|reply to Octopussy2 |
Re: Sounds Good to Me
I agree, there should be no preferential treatment in any direction. Government should allow (not mandate) commercial entities to serve customers and the commercial entities should not expect special treatment or protection from government. I don't necessarily have issue with franchise agreements in general, however I do see a problem when the franchise agreement goes above and beyond allowing a commercial businesses the ability to operate and provide service. I do not believe businesses should be required to fund local interest items. I do not believe businesses should be mandated to provide service to every citizen for luxury items. As for placing equipment in the ROW, that's progress. How should businesses provide services to citizens if they aren't allowed to place equipment?
In this case (IL) no one is preventing AT&T from deploying any services. They simply do not want to play on a level playing field with competitors. They want preferential treatment and the ability to redline customers they don't deem worthy of their "competitive" service.
said by Octopussy2:/Flame retardant suit engaged....
ability to redline customers they don't deem worthy of their "competitive" service.
That's the part I don't have a problem with per se. If the ROI isn't there, don't force the providers' hands into a money losing situation that costs other customers extra money to make up for.
There are many communities in IL that are not served by AT&T right now - because it is not profitable for them to do so. They have a right to choose who they enter into an agreement with. If they don't like the rules of the game, and the Level Playing Statute (designed to protect consumers), no one is saying they have to play. Verizon is choosing to play. AT&T wants to make their own rules in the name of "competition" - and wants to sue towns that don't agree with their way of looking at things. They don't want any competition from munis that could offer competitive services though. Heck no! They feel THAT is unfair. They want to be in the business of telling Gov. what they can and cannot do and have the governmental power of eminent domain, yet don't want any Gov. involved in competing with the private sector. Hmmmmmm. Why do they get to have it both ways? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander....