 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | So...THIS is the COMPANY that would like regulators to now approve them growing even LARGER by approving their Bell South merger?
This is the kind of RESPONSIBLE corporate citizen that should now be allowed to expand their territory even more?
Let's be clear about one thing.
The LAW that is in question is the Cable Act.
And what that law apparently says is this.
If you deliver a ONE way video service...meaning there is no interaction back from you...then you ARE subject to the cable Act..and you ARE subject to franchise agreements.
Period. End of topic.
UVERSE..is a ONE WAY video service. The law does NOT say that just because it doesn't come to you via coax that it isn't cable tv. That "cable" that it comes to you on is irrelevant for the purposes of this law.
Ladies and Gentlemen, what you and I would like isn't the issue here. What AT&T would like isn't the issue here.
What the LAW currently states IS the issue here.
And in this country, if you don't like the laws, you don't get to run around breaking them until such time they get changed. You follow them, and, if it be your desire, you seek to have them changed to something more workable and to your liking.
This is why cities like Geneva are suing them.
And they are RIGHT to do so. Don't you think that AT&T knows what they are doing? If I was able to read what amounted to several pages of the legal argument as it pertains to what's going on in Geneva and to come away VERY clearly understanding the VERY simple concept of what this law states..don't you think that AT&T has as well?
Instead, you should understand what their method has apparently involved. It was initially to notify them about putting new cabinets in..never once saying anything about this being for video. Don't you think that omission ALONE was the first sign of what they were up to?
Don't you think that the PHONE company now trying to become your CABLE company would have managed to let that fact be known if they initially had any intention of doing so?
They were just damned to get it all done apparently, come hell or high water.
It should be clearly noted that this is NOT about communities that take too long to approve these agreements..it's about AT&T deciding that these laws just don't apply to them. All on their own. Something as simple and clear cut as that which I described above.
There is a real danger in allowing a company to just walk on in and do that. And never..in a million years..should that company now be allowed to grow even larger.
The Bell South Deal must be rejected.
I am not pro cable co's. I am pro companies following the laws as they exist. I am not against AT&T being able to compete in the video market..I'm against their doing so illegally. I am not against uverse and their ultimately being able to deliver tv and HSI all in one.
I just think that by not carrying the fiber that last mile, they're making a very big mistake and ultimately will have a huge flop on their hands..because it's way too little..too late versus what the cable co's have and will be doing.
We should also be clear about this. This does NOT involve VOIP. VOIP is NOT subject to the cable act. I understand, perhaps that playing field is a difficult one for AT&T and the other telco's today. But also, such has been the nature of the telco industry for a decade now..with other competition. But just because you're having problems with one thing, doesn't mean you just get to walk into something else and not follow the laws governing entry into that business.
If you're a CPA who's having problems rounding up clients..you don't get to be a Doctor instead tomorrow without going to med school and being licensed.
That IS what this is all about.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
 BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
1 edit | "If you're a CPA who's having problems rounding up clients..you don't get to be a Doctor instead tomorrow without going to med school and being licensed.
That IS what this is all about"
What a piss poor comparison.....who do you think has been hauling some of the video over their backbone.
I guess you have had you head in the sand for awhile....they way you change a law by today's standard is to take it to court and let them decide. Lawmakers are lazy and short cited. They have no interest in serving the public's good so we are stuck using the courts |
|
| reply to Rick
What is the difference between a DSLAM and a DSLAM? Of course there is none. The same equipment that pipes in DSL pipes in IPTV. Google and Youtube aren't following the cable franchise laws yet they're services are a one-way video service.
Just like how the cable companies skirted thetelecom regulators by pointing to the IP nature of it now the telco's are pulling the same semantics.
As to placing VRAD's. FiOS didn't get franchise agreements to lace the ONTs even though they could theoretically offer TV. Same with the VRAD. It can be used for VOIP, IPTV, or any IP service. |
|
jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI | "FiOS didn't get franchise agreements to lace the ONTs even though they could theoretically offer TV. Same with the VRAD. It can be used for VOIP, IPTV, or any IP service"
Verizon has gotten franchise agreements everywhere it is offering television. Till they offer a paid television service its not 'cable like'.
I can see ATT's point though, since technology has outpaced regulation.
ATT loses this case however as the courts will find that the 'intent' of the law covers ATT's product regardless of the techno babble. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:Google and Youtube aren't following the cable franchise laws yet they're services are a one-way video service. Just like how the cable companies skirted thetelecom regulators by pointing to the IP nature of it now the telco's are pulling the same semantics. No, they are not one-way services.
You can send content back out through both services.
It was actually the FCC who gave cable companies the backdoor out of common carrier regulation through the rules that led to the brand X case. Give the FCC 2-5 more years and AT&T will get the same backdoor for DSL (which will be the end of DSL line sharing), and that might lead to an exemption for AT&T on IPTV. For now though, that exemption does not exist.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
| When yu watch a video on gogleit is transmitted one-way to you. Teleconferencing is 2-way. |
|
|
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by bogey780:When yu watch a video on gogleit is transmitted one-way to you. Teleconferencing is 2-way. Teleconferencing is 2-way, but that is not how the criteria works. It is the ability to return content for storage to the originator that makes it two-way. |
|
| Well then IPTV is 2-way as there's an upstream pathway for sending information.  |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by bogey780:Well then IPTV is 2-way as there's an upstream pathway for sending information. Same argument was made with digital cable. The content storage component was the critical part. Basically, if you can take a home camera with digital content, send it back up the line, and have others view it, then it is a 2-way system.
Now, if it comes down to the 2-way content criteria, it would be interesting to see if AT&T adopts a system allowing such "home public access" type setups where you can upload directly to the VOD for any other AT&T subscriber to view.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
