Florida PIRG on AT&T 'Franchise Reform' > Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

Additionally --- its makes no biz sense. You want earn profit from as many customers as possible, not the fewest. Welcome to socialism double-speak.

What socialism? This is a service that we all need to remain competitive and have opportunity and access to information, education, etc…

Is not all about business here. Is about giving everyone access. The Internet is becoming a necessity for many and it will be soon for every one. How many personal transactions (medical, financial, education, government, etc) you can handle now online and thus use your time more effectively for your personal and business life. So, are you saying that because someone has fewer resources ATT should not serve them, because they will profit less. If that so, we will not have the telephone system we have today. And the way I see it, the Internet (broadband) is fast becoming the “service” the telephone was 20-40 years ago.

And, the government for once needs to make sure that the entire citizens have equal access to that service so we can all have the same opportunities.

reply to chemaupr
You may not remember - but I do telephones were slow to get to the burbs and so was cable. Any company will go where the greatest profit is 1st then fill in the blanks, when we start saying everybody has the "right" to anything we are moving into socialism.
I also seem to remember that cable was deregulated some years ago (at least in Fl.)so why should telco IPTV be different.

reply to fAcEtIOUs
you're forgetting AT&T in bed with the NSA for the purported reason of, you know, important stuff like spying on us terrorists.

yee haw! goodbye privacy! hello triple play by the new at&t! with added single bill convenience! wow! could life get any better?

reply to fAcEtIOUs
Yeh your right the government should not tell them what to do they should just compete for the service making sure everyone gets access. Just like everyone gets access to water and electric you should be able to get cable and telephone and internet access no matter were you live.

It is a big investment to put a RT Dslam in a poor neighborhood. But we all know the Bells can afford it its only a business decision.

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to chemaupr

reply to Surfinusa

reply to RayW

reply to fAcEtIOUs
Depends on your take of what redlining is.

You don't have to be poor to be redlined. As it has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you could be redlined because the density of homes in your neighborhood is too low. I know for a fact we went through this with DSL service in some of the wealthiest parts of our city.

Again, this isn't an "anti-at&t" argument from a city p.o.v., but rather a "pro-citizen" outlook. The city's job is too make sure all parts of its territory (and those who operate in its r.o.w.) are treated equally.

--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743

reply to openbox9

reply to openbox9
Why are you assuming that everyone who isn't presently covered would be a loss to the company. In fact, those who aren't covered generally become miraculously covered in those instances where competition comes in. We are supposed to believe that places where a new entrant comes in suddenly become profitable to a company like ATT? Or is your assumption perhaps flawed? Companies will spend money where they can maximize profit, but it doesn't follow that those places they don't spend money are necessarily money losers. ATT wants to spend money getting into the video business rather than expanding dsl coverage. It doesn't follow that expanding dsl coverage could not generate profits for ATT.

"...provide the same service to all constituents at a shared cost and regardless of the ROI. This is a socialistic concept,..."

How can you say something like this with a straight face. Everyone who signs up for ATT service today pays a consistent price. Do you really believe that this means that it costs the same amount of money to get service to each and every home passed? When verizon builds out fios they figure an average cost per home passed. Every home doesn't actually cost that average to reach, but they don't charge each home based on an actual apportionment of the specific cost to reach that home.
Costs are always shared. Profits from voice subscribers to ATT are what helps fund the build out of infrastructure to their future video customers.

This isn't true only for telecom. To give just one of endless possible examples, there are externalities imposed by SUV drivers. Their heavier cars put more wear and tear on roads and produce more pollution. These costs are not actually apportioned accurately to each individual based on the real costs of that specific individual.

There is simply no practical way to accomplish your ideological insistence that every individual should actually pay their own and only their own costs in this world. Trying to actually accomplish such a thing would become such a costly, complicated nightmare that it would swamp the economy.

reply to fAcEtIOUs
Regulation is not socialism. It is an alternative to socialism.

You don't seem to be bothered by the idea that individuals should conform to social norms so why are you so appalled at the assertion that businesses should conform to social norms or that there should be mechanisms in place to constrain businesses that do not conform to norms.

It is not in society's interest to isolate people. It is in society's interest to make sure people have access and can participate.

Notwithstanding trickle down theory, broadband coverage does not seem to be expanding much anymore. If a business that dominates a market will not provide access then society should find ways to route around that control, to see to it that access is provided and to ensure that the business isn't in a position to subvert alternative solutions. I would much prefer that, rather than imposing service requirements on ATT, the government aggressively create conditions for other businesses to enter the market(such as spectrum reform), supplement this with municipal infrastructure build out, and tell ATT to piss off when they try to undermine these activities with their lobbying money and lawyers.

It is fine that business seeks its profit. It is NOT fine that society is held hostage to that profit seeking or that other interests are forced to sacrifice themselves to the profit seeking of a market dominating company. ATT profits may be the supreme value for ATT, but there is no reason why they should be the supreme value of the larger social order, of which ATT is only a very small part.

reply to RayW

reply to asdfdfdfdf
Wha? "It is in society's interest to make sure people have access and can participate." Who is going to pay for that? You?

"It is NOT fine that society is held hostage to that profit seeking or that other interests are forced to sacrifice themselves to the profit seeking of a market dominating company."

Again, what? Even monopolies which the Telcos are not anymore (because that was an ebil bad thing) must react to the marketplace. If you make something too expensive, people will not buy/use it and you will not have a good flow of income. Better yet, others will have the incentive to compete (in this case technology) with products and services that are cheaper, better or both.

reply to Surfinusa

reply to asdfdfdfdf

reply to asdfdfdfdf