| ROW? From what I've read, the existing boxes are in the rights-of-way, which is why ROWs are there. It's a package deal: want new infrastructure? live with the "signs" of it, don't want the boxes? don't get the new infrastructure (assuming what you want would really mean anything).
Landscaping can do wonders. |
|
 LokerPremium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND | said by GlennAllen:From what I've read, the existing boxes are in the rights-of-way, which is why ROWs are there. It's a package deal: want new infrastructure? live with the "signs" of it, don't want the boxes? don't get the new infrastructure (assuming what you want would really mean anything). Landscaping can do wonders. that would be a wonderful arguement if other providers weren't putting their boxes underground....there is no reason AT&T can't too...other than being cheap and wanting to be able to afford the turbo charger for the engine on the death star.
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to GlennAllen
said by GlennAllen:From what I've read, the existing boxes are in the rights-of-way, which is why ROWs are there. The existing boxes are in the ROW. The proposed bill would allow AT&T to place the boxes on private property outside the ROW and easements without the property owners consent. The owner must be compensated. There are no limitations in the bill, so, in theory, AT&T could demolish a house if they compensated the owner properly.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
|
|
| reply to Loker
Not an argument, either for or against--just an observation, that the typical "utility" company doesn't care that much about whether their "handi-work" is attractive or not, just "utilitarian" and up to "code" (and cost-efficient). Yes, they usually will choose the cheapest method (because they have thousands of monoliths to install). Yes, they do want the turbo-charger (Money "earned" is money wasted.).
I don't disagree with anything you've said. |
|
| reply to marigolds
Is it theory or paranoia? And, no, I wouldn't vote for the bill either. Like I said, that's why ROWs exist. I just don't agree with the long-standing argument against the already installed cabinets regarding their being "unattractive". Sure, AT&T could do better, but I don't expect much from a company like that, where only the bottom line matters. It's not a good investment to antagonize one's customers. |
|
| reply to Loker
that would be a wonderful arguement if other providers weren't putting their boxes underground.....
Not in San Antonio (ATTUverse area) they're not... the water table is too high there. Dig down 10-15 feet and you'll get flooded half the time. Not as bad as New Orleans, but they are sitting on top of one of the world's biggest aquifers there. |
|
