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.. ..


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

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

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 ::

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

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

DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

Do you feel a city government should enforce Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)]?
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::

nekote

join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA

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

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

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

There are no deep pockets in the State of Illinois.

insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
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

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

Cable companies already do. It's called franchise agreements
dadarkside
Premium
join:2006-05-20
The Moon

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.

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

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 ::
ross7

join:2000-08-16

1 recommendation

Au contraire, cable companies LOVE franchise agreements. Those agreements were/are their butress against competition. While they haven't liked providing local access channels and public programing, they have made a killing by having exclusive agreements territorializing the market.

They really don't like the Telcos having unfettered access to what was formally their exclusive domain.

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

2 recommendations

said by FFH5:

...the bill provides for a national franchise regulation that would override local city rules.
Citizens get screwed
ross7

join:2000-08-16

Re: Summary of interview; as I see it

said by oliphant:

said by FFH5:

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

anonpronman

@optonline.net
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

KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Good to see true blue conservativism still exists! Smaller Federal Government, allowing States and local communities to decide their own politics, is still the foundation of conservati...
oh, wait, nevermind.
KM
--
War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God?

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

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

1 edit

2 recommendations

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.

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
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
ross7

join:2000-08-16

Re: Of course

said by marigolds:

Broadband is a money loser.
Video is a cash cow.
So far, exactly the opposite for Telcos.

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
Is broadband really making money for the telcos or just revenue?
It always seemed that voice was still the both the big revenue and profit margin for the telcos. There involvement with video is still too new to really judge that yet, but dish and cable show that it works pretty well (even if the providers are taking the biggest piece of revenue).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

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.

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!

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

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.

Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

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.


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

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

Re: Basis for Comparison

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.

Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
I believe St. Charles will allow AT&T to redline their residents.

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.

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

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.

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

join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX

Re: Why is ATT even bothering?

said by cbrigante2:

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.
Why should they build out what is needed when not enough will purchase the service to make it profitable or even pay for itself. Maybe those areas that cant afford the should just get free service? Who do you want to subsidize this development.

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

Re: Why is ATT even bothering?

said by cwh:

said by cbrigante2:

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.
Why should they build out what is needed when not enough will purchase the service to make it profitable or even pay for itself. Maybe those areas that cant afford the should just get free service? Who do you want to subsidize this development.
AT&T argued the private model to help shut down the municipal vote. All subsidizing of this build-out should come from AT&T.
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.

••••••••••••
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

1 recommendation

who cares?

It's too bad this area has people too ignorant to understand the situation. Having a municipal fiber system is the best thing to have. With any of the incumbents it's going to be an unregulated duopoly/monopoly.

Yes, I would like fiber.

Yes, I think these companies should get franchises.

Yes, I think it sucks that AT&T (in Illinous) and Verizon (in montgomery county, MD) are pouting and taking their ball home because the cities won't change their rules.

without competition, it's all going to suck in the end, with either crappy support or high prices or both. Not to mention it will take a very long time before 100M symmetrical is provided by incumbents (unless it's at an outrageous price).

our gov't fiddles as broadband in the U.S. burns

•••••

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink

Been There Done That Before

Before SBC, before the Sherman Act that tore a giant telco apart, there was Bell Telephone Company, hard wired black phones, 8 party lines, twisted copper pairs, operators, headsets and switchboards, and real honest to goodness service. The only thing Bell - let's call it what it is - excels at in addition to lies and FUD is twisted pairs. There is no service.

In the last 20 years I've experienced Bell lock out FCC mandated competition because they could. I experienced their failure to provide promised upgrades in a timely manner to no less than 6 different ISPs in three states because they could (they are all defunct now). I ,most recently experienced Bell's unmitigated greed as they increase fees while service degrades.

My family has been a Bell customer for 100 years. At one time I was paying $150 per month for DSL, local and Long distance, and the cell phone plus $40 for cable. I finally got a belly full of the had service, lies and arbitrary fees imposed by Bell because they could, and dropped all but local service. Even then the rep lied when she said my long distance would be active until 6 pm. With one push of her little finger the connection ended. Poof. Bell is a circus, magic act, This dog and pony show disconnect DIS-service only cost $7.50.

Now, Instead of paying $65 to Bell I pay $25 for Vonage. Soon I will pay $5 for a local 800 number and drop Bell altogether which will be a savings of $14. And I gained by switching to Cox. The barely faster than dial-up DSL from Bell I paid $60 for, became $40 for 4MB/512, for a grand total savings of about $50 over Bell's bundled services. and I have identical services.

Peter Collins is absolutely correct. He's fighting an uphill battle.

As for one more ineffective law that is ignored, House Bill ???, might trump city code, but I doubt it will trump state law. Illinois will challenge it citing states right to protect its citizenry.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

how to determine if its a cable co

If its a new service, that customers purchease to replace or wind up disconnecting the local cable co's service infavor of the new service, and it uses town ROW (not wireless), its a cable company and needs a franchise, nuff said.
barn25

join:2005-11-17
Springfield, IL

what they are trying to do

what you dont newmariner is this what at&t wants to do is charge whatever and whoever they want for their services. for example if you neighbor had dsl and you didnt because the company said they wouldnt service you how would you feel? Would you then feel like saying that the muni's just want more money? Places that run their own equipment dont make you get extra services you dont want or need like phone serice in order to get dsl. What they are doing is simply saying we are the only ones that can let you get on the internet and we can charge you what ever we want.

Mr Anon

@k12.il.us

Compromise?

Does anyone know if something has been offered like a free lease with a time limit?

Say let them come in and build and do as the please for three years, after that they must renegotiate and possibly up deployment. By that time they have the ability to make sure the system is going to bring in a profit and enough customers and after they do they must build and build within a limit.