Archive for: November 2006November 8, 2006 The Big Election’s Impact on Cable Franchising ReformLocal governments can breathe a sigh of relief today, at least with respect to proposed federal cable franchising reforms. Yesterday’s changes in the legislature will create an uphill fight for telephone companies on “shall issue” franchising proposals – but the issue is far from dead. John Dingell, the 80 year old Michigan Democrat
Comments Off
November 7, 2006 Cable’s “Triple Play:” Why It’s Important to Local GovernmentsCable companies have been announcing some really strong financial results for the third quarter. Many cable execs are attributing the results to synergies created through cable’s emerging “triple play” – the ability to sell cable, voice and high speed Internet services to a customer for one price on one bill. Many local government officials don’t give too much thought to how the triple play affects local residents and the franchise fees that can be collected from a cable operator. This perspective is understandable. After all, franchise fees can only be collected on revenue derived by the cable operator from operation of the cable system to provide cable services. Since neither telephone nor high speed Internet services typically fall into the “cable services” category, there’s little reason, the theory goes, for local franchising authorities to get too excited about “non-cable” products the operator offers. It’s starting to become clear, though, that this isn’t the whole story. Increasingly, there seems to be more evidence which suggests that the “triple play” has a subtle, but important impact on cable service revenue, too. Consider the following nuances:
Comments Off
November 2, 2006 Oregon Court of Appeals: Comcast’s Arbitration Clause UnenforceableYesterday, the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon held that Comcast’s “Mandatory and Binding Arbitration” clause was unenforceable under Oregon state law. The court’s analysis, however, could well be applied by other state courts. AT&T included mandatory arbitration clauses in customer agreements when that company held cable systems from 1998 – 2001. The clause essentially requires the arbitration of all disputes that are not settled between a customer and the company. More importantly, the mandatory arbitration provision purports to prevent the arbitration of claims
Comments Off
|
||
|
