how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to rahlquist
Re: Why not? The stealth solutions on the web site you referenced are very, very expensive. From my experience in the business, every town wants them, and all of the cell carriers fight back (and spend a ton of money on lawyers). Rarely does the municipality get a "tree pole", unless the site will generate huge dollars once it is operational. Cost is the reason why they are just dumping them wherever it is convenient.
However, as I stated previously, a little common sense on both sides would go a long way. How difficult would it be to actually place the cabinet on a property line? Not very. Why hasn't the town enacted some sort of guideline on utility work to prevent such issues from arising? I think the affected homeowners should start banding together.
As a homeowner myself, if this was placed in my from yard, like that first picture, I would be beside myself. It looks terrible. I have not seen anything like this anywhere I have ever worked. | | |
|
 AlakarFacts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI | The Real Problem The reason why there is no common sense is that this has very little to do with the boxes or their placement. These municipalities want cable franchises so they can collect their money. AT&T doesn't want to pay those franchises because it's a huge cost and they don't fall under the 1986 Cable Act, they fall under the 1996 Telecom Act.
When cable started offering phone service, the courts and FCC ruled that VOIP service didn't fall under the 1996 Telecom Act because it's a cable service, so all of the rules that apply to telecom (line sharing, CLEC co-location, USF, etc.) don't apply to the cable companies. Cable companies however, under the 1986 Cable Act, are subject to franchise agreements that the local municipality can mandate. Those usually include requiring the cable company to build out to everyone in the area, regardless of whether or not the local residents can afford the service, and usually a big, fat cash payment to the municipality.
AT&T is a telecom company and falls under the 1996 Telecom Act. They are not required to make franchise agreements. This isn't small money either. Here in Milwaukee the city is suing AT&T, trying to force a franchise agreement. The city wants to decide where the service gets rolled out first and wants a nice fat $4 million a year just to be able to offer the service. It's all about the money.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
|
