AT&T would pay city 5% in franchise-like agreement

[Bebop]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=578716

[Mark Strube]

I went ahead and moved this since it's a good news posting.

Wow, local governments really love keeping their hands in that cookie jar. I just love how they make additional fees (that the customer will end up paying for) look as if it's benefiting the poor poor consumers.

Murphy said aldermen wanted to be sure any deal with AT&T protects the revenue the city gets from the Time Warner franchise. That 17-year agreement took effect in 1999.

Similarities to the mob are astonishing. This is all in IMHO of course.

[Absopo]

I went ahead and moved this since it's a good news posting.

Wow, local governments really love keeping their hands in that cookie jar. I just love how they make additional fees (that the customer will end up paying for) look as if it's benefiting the poor poor consumers.



Similarities to the mob are astonishing. This is all in IMHO of course.

I was thinking the same thing, the thing is, maybe the city is entitled to a little cash since I think they own much of the infrastructure these systems are built upon. At the same time Gov. should not immediately seek ways to continue to get revenue from citizens if something comes along that might save us money.

[Gregg Lengling]

I was thinking the same thing, the thing is, maybe the city is entitled to a little cash since I think they own much of the infrastructure these systems are built upon. At the same time Gov. should not immediately seek ways to continue to get revenue from citizens if something comes along that might save us money.

Most of the right of ways where the FTTN's are placed are already in agreements for things like Power/Teleco Poles, and in some situations on private property.  I really don't think saying the Municipality owns much of the infrastructure is a fair statement.

[tencom]

The local government controls the right of way within three feet of your property line if this wasn't the case a landowner, could prevent a utility from crossing there property with telephone, electric , cable or gas lines and prevent others  in the  vicinity from getting those services.

[Mark Strube]

if this wasn't the case a landowner, could prevent a utility from crossing there property with telephone, electric , cable or gas lines and prevent others  in the  vicinity from getting those services.

As they should be able to... they should even be able to charge for using land that they own. (Just as now the gov't is charging these companies for using land that they own... I use the term "own" very lightly in this case, since we all "own" that land through coercive taxation.) Freedom can be a scary thing to some people, but I'm a fan of it.

...IMHO.

[Doug Mohr]

The local government controls the right of way within three feet of your property line if this wasn't the case a landowner, could prevent a utility from crossing there property with telephone, electric , cable or gas lines and prevent others  in the  vicinity from getting those services.

Not Exactly. They don't have a right of way, they have to apply for a Utility Easement. It is a rubber stamp process unless someone objects and can prove their case. I had a right of way revoked to get a telephone pole that was 30" from my house removed since the house it was designed to service had been torn down decades ago. Sometimes utility companies don't consider the area they are working in, and pick a route that is bad for the overall area. They will listen and reconsider, but you have to get to them early because once the crews arrive, you are pretty much stuck with it.

However, many newer subdivisions do include Utility easements into the project. In that case, there is pretty much no chance of getting things changed. I think that is what you are referring to.

As they should be able to... they should even be able to charge for using land that they own. (Just as now the gov't is charging these companies for using land that they own... I use the term "own" very lightly in this case, since we all "own" that land through coercive taxation.) Freedom can be a scary thing to some people, but I'm a fan of it.
...IMHO.

Amen, brother.

[gparris]

As long as the big box isn't in my front of the house, taking up yard space I need and they work with me, I don't care...the darn utility will work WITH me.
Talking to our mayor in Kenosha, a friend of mine said they are coming in soon to the city and honouring the requests for box placement is foremost on their minds, including the fees for having it in the city to match TWC's.
(I have seen a box from AT&T on Sheridan Road just south of 75th Street in Kenosha).
These boxes are big and ugly and these makes me think it is a rather "primitive" method, IMO, of getting IPTV by doing it the cheap(er) way vs. what I experienced in Tampa with FIOS.

Maybe soon, AT&T will get its fiber "act together" before it gets to my neighbourhood.
I never saw any big boxes anywhere FIOS existed there and was surprised at them being here with this teleco.

[tencom]

Not Exactly. They don't have a right of way, they have to apply for a Utility Easement. It is a rubber stamp process unless someone objects and can prove their case. I had a right of way revoked to get a telephone pole that was 30" from my house removed since the house it was designed to service had been torn down decades ago. Sometimes utility companies don't consider the area they are working in, and pick a route that is bad for the overall area. They will listen and reconsider, but you have to get to them early because once the crews arrive, you are pretty much stuck with it.

TENCOM
Not exactly right. the utility only has to apply for an easement from the landowner if the utility has to go beyond the three foot right of way limit to place their wires!
For the utility with-in the three foot right of way, has to apply for a franchise from the local municapality. before the start of construction

[Doug Mohr]

Not exactly right. the utility only has to apply for an easement from the landowner if the utility has to go beyond the three foot right of way limit to place their wires!
For the utility with-in the three foot right of way, has to apply for a franchise from the local municapality. before the start of construction

Are you talking right of way from the street side? I was referring to the side and rear lot lines.

We may be in different municipalities and under different rules :huh?:

[tencom]

Are you talking right of way from the street side? I was referring to the side and rear lot lines.

We may be in different municipalities and under different rules :huh?:

I believe it applys to all  property borders the local municapality controls the right of way within a three-foot span, on either side of the lot line and I believe its engrained, in state law. However I doubt that the city or town would allow no more then two sides If their was no laws governing this, it would be impossible, to have any utility placements because, an errant property owner could keep a whole neighborhood from being served by utilities. Such laws are over a hundred years old.

[Mark Strube]

Such laws are over a hundred years old.

Just because an invasion of property rights is old doesn't make it right. In a hundred years we'll be able to say "Hey eminent domain is 100 years old! Come on!" I'm not saying this law is quite as serious or problematic as that... but it was a step towards this direction, and my principles don't allow me to support it. There are plenty of old bad laws we've gotten rid of... take a look at the south.

All IMHO of course.

[Doug Mohr]

I believe it applys to all  property borders the local municapality controls the right of way within a three-foot span, on either side of the lot line and I believe its engrained, in state law. However I doubt that the city or town would allow no more then two sides If their was no laws governing this, it would be impossible, to have any utility placements because, an errant property owner could keep a whole neighborhood from being served by utilities. Such laws are over a hundred years old.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is as intrusive as you have stated. My neighborhood is over 150 years old, many homes are within inches of the lot lines (including mine) and within a few feet of each other. That would make it a little difficult for a utility to erect poles, dig trenches, etc. Since the houses were built before gas, water, and electric were around, everything entered through the front of the house from the poles on the right of way along the street.

Since the city has the right of way along all streets, I can't see how any one person could block a neighborhood because all services can still come in from the street. I think it has become a convenience for people and for utility companies to come in from the rear, not necessarily a utility's right by law.

I'm down at WE Energies today, I'll wander over to the infrastructure department and see if I can get a definitive answer.

Doug

[tencom]

Would you like to see utility poles ,placed in the middle,of the street   or streets dug up to place utilities. Come on have a little common sense eminent domain   isn't aboslute. Think in terms, for the common good of all!

[Mark Strube]

Huh? They're using eminent domain to take people's houses and replace them with shopping centers and higher priced condos. That's far from electric poles. Why in the world would electric poles be placed in the middle of roads? People are used to bending over to government laws, so I'm sure they wouldn't have any problems bending over for the utility companies when they're offering either payment or discounts for using their property to place poles etc. (And hey, if they did have to put them in the middle of streets - that would force them to do some re-paving. A lot of area roads could use that. Yet another quality government program!) How can one have so much faith in government and so little faith in the free market? One consistently works, the other consistently screws things up.