ISP Information:
This phrase was initially coined for older floppy diskettes that needed to be write-protected by placing a tab or sticker over a notch that told a floppy drive that the disk was write-enabled. With the standard 3.5" floppy disks, the write protect tabs are replaced by small plastic parts that can be enabled by setting them to up or down positions.
ISP Glossary:
Write Protect Tab - In the recent discussion about regulatory-fee-recovery charges, nobodyhas mentioned the charges that cable TV companies add to subscriberbills in order to recover the franchise fees they pay to localfranchising authorities (LFAs). Federal regulations allow cablecompanies to pass franchise fees through to subscribers, and toidentify them as such. Most cable companies do so.Federal regs set the maximum franchise fee at 5%. At first glance,one might assume that it's calculated like a tax: an extra 5% tackedonto the advertised monthly-service charge for cable service. Not so:it's based on "gross revenues," a figure that includes:(1) The charge for everything that's related to providing cableservice to a specific customer: installation charges,monthly service charges, equipment charges (converterboxes, inside wiring, remotes), miscellaneous charges suchas returned-check fees. (2) "Non-subscriber revenue" (revenue from locally-insertedadvertising and from commissions received from home-shopping networks), allocated to each subscriber for eachtier. Keep this in mind as you watch services like ESPN orCNN: the revenue that the cable company derives fromlocally-inserted advertising is subject to the same 5%franchise fee. But the fee is passed through tosubscribers, not to the advertisers. LFAs are, of course,in an absolute snit over this practice; however, the cablecompanies' rationale is fairly straightforward: federalregs allow them to pass *all* franchise fees through tosubscribers, and if the LFAs insist on imposing franchisefees on non-sub revenue, then the cable companies aremerely exercising their federal right to pass it along. Ifthe LFAs don't like it, they are free to stop imposingfranchise fees on non-sub revenue. The cable companies'right to do this has been upheld by the FCC and by theFifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (3) The amount collected to pay the franchise fee. Take thetotal from (1) and (2) above, and add 5%. Then add 5% ofthat 5%. Then add 5% of that 5%. Then add ... etc. Or,as a close approximation, take the total of (1) and (2) andadd 5.26%. This situation results from a complaint filedby two Texas cities (Dallas and Laredo) against certaincable operators who had been treating the franchise feelike a tax, adding only 5%. The FCC ruled in favor of thecable companies, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appealsupheld the cities' position, holding that Congress' use ofthe term "gross revenues" should include *all* revenuesreceived by the cable operator, including revenue receivedto pay the franchise fee. So here's how it works. Assume the advertised monthly-service chargeis $30.00, and that your cable company allocates $1.00 of its non-subrevenue to you. Your bill would be calculated as follows:Monthly service ............... 30.00Non-sub revenue ............... 1.00-------Subtotal ...................... 31.00Franchise fee 5.25% of 31.00 .. 1.63-------TOTAL ........................ 32.63Plus state and local taxes. Of course, you wouldn't see it broken downlike this on your bill: at most, you'd see the monthly service charge,the total franchise fee, taxes, and the final total.As this illustration shows, the "franchise fee" portion of your cablebill will likely exceed 5% of the advertised monthly-service charge byat least another percentage point. Cobb County, Georgia estimates thatthe actual franchise fee works out to "between 6.3 and 6.7 ofyour total cable bill." I find it interesting to compare the two decisions handed down by theFifth Circuit. One favors the cable industry and the other favors theLFAs, but both result in higher cable bills. 47 CFR 76.922-23.. Texas Coalition of Cities, et al. v. FCC.. City Of Dallas, Texas; City of Laredo, Texas v. FCC.. Cobb County Cable TV Franchise AuthorityFurther information:http://www.kagan.com/arch
|
