anonone
@af.mil | Technically...
Technically they started u-verse deployment in CT with a favorable ruling from the DPUC. |
|
LuisRodg
Premium
join:2002-07-28
Miami | ...
So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. |
|
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Funny, sounds like ATT back to being GOD of the telco world.
Stop crying ATT and apply for your license, why should you be any different than the cable companies. TV is TV no matter how you pipe it to the house. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| pfftttt...
If ATT says it isn't after a Judge said it was, then just appeal it, or STFU and deal with it. What a bunch of crybabies. Now are the cablecos phone companies if they offer VOIP? Quid pro quo. Peace 
PS remember it's only about the money
--
BlooMe |
|
supernac
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO | reply to LuisRodg
Re: ...
You honestly think the state cares about "customer protection"? They want more money out of ATT, thats the real issue. How does limiting competition protect consumers?? |
|
sm2016a
join:2004-03-02
Belleville, IL
 ·VoipYourLife
| reply to woody7
Re: pfftttt...
It is always about the money. They don't want to spend more than they think they have to. If they would have to build out to everyone it would cost a good amount more than them just cherry picking where they want to deploy their service. This is just AT&T thinking they own the world and can play by their own rules but that is nothing unusual from them. I hope they do have to apply for a license just like the judge said. |
|
skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to LuisRodg
Re: ...
said by LuisRodg  :So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses.
Yup, and the so called "CUSTOMER PROTECTION" Comcrap customers get now provides what? Oh yeah, Comcrap STILL raises rates, on average, twice a year AND they STILL get crappy customer service. So yes, you are correct, they need the protection. |
|
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs:
| reply to LuisRodg
said by LuisRodg :So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. as if this hs anything to do with customer protection, this is all about money. uncle sam needs his cut  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to supernac
said by supernac :You honestly think the state cares about "customer protection"? They want more money out of ATT, thats the real issue. How does limiting competition protect consumers?? You got it right. The PUC decided to override the legislators and interpret the law against AT&T. They will lose in court, but that could take a year or more. In the meantime the PUC helps keep the cable monopoly in place and the payoff money they pay to towns flowing. The only losers will be the consumers who won't get a new competitor selling to them.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Folks..
this company is beyond belief in the way they operate.
The AG is right in what he's doing. The Federal court has spoken..and they're right as well.
This company simply does not know how to comply with the law.
Or doesn't want to.
The cable TV franchise laws say this.
If you operate a one way video service..you need to be licensed. This has never been about HOW the video is delivered..but what the service is in that regard.
There is no way..no how..AT&T and it's lawyers didn't know that was the law. And that they needed to comply.
Instead..they set out on a course of just doing it anyway..MEANWHILE..they pushed this statewide video law through..and AFTER they got shot down by the Federal court..turned to that instead.
Now that the DPUC has ruled that that dog just won't hunt..
they're crying out with all their might. We're LEAVING!
Call the COPS! round up the customers!
Well..guess what folks? We're surrounded by Verizon fios..OOL..and the 30Mb powerboost enabled Comcast service I currently received.
Can anyone say..who cares about your Uverse CRAP AT&T?
Your service is CRAP...with a capital C.
CRAP ...CRAP...CRAP.
In the face of what is happening here in New England.
You have been told by MANY here at BBR that you'd better get with the verizon program if you want to survive.
And that meant get licensed..and start the fiber rollout.
But no..you just don't listen to that advice either.
Well...now..the courts have spoken. And the AG is speaking.
And the DPUC has spoken.
Get back on the horse you rode in on..and get the he** out of here.
We just don't need you.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
supernac
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO | Do you work for comcrap? |
|
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA | ATT. Your Monopoly. Delivered.
Ma Bell is back with a vengeance!
"We don't like the rules, we'll just walk all over them like we've been doing for 100+ years. We'd still have those fools renting telephones if those damn kids didn't foil us!" |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR | Clerity Please
What are these rules that suppose to protect consumers. All I know is Connecticut licensing requirement is a leagalized protection racket. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to woody7
Re: pfftttt...
The FCC doesn't see it that way, as they have already ruled that VOIP is an 'information service', not telephony. |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | reply to supernac
Re: Folks..
No. But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. |
|
supernac
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO | reply to pabster
Re: ATT. Your Monopoly. Delivered.
A monopoly for wanting to compete with comcast, that makes sense. |
|
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA | reply to pabster
No, a monopoly for ignoring the rules because they don't like them. If they don't like the rules, they should quit playing. |
|
skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Rick
Re: Folks..
said by Rick :Instead..they set out on a course of just doing it anyway..MEANWHILE..they pushed this statewide video law through..and AFTER they got shot down by the Federal court..turned to that instead. Can anyone say..who cares about your Uverse CRAP AT&T? Your service is CRAP...with a capital C. CRAP ...CRAP...CRAP.
First of all, the new law was written SPECIFICALLY with companies like AT&T in mind and the DPUC has chosen to ignore that. In fact, a letter has been written to the DPUC from the authors of the law (State Senator John Fonfara and State Representative Steve Fontana) saying just that.
Second, HOW is the service CRAP? The picture quality is fantastic, so far the reliability has been 100% (for me, I can't speak for everyone), HD quality is great and internet is extremely reliable and consistent. Oh that's right, it's CRAP because it comes in on that nasty copper stuff. SO WHAT? It still works just fine. And I suppose it's still CRAP because it only offers 6Mb service. When will you understand that except for the very few BBR users the VAST MAJORITY of internet users don't need nor care about 6Mb internet? Even hard core gamers don't need 30Mb, all they need is low latency.
And I've read your ravings on DOCSIS 3.0 a thousand times and all that's going to do is offer higher speeds to people that don't need it nor care about it. All it will do is provide Comcast with one more way to justify yet ANOTHER rate increase.
|
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| reply to meskinct
said by meskinct :No. But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Actually, I'm leaving for a trip to Danbury in about 10 minutes. Can you put me up for the night?
As for what AT&T has done..let me summarize it another way.
They were caught driving in Ct. without a license..and even a simple read of the cable franchise laws would have told even a layperson that they should have been licensed under it.
They decided to not do it that way though. For the sake of time/expense..whatever...they went a different route.
They got sued....they lost.
Not in state court..but in Federal Court.
And that court wants to apparently hear no more from them either. The court probably thinks they're trying to make a mockery out of the system.
And, the ruling is that..yes..uverse is a cable tv service.
And yes..they do need to be licensed. Wow. What a revelation that must be to them and their attorneys.
But wait. There's more. So unsure of themselves were they a about what they were doing...that while all that was going on...they managed to get legislation passed for a mini video act of some sort. A statewide one.
And so, when all federal hope failed..they turned to the DPUC and said..hey..! Look! We got this new law here.
Approve us under this.
Guess what? The dpuc wants no part of that.
They were driving in Ct. without a license..BEFORE that law passed.
Let me ask you.
If you don't have a drivers license..get busted in this state..then a new..slimmed down version of how to get a license gets passed..does that mean that your original arrest shouldn't stand?
AT&T..give it up.
Call off your pit bulls.
Get licensed.
Get fiber to the home.
Become a respectable company.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
u475700
Premium
join:2004-02-16
·Callcentric
·VoicePulse
·Comcast
| Why should AT&T have to abide by state regulations?
Why should any utility abide by the rules if AT&T doesn't? Yet, when local municipalities in Connecticut complained about the size and placement of the new boxes, AT&T claimed the company was exempt from local zoning under state utility regulations. I applaud the DUPC and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal for taking prompt action against AT&T for failing to comply. |
|
