ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | FiOS-like
Should be using that 30-40 billion for a fios-like build out..dsl is NOT going to cut it in the future. |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | when will they learn
Typical of AT & T trying to skirt the law again.
I wish CT will stop Uverse deployment until AT & T gets franchise agreements for each city.
Verizon can do it. So should AT & T . |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| While the natural reaction might be
why not use this money for a FTTH build out instead of Uverse..perhaps AT&T see's problems now proceeding with that.
I've argued for a long time here that they MUST get going with a FTTH buildout AND they MUST start acknowledging that yes..their service IS a cable tv service..and subject to local franchise regulations.
IE: AT&T needed to do exactly what verizon is doing.
Here's the problem they now have.
A FEDERAL court here in Ct. has ruled on that issue..and said that Uverse..however it is delivered..is a cable TV service..and subject to current cable tv franchise regulations. AT&T tried to get around that by applying for the new statewide video franchise license instead..arguing that law should apply.
The state DPUC said NO to that. And the reason appears to be that they are saying that because the ruling was a FEDERAL ruling..it takes precedent over this new state law.
Here is the BIG problem that AT&T might now have.
This might no longer be confined to just Ct.
What if ANY state out there now says they must proceed with the traditional local cable franchise route?
This will take at&t a huge amount of time to proceed with what they should have acknowledged 2 years back.
IMHO..AT&T might now even be in the very unenviable position of having many other states say that uverse must be halted while they proceed with proper licensing.
That's speculation on my part for sure..but again..a federal ruling has now been handed down and there is nothing that says this issue now is just a Ct. one.
Why proceed with buying a satellite operator instead?
If they want to be in the TV business..it might wind up being their only option while they try to figure out what to do with this issue.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX
| Okay, okay, okay. I've had enough of this...
I am really seeing where AT&T is heading with this. They obviously want to have a product that unconditionally makes every person in America give them something. I personally avoid AT&T like the plague (since I work for a company that competes with them and they have been bitter about the competition, frequently), but the only other thing I can see them doing to make their empire larger would be to either purchase, or get purchased by, Wal-Mart.
When will we see the headlines light up with "AT&T Eyeing Wal-Mart?" |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Rick
Re: While the natural reaction might be
In other words, The Death Star bungled it. When it's all said and done, if they just would've gone the FTTH route and obtained local franchises instead of trying to cut corners they would be much further along then they are now.
If AT&T is forced to obtain franchise agreements from local municipalities AFTER they've installed U-Verse equipment in said municipality they're, um SCREWED.
The local powers that be will see they have AT&T by the balls, and you can bet they will squeeze.
AT&T will have no choice but to pony up, or lose millions of dollars on equipment that will become obsolete before they're allowed to use it.
Such short sightedness. Someone at AT&T should be hung by their Brooks Brothers suspenders for it.
Oh wait, that CEO left all ready...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to rantou
Re: Okay, okay, okay. I've had enough of this...
said by rantou  :I personally avoid AT&T like the plague You and me both.
I've got a genuine Irish grudge for them. I will never ever do business with them, if I can at all avoid it.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
| reply to N3OGH
Re: While the natural reaction might be
I feel sorry for dish users if the user takes over. Ha you will soon have to buy the 40 dollar phone package instead of just the 5 dollar no phone line fee which is bs. From what I see dish is a good company. I wouldn't pair it with the likes of crappy cingular |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Is It me or
everything at&t touches turns to SH**? |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | cost of any deal would be $30-$40 billion!!
...this is why your POTS line is 50 bux a month when it should be around $5.00. |
|
Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA | reply to ztmike
Re: FiOS-like
Heck, there's no reason for at&t to buy DirecTV unless they want to piss off Verizon, Qwest, and anyone else who has integrated billing service with them. But who knows... |
|
goulav
@cingular.com
| reply to jammmin
Re: when will they learn
said by jammmin :Typical of AT & T trying to skirt the law again. I wish CT will stop Uverse deployment until AT & T gets franchise agreements for each city. Verizon can do it. So should AT & T . and if all things were equal then every voip provider should be regulated as a phone company and pay the tarriffs and connection fees... that would really shut people up if they did. i mean, fair is fair, right? |
|
skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Rick
Re: While the natural reaction might be
said by Rick :A FEDERAL court here in Ct. has ruled on that issue..and said that Uverse..however it is delivered..is a cable TV service..and subject to current cable tv franchise regulations. AT&T tried to get around that by applying for the new statewide video franchise license instead..arguing that law should apply. The state DPUC said NO to that. And the reason appears to be that they are saying that because the ruling was a FEDERAL ruling..it takes precedent over this new state law.
Rick, I actually promised myself I wouldn't argue with you any more because you are SO anti-AT&T that you tend to ignore just about all of my, and everyone else's, facts about the service, but your interpretation is incorrect. I am including part of a letter written but State senator John Fonfara and State Representative Steve Fontana (the original authors of the new law.)
This is what the law actually states:
Sec. 2. (Effective October 1, 2007)a) An entity or person, other than a community antenna television company certified to provide community antenna television service pursuant to section 16-331 of the general statutes on or before October 1, 2007, or an affiliate, successor or assign of such community antenna television company, seeking to provide video service to the state on and after October 1, 2007, shall file with the Department of Public Utility Control an application for a certificate of video franchise authority, containing such information as required by this section. A community antenna television company may apply for a certificate of video franchise authority pursuant to this section for any service area in which it was not certified to provide community antenna television service pursuant to section 16-331 of the general statutes on or before October 1, 2007. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of one thousand dollars.
The letter goes on to explain in the authors' words:
When it filed its application on October 1st, AT&T was an "entity or person" as required under the law and it was not certified as a CATV provider anywhere in the state. The language of the law is clear; AT&T is eligible to become a newly certified competitive video service provider.
Those who argue against allowing AT&T to become certified under the new law are trying to cloud the issue over the fact that AT&T has been providing its Uverse video service in Connecticut since December of last year - under the Department's July 2006 order and then under section 2(b) of this act since Oct. 1st. That is irrelevant. The language of the law states clearly that so long as AT&T was not certified as a CATV provider under 16-331 prior to October 1st, it is eligible to apply under the new law.
Opponents of AT&T's application are also pointing to the federal court ruling overturning the DPUC's decision and finding that AT&T's Uverse service is a "cable service" under federal law. Again, this is irrelevant. PA 07-253 is "technology neutral". It doesn't matter whether AT&T service (or the service of any applicant) is a "cable service" under the law, uses IPTV technology, or some technology as yet to be invented. Rather than try to use technology to define how a service should be regulated - a folly if ever there was one in light of constant changes that technology is bringing to the world - PA 07-253 separates and regulates providers based on whether they are incumbents (providers who were licensed under 16-331 in an area to provide service prior to Oct 1st) or new entrants (those who were not licensed in an area under 16-331 prior to Oct 1st).
Even the Attorney General has changed his stance (and it was him that brought the issue to federal court) and said that AT&T Uverse should be allowed to continue because the competition would be a very good thing for Connecticut. He would like to see AT&T do a build out to as much of the state as possible and that is what he continues to push for.
The bottom line is that the new law SHOULD apply to AT&T because it was NOT licensed to provide video service in Connecticut prior to Oct. 1st AND it doesn't matter WHAT the federal court ruled about the type of service since the law is technology neutral. |
|
LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to pokesph
Re: cost of any deal would be $30-$40 billion!!
said by pokesph :...this is why your POTS line is 50 bux a month when it should be around $5.00. yeah tell me about it. i keep a cell phone and I'm mobile.
Soon ATT will own everything. i think the gov should do something but more than likely they will not since they are sucking and creasing congresses balls. |
|
kinabrew
join:2002-02-01 | reply to Jonbo298
Re: FiOS-like
Verizon, Qwest, and anyone else who has integrated billing service with them. -and DirecTV customers. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to rantou
Re: Okay, okay, okay. I've had enough of this...
Look at the bright side, at least they don't still have AT&T Broadband cable.
Personally I think the FTC/FCC should keep AT&T's paws the hell away from DirecTV and DISH. There is no synergy in satellite TV with their primary product. Satellite TV is actually a competitor to a product that they're actively developing. The last thing AT&T needs is an excuse to stop innovating and deploying.
I'm OK with all the little bells merging back together (people don't really have a choice between them anyway), but I don't think consumers would benefit from AT&T owning a satellite provider.
-- Rob
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | And soon...
There will be the really new AT&T that will be the only communications provider no matter what the form...
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
spamd
Premium
join:2001-04-22
Rockford, IL
·Insight Communicat..
| att history
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtFtcp4mNzA |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to N3OGH
Re: While the natural reaction might be
Well now you know why they want to own a satellite company !
They can open up their dsl offering and bring Hd VOD via the dsl service. And use the home zone box to deliver the tv from the satellites.
It can be a very good deal if done right. But it really is scary to see how they dropped the ball and should just stop the dsl roll out.
In my mind using home zone is a great idea. Use the dsl for VOD and avoid the local contract for cable tv. Since it can come over the internet it can free at&t.
Now they stop stringing these crappy dsl services and buy dishnetwork , roll out home zone with the dishnetwork gear with VOD , and move over to rolling fiber to the home for voice , and data , and maybe even tv for people who can't get the service because they are being blocked by trees.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
rec9140
Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL
|  Dear AT&T
Dear Lord Vader,
Please keep your filthy hands OFF Echostar/Dish Network! !
Just go away!
Signed,
HAPPY and LOYAL Dish Network Subs.
--
Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex. |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA
| ugh, AT&T - don't buy DirecTV!
I'm so tired of cancelling accounts and services because of former SBC now AT&T buying them.
I switched cell providers to Sprint when Cingular bought AT&T.
I switched from AT&T CallVantage to Vonage when SBC bought AT&T.
I don't want to have to switch to Comcast if AT&T buys DirecTV.
I'm still bitter from the old Ameritech days. It's getting harder and harder not to give them money. |
|
