can play at: domino.ethics.state.la.us/LobbyistDB.nsf/vwWebSiteCompanies/$SearchForm?SearchViewI don't know of anyone in politics that doubts the claim about BellSouth. It's legendary -- BS lobbyists also are renowned for "working" legislators even when they don't have a bill on deck. BS invests in "relationships." This takes time and that takes money; they know they are investing in influence. BS has it's regular kept men in the house and the senate. Everyone knows this. In the Senate it's"Noble" Ellington--the same fellow who gutted a rural broadband bill of his after the deadline for submitting new bills had passed so that BellSouth could have a legal way to insert the anti-Lafayette law so lauded by some on this board into a bill residing in the proper committee. All that was left of a good law to try and promote rural broadband authored by a man who represents a stretch of Louisiana's very poorly served and very rural northeast delta region was its bill number and a docket location on the commerce committee. That's...loyalty..(?) Never doubt BellSouth's influence. Now, back to the more important question at hand? BellSouth's franchise law is, on the whole, bad for the people of this state.
|
|
john
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by john on May 17, 2006 19:13:36 GMT -6
|
|
layne
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by layne on May 17, 2006 19:30:02 GMT -6
I went to check this out, and Allstate has only 3.
|
|
|
Post by coolboy on May 17, 2006 21:24:27 GMT -6
I'm just doing the fly on the wall routine here, but I have to say that I never knew there were so many registered lobbyists. I just started taking an active interest in state government and I had always wondered how certain state politicians would come forward with legislation to prevent Lafayette from doing their own fiber system. Now I know that special interests groups are alive and well at the state level. Very interesting. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
|
|
|
Post by TBEAR on May 18, 2006 4:30:25 GMT -6
Ditto coolboy, Thanks for the link John
I checked out the search function at that site and got 15 for bellsouth, is that correct?
Allstates and State Farms came back correct.
Bellsouth and insurance cos aint got nothing on drugs companies
Look at this company Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, they have 45 for drugs.
Roche Laboratories Inc. 37 again for drugs. WHo are all these no namers.
anybody know who these two people are:
LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED COUNCIL P O BOX 4017 - C LAFAYETTE, LA 70502 Williams, Veronica L. P O Box 4017-C Lafayette, LA 70502 337-291-8816 LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT P O BOX 4017 - C LAFAYETTE, LA 70502 Haynie, Randy K. P.O. Box 44032, Capitol Station Baton Rouge, LA 70804 225-336-4143
Type in just Lafayette instead of a company and look at some of those names.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on May 18, 2006 5:18:02 GMT -6
I see bell south doesn't have the most lobbyists in the state huh? I only found 15. See, that's the problem with "legends", sometimes they aren't quite what they should be. And some of those drug companies wow, they have a bunch huh? Now, to the claim that bell south spends more money and writes their own bills, do you also have proof of that? Just wondering ?
|
|
john
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by john on May 19, 2006 6:48:32 GMT -6
T-bear,
I'm not sure what is going on with the lobbyist bit...but my number does appear too high. I got that number twice in the begiinning but after coming back in from different angles I've got numbers rangiing from 11 to 16--nothing again as high as 27. There is some inconsisitency but 15 or 16 appears to be the best numbers. Sorry! I wouldn't have posted the reference if I'd thought it unstable.
I was fascinated by the pharma folks. I wonder what is really going on there. Astra-Zenca is headquartered in Delaware and has production facilities there and--unlike the telecos or insurance industry--pharmas aren't regulated at the state level. I have to wonder if there's some else going on--like needing to be registered as a state lobbyist to sell pharma to state hospitals...anyway, odd.
On the names...Williams is a name I don't know. But Hayne is an old-line, influential lobbyist with multiple customers. He makes his living that way (not nearly all registered lobbyists do) My guess is the only reason LCG needs someone of his caliber is to keep them in the game against BellSouth.
The sidelight on lobbyists is interesting but it takes us away from the telecom utilities thread...the state-wide franchise bill is a bald "taking" and is aimed at using state power to create a financial advantage for, mostly, a single, highly influential corporation. It will run over local rights to get there. I'd think that worth being interested in.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on May 19, 2006 8:44:22 GMT -6
I'm not so sure this discussion takes away from this thread at all, in fact I find it fascinating. Wild claims and accusations repeated enough, begin to take on "legendary" properties(even if they aren't quite true). I really don't have a dog in this "bill" hunt, I just like things reported to be factually correct especially on a bill which has such far reaching consequences. So far we have learned bell south does not have the most paid lobbyists in Louisiana, and now we need to find out if they spend more money than anyone else.(BTW, nothing personal here because I have seen the BLS most lobbyists "fact" repeated and repeated on other web sites over in Lafayette.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on May 29, 2006 7:56:58 GMT -6
I assume by the lack of a response that bell south does not spend more on lobbying efforts than any other company in the state. I guess another "legendary "fact"" bites the dust. Isn't it truly amazing the things you learn on a "talk board".
|
|
|
Post by abbd on Jun 9, 2006 10:24:10 GMT -6
I see that HB699 has passed the senate and may soon become law. Looks like the folks who subscribe to Cox Cable might be seeing some competition soon. Competition is good for us the consumers. Private companies competing for our business will drive prices down. Good move leges, I like it. Oh btw, any more info on how much more money bell south spends on lobbying than any other company? Or is this another "legend" that isn't quite hmmmm correct?
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Jun 10, 2006 11:40:51 GMT -6
Ooops ! Bellsouth has beaten LUS to the punch. They will likely put in fiber all over the parish, not just the "city".
|
|
|
Post by TBEAR on Jun 11, 2006 8:17:46 GMT -6
I didnt read the entire bill but this was in the paper, if I understand correctly Lafayette is exempt from the bill? tell me if im reading this wrong if i'm not this is some bs. The Senate voted 27-10 to allow telephone companies to get a statewide franchise to offer customers Internet Protocol Television through broadband lines in competition with cable television operators. BellSouth, the prime sponsor of the bill, is studying amendments before determining whether to ask the House to concur or send it to a conference committee. The legislation, House Bill 699 by state Rep. Billy Montgomery, D-Haughton, exempts Shreveport, West Monroe, Lafayette and other cities that had home rule charters prior to the 1974 state Constitution.Heres the bill: www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=389544
|
|