dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2006-06-08 16:23:09: Though one is using more fiber, both Verizon and AT&T have plans to upgrade their networks and offer video services. While they may not like them - Verizon is signing video franchise agreements with each community they want to serve. AT&T.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Summary of interview; as I see it

City proposes FTTH
AT&T & Comcast opposed
Proposal comes up for vote
AT&T & Comcast outspend city and supporters before vote
Vote goes against city
The 2nd vote follows same steps as above
AT&T wants to rollout Lightspeed
City mad at AT&T and says no
AT&T sues
Citizens get screwed

And all will be moot if US House passes HR 5252(and is also passed by Senate) as discussed in this BBR news item from today: »House to Vote on Net-Neutrality COPE Amendment
because the bill provides for a national franchise regulation that would override local city rules.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page


93388818
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX

Of course

bash bash bash - everyone bash the big bad telco!

Why not let them lay the fiber, while you figure out the video issues? Video was just one of the services they wanted to offer on this transport.
--
-Corona

Boat For Sale


cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL

Good Job

This was an informative read.

I wanted to send out a "good job" to officials like Mr. Collins who continue to take their responsibilities to the citizens seriously.

I've noticed some of the negative AT&T ads in the Daily Herald in recent months, and try to do my part with word of mouth to counter this practice (every little bit helps!).

Keep up the good work Mr. Collins.


DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to FFH5

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

Do you believe that AT&T's product is an IP service that happens to serve video?

Or, do you believe that AT&T is offering video services that simply uses IP as part of their transport means (in conjunction with their fiber, xDSL, and copper transport)?
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::


oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

...the bill provides for a national franchise regulation that would override local city rules.
Citizens get screwed


oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA

1 edit

2 recommendations

reply to 93388818

Re: Of course

Because part of the franchise agreement is often who the provider would have to serve within the community; purpose being protecting the citizens from the telco cherry picking residents who are convenient to serve while ignoring those who aren't.

Also the franchise agreement may have requirments as to minimum levels of service and customer service, again to protect the consumers.

A franchise agreement is a small cost for the telco to be granted a money tree by the government who owns the dirt the wires go in, out, through and around.

A muni infrastructure solution would solve all of this as then content providers would have to compete without the B.S. of who gets served and who doesn't.

The telcos want their cake and to eat it too. Screw them. If they want to make money in that community, they should have to follow some very basic rules which include franchise agreements.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Basis for Comparison

quote:
And, in the end, we're simply upholding the law in the State of Illinois.

Ok I'll bite. Are there any towns in Illinois, preferably of the same sort of government structure as Geneva, that took the other path and let AT&T go ahead and build their network without requiring a franchise agreement?

If this is the case, then there might be a basis for Illinois law allowing for such a deployment to take place.
--
Tancredo 2008!


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
reply to 93388818

Re: Of course

said by 93388818:

bash bash bash - everyone bash the big bad telco!

Why not let them lay the fiber, while you figure out the video issues? Video was just one of the services they wanted to offer on this transport.
AT&T won't lay the fiber if they can't offer video.
Broadband is a money loser.
Video is a cash cow.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to DaSneaky1D

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

said by DaSneaky1D:

Do you believe that AT&T's product is an IP service that happens to serve video?

Or, do you believe that AT&T is offering video services that simply uses IP as part of their transport means (in conjunction with their fiber, xDSL, and copper transport)?
A rose is a rose... What AT&T is offering is a video service and under current rules should be subject to a franchise agreement with the city. So I don't agree with AT&T's position.

BUT
,
and you knew a but was coming right?,
I don't think a city government should have the power to force rules on a provider as to who they serve. So, if and when HR 5252 is passed(it includes national franchise rules), AT&T would owe money to the city, but the city could NOT deny a franchise based on which neighborhoods AT&T chooses to serve.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page


insomniac
Oh Yeah
Premium
join:2002-09-22
Naperville, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to pnh102

Re: Basis for Comparison

This is all so new that I don't think anything's really operational, or even close to it. A Lightspeed box (or what appears to be one) just popped up in my neighborhood in Naperville, but I have heard no rumblings from the Naperville City Council about a construction moratorium or a franchise agreement. There's a new development west of me in Sugar Grove that's supposedly being built to support Lightspeed from the ground up; I don't know the status of it.

As I've said before, it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
--
If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something.


anonymostest

@38.115.x.x

Why is ATT even bothering?

Just send the trucks deploying fiber down here to Joliet/Plainfield, I won't fight you. Why bother fighting 1 community right now when there are so many communities that haven't had deployment yet? Stupid idiots.


anonpronman

@optonline.net
reply to FFH5

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

Hold on to your horse mr confusion spreader.

If should look like this.

City proposes FTTH
AT&T & Comcast opposed Customer is already screwed as they aren't going to BUY the vote or MISLEAD the public.
It's taking advantage of people that don't know any better and it's 235^&&& SICKING!

Proposal comes up for vote
AT&T & Comcast outspend city and supporters before vote
Vote goes against city
The 2nd vote follows same steps as above
AT&T wants to rollout Lightspeed
City mad at AT&T and says no
AT&T sues
Citizens get screwed


DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
reply to FFH5
Do you feel a city government should enforce Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)]?
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::


insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I don't think a city government should have the power to force rules on a provider as to who they serve.
Why? A city should set whatever rules they want. If they mandate that any company that wants to roll out a new service needs to offer it to everyone, that is there right. The town will either win with companies offering products to everyone, or lose with no companies offering anything because they don't want to offer the product everywhere. In the end, as long as any money can be made if a product is rolled out to every house, the companies will still do it. It's just angers them when a small rural fraction will cost as much to setup as everyone else combined.
Personally I think more towns need to start requiring full deployment by telephone and cable companies. Otherwise the sparse areas will never get service.


DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Cable companies already do. It's called franchise agreements

NewMariner

join:2005-06-24

1 recommendation

When all Else Fails......follow the money.........

Seems to me that Geneva is just pissed that their voters voted against their FTTH program due to them not wanting to pay for it. And you cant tell me that a city government is going to build something and not charge its citizens for it...

They saw they could make some extra money by providing FTTH but the taxpayers didnt approve it, so now they want to force AT&T into providing services to them and force AT&T to pay fees to do so...

Sorry Mr Collins that is completely wrong as broadband is NOT A UTILITY. NOR IS CABLE..Phone service, gas, electricity and water are the only UTILITIES which MUST be provided to everyone....BROADBAND is not among that category. I hope AT&T buries ya'll.


RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1
reply to anonymostest

Re: Why is ATT even bothering?

said by anonymostest :

Why bother fighting 1 community right now when there are so many communities that haven't had deployment yet? Stupid idiots.
Because EVERY successful build out done by a CITY makes the Tel/Cablecos look bad. Must nip the problem in the bud at all costs least the PEOPLE discover that big corporations have no concern for the people/community, just the upper crust of the company and a few top shareholders.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
reply to insomniac

Re: Basis for Comparison

Aurora, IL will consider joining the moritorium cities.

»www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beac ··· D_S1.htm

I liked this part of the article:

"Marc Blakeman, regional vice president of external affairs for AT&T, said his company is willing to reach out to municipalities, but so far, the municipalities haven't reached back.

"I would hope that, if a city had concerns, they would give us a call and talk about them," he said. "I question what the purpose of a moratorium is when they can just talk to us."

Blakeman said that, in each recent case, AT&T has asked for meetings with city officials, but only the city of Geneva has taken them up on it."

This is total BS and an outright lie. Several Mayors and City Staff have met with Mark Blakeman on more than one occasion. Mark showed up with his AT&T lawyer to several meetings in Oakbrook, IL to discuss this issue.

For those who think this is a "personal grudge" against AT&T from Geneva, guess again. Geneva, IL is not the only city in America trying to uphold the rights of their citizenry to not be redlined. What we have here are city governments protecting the rights of it's citizens and the rights to have control over their ROWs.



Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
reply to NewMariner

Re: When all Else Fails......follow the money.........

You can't make that leap that Geneva is pissed off so they won't allow deployment. First of all, the CITIES of Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles had second referendums run by a citizen's group, not the CITIES.

And what about all the other IL cities who have also passed moritoriums? What is THEIR beef with AT&T? They didn't run referendums for muni broadband.

If AT&T wants to bring in their service they can offer services to all residents of a community. To allow redlining is irresponsible for City Staffs.


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
reply to pnh102

Re: Basis for Comparison

I believe St. Charles will allow AT&T to redline their residents.


nekote

join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA
reply to DaSneaky1D

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

Shouldn't the State of Illinois be enforcing state law?
Shouldn't the statue be written (or amended?) in such a way to make that possible?
Why are the cities being sued and spending money for legal defenses, rather than the state?
The state's legal pockets are much deeper and much more comparable to corporate giants.

Do the city governments have to consider deliberately taking some provocative action - say, explicitly granting an un-Level franchise - that would violate the Level Playing Field statute, so as to get their city butts sued by the state for violating the state law?

A round about way to back into getting a Court ruling to enforce the Level Playing Field in a way they actually want?

Just trying to figure another way to skin the cat, so to speak.
--
Government is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to Octopussy2

Re: Basis for Comparison

said by Octopussy2:

For those who think this is a "personal grudge" against AT&T from Geneva, guess again. Geneva, IL is not the only city in America trying to uphold the rights of their citizenry to not be redlined.
If the Geneva city government isn't careful, then the entire city might just end up being redlined.
--
Tancredo 2008!


Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
That is certainly their perogative. Move along.

If the govt. didn't stand up, and it allows redlining to occur, then local govt. is not doing it's job. They cannot, in good faith, support redlining. I can see it now....citizens who cannot get served by AT&T's Lightspeed when it comes to town, sues local govt. for allowing them to be discriminated against.

NewMariner

join:2005-06-24
reply to Octopussy2

Re: When all Else Fails......follow the money.........

Actually its not that far of a leap. Let me shorten it for you.

Geneva wanted to create FTTH network($$$$ For City Gov as income)
Geneva citizens voted against it as they didnt want to pay for the network

Some citizens wanted to do so, they petitioned to go another round with voters...

Voters voted no.

AT&T wants to upgrade area with FTTN, to bring in VOIP, IPTV, Broadband, what have you. AT&T forks out money, AT&T makes the money on the return with customers signing up.

Geneva gets mad at AT&T because they are not paying stupid franchise fees, and taking away their money they could have made off of their FTTH...

Why would a citizen agree to pay for something when a company is willing to provide comparable service for no charge to the citizen?


cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
reply to anonymostest

Re: Why is ATT even bothering?

said by anonymostest :

Just send the trucks deploying fiber down here to Joliet/Plainfield, I won't fight you. Why bother fighting 1 community right now when there are so many communities that haven't had deployment yet? Stupid idiots.
I love these type posts. I agree with you, have AT&T go down to Joliet and start to cherry-pick who gets served and who doesn't since you don't seem to think a franchise agreement is needed. Cross all your fingers and toes and pray you are part of the served, then wonder why you thought you wanted this already outdated technology so bad.


cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
reply to nekote

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

There are no deep pockets in the State of Illinois.


cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
reply to NewMariner

Re: When all Else Fails......follow the money.........

So explain to me why my city (North Aurora) is being sued as well. We had no muni projects voted down, and only imposed the build out freeze to make sure AT&T signs and abides by the same franchise agreement as Comcast has to to deliver video content?

dadarkside
Premium
join:2006-05-20
The Moon
reply to DaSneaky1D

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

said by DaSneaky1D:

Cable companies already do. It's called franchise agreements
Cable companies don't set these, these are negotiated with the municipality in which the cable company seeks to do business.

In fact, Cable companies dn't LIKE franchise agreements, they are often used as a tool to extract EXTRA services from the cable company.

NewMariner

join:2005-06-24
reply to cbrigante2

Re: When all Else Fails......follow the money.........

I think this explains everything

"same franchise agreement as Comcast has to to deliver video content"

Why should they have to sign a franchise agreement? Except to pay the city council their mafia money.

Cable doesnt pay federal fees to provide phone service, they dont have to provide phone service to everyone like the phone companies..Why should phone companies have to sign something when the cable companies dont either?

Why not level the playing field instead of picking on one company?


DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to dadarkside

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

Don't split hairs. Read what I wrote in context with what insomniac84 See Profile wrote.
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::