grcore
New and Improved
join:2003-12-06
usa
1 edit | ATT will eventually get what they want...
They will buy whoever necessarry.
Too bad the folks in the tri-cities area fell for their marketing in the first place....
Let that be a lesson to all.. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA | Shoot all the lawyers...
The lawyers are all our problems. Shoot them all and we'll be better off for it. |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | reply to grcore
Re: ATT will eventually get what they want...
Why doesn't AT & T play by the rules. Verizon is playing by the rules, getting franchise agreement, has service in 7 states while AT & T bullies their way and getting nowhere. |
|
UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
| said by jammmin  :Why doesn't AT & T play by the rules. Verizon is playing by the rules, getting franchise agreement, has service in 7 states while AT & T bullies their way and getting nowhere. VZ didn't play by the rules either. My local town was PO'ed that VZ did work without notifying the local muni that they were doing the FIOS work and putting the FDHs on the poles, as required. Luckily none of the towns filed an injunction on VZ, so construction was allowed to proceed. Now I think the local towns are getting back at VZ by not moving their feet on a franchise agreement for TV. It's all about lining the pockets of the politicians in the end, leaving us, the consumer, hostage.  |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | reply to qworster
Re: Shoot all the lawyers...
I think the bigger problem is that AT & T says it will not seek a franchise agreement to offer video service because it regards its IPTV service as "informational".
AT & T will not get too far by doing this. |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs:
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
2 edits | What if...
What if AT&T pulled out of this area completely? No POTS, no DSL, no service at all. Play hardball with 'em.
"You don't want us to deploy next gen services here? Fine, we'll pack up all of our stuff and leave."
Don't know if that's possible or not. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Who exactly wins here?
What good is retribution when it still denies residents access to the communication services they desire? This reads more like the vindictive act of a selfish city council rather than something designed to benefit residents.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to meskinct
Re: What if...
said by meskinct :What if AT&T pulled out of this area completely? No POTS, no DSL, no service at all. Play hardball with 'em. Don't know if that's possible or not. State PUC and the FCC would prevent that. AT&T/SBC local voice access is still regulated. I am sure they could pull out over many years by selling to someone else, but it would all have to be approved by regulators.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL | I believe AT&T made agreements with the State of Illinois (one which guaranteed no competition on POTS) that would prevent them from pulling all service to these areas as well. |
|
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
| reply to yock
Re: Who exactly wins here?
said by yock :What good is retribution when it still denies residents access to the communication services they desire? This reads more like the vindictive act of a selfish city council rather than something designed to benefit residents. I think you are right on the city council being a little vindictive, but I also think they might be doing this to open some eyes of the residents of these communities as well. Remember, these cities voted the muni-broadband project down with help from negative ads run by Comcast/SBC talking about using tax dollars to support porn surfing. This might be just the wake up call they need. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| How about...
...flipping the coin on AT&T?
"In Batavia, Alderman Alan Wolff is criticizing AT&T for supporting fiber now that they're doing it, when execs called it an "unproven technology" before local leaders when Batavia was proposing it (see video). "Now when it’s their plan, they decide that they don’t have to follow the rules on a level playing field with every other competitor on the market," says Adlerman."
Ok, so now Fiber is OK, Batavia should go ahead and roll out their own lines now that it's viable.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
kjl1977
join:2003-02-20
Bolingbrook, IL | All this is...
...is just a win for Comcast - who continue to fool people into thinking they need speeds faster than DSL - which is tons cheaper. |
|
averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ | reply to cbrigante2
Re: Who exactly wins here?
I agree (trying to think in a positive way) that the city council is trying to give its residents a wake up call. |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | reply to cbrigante2
Re: What if...
I tried  |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| reply to jammmin
Re: ATT will eventually get what they want...
Why doesn't AT & T play by the rules. Verizon is playing by the rules, getting franchise agreement, has service in 7 states while AT & T bullies their way and getting nowhere. Because AT&T is bigger, has more money to thro around and has the NSA watching their back and the freedom of our country hinges on AT&T being as big as humanly possible in order to feed Uncle Sam as much information about you as possible. After all, Lightspeed brings video capability to the home and lord know who may be watching DIY to figure out how to usurp the US government by building cheaper toilet seats! |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to cbrigante2
Re: Who exactly wins here?
said by cbrigante2 :said by yock :What good is retribution when it still denies residents access to the communication services they desire? This reads more like the vindictive act of a selfish city council rather than something designed to benefit residents. I think you are right on the city council being a little vindictive, but I also think they might be doing this to open some eyes of the residents of these communities as well. Remember, these cities voted the muni-broadband project down with help from negative ads run by Comcast/SBC talking about using tax dollars to support porn surfing. This might be just the wake up call they need. It isn't City Council's responsibility to usurp the voter's decision. However skewed those poll results were, the voters supported the Telco and it is the City's responsibility to follow through on that referendum.
The city missed their chance to battle this by not campaigning against the skewed poll when it occurred.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin |
|
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
| How have they usurped anything yet? If anything, they are upholding what the voters asked for. The voters asked for fair service from a private vendor (in this case Comcast and SBC). The council is asking that AT&T enter into an agreement that would hold them accountable to this (just like Comcast did for tv service). |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to kjl1977
Re: All this is...
said by kjl1977 :...is just a win for Comcast - who continue to fool people into thinking they need speeds faster than DSL - which is tons cheaper. WTF does Comcast have to do with this?
Besides, if you want slower, it's out there! I look forward to insano symetrical fiber some day. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| reply to yock
Re: Who exactly wins here?
Who said the residents desired access to any video services AT&T might provide? I haven't heard residents complaining. Letters are being sent in by employees of AT&T complaining that cities are "banning" them from digging in city-owned ROWs....
First off, cities aren't "banning" AT&T from anything. They might be slowing them down a bit with moratoriums for 180 days, but a moratorium is not the same as saying it will never happen for AT&T. It is a more sensational word, however, that the Telco likes to throw around to get people all riled up.
The cities are protecting their turf (ROWs), and they have every right to do that. Have you seen the size of those Light Speed boxes? My goodness! I wouldn't want that ugly thing in front of, or next to, my house!
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to cbrigante2
said by cbrigante2 :How have they usurped anything yet? If anything, they are upholding what the voters asked for. The voters rejected municipal broadband when it was put on the ballot.
I think this city should drop the pissing contest with AT&T and let them implement their service. Today its the citizens that are losing out on a great new technology. Tomorrow it will be the town itself when more people decide to leave or not move in because this service isn't available there.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
