how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
188 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Cities These cities are just trying to get more out of ATT than is required, necessary, or (justifiable). Att knows what the profit mar genes are, so because ATT does not want to loose money wiring NOWHERE, Kansas or any other non profitable build out. Business 101, don't do anything that is not profitable now and/or in the future. These municipalities must understand that for ATT to compete like a "Publicly Traded BUSINESS", it must be profitable. I honestly dont know what the exact answer to this problem is (national Franchise, maybe) but I do know that the city governments should and cant be asking for unreasonable requests. First of all, cities dont have enough money to be fighting corporations like att. Every city (tax payer) that fights the company looses. | | |
|
TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | But the issue is, even though they are a business, they are competing using public property (rights of way), hence there are requirements. | |
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to JamesPC
said by JamesPC:These cities are just trying to get more out of ATT than is required, necessary, or (justifiable). Att knows what the profit mar genes are, so because ATT does not want to loose money wiring NOWHERE, Kansas or any other non profitable build out. Business 101, don't do anything that is not profitable now and/or in the future. Buildout rules only apply to areas with a density of 20 households passed per fiber mile. It is not like these are unprofitable areas, they are just lower profit areas.
There is a simple solution to AT&T's problems though:
If they don't want to follow franchise rules, then all they have to do is stay out of the public right of ways.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
