| Good solution, AT&T AT&T's solution is an excellent one.
They probably would have spent much more on lawyers, lobbyists, etc. begging the local poobahs for permission. Instead, they use the money to install service, and fight them in court if challenged.
Of course, the local agency could ask the court for a restraining order preventing AT&T from proceeding. But perhaps that would incur the wrath of their own constituents who want the service. |
|
jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI | The article makes it sound as though ATT's rollout has been stopped pending an interim agreement.
What can Milwaukee do except fine ATT for proceeding? I would imagine its a civil code we are talking about here.
I can't see the Milwaukee PD stopping ATT from working, that would lead to a ridiculous situation. Maybe they could confiscate stb's from ATT trucks! LOL |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | reply to mxyztplk
said by mxyztplk: They probably would have spent much more on lawyers, lobbyists, etc. begging the local poobahs for permission. Instead, they use the money to install service, and fight them in court if challenged. Baloney. Trial lawyers are cheaper than negotiating with the city using the incumbent cable provider(s) franchise as a template? Hardly. |
|
| Cost of (Negotiators + Negotiating Lawyers + Lobbyists + Bribes [err, campaign contibutions] + Lost Business) > Cost of (Trial Lawyers)
Added plus: putting the other side on the defensive (a better bargaining position in any negotiation)
Who says you can't beat City Hall? |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Bargaining in good faith w/ same franchise as the incumbent > BS PR about "local government barriers" and/or lawsuits. |
|
