 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
1 edit | cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... it's very telling when a corporation as huge as AT&T uses legal threats to bully states into seeing things their way. also, it is much cheaper than to actually play by the rules that have been in place for many years. win for AT&T, lose for those living in rural areas.
also, try to ignore the AT&T shill posts above mine. | |
|
  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... That's dumb logic. My state wouldn't give at&t a statewide franchise guess when I( who lives in a rural area ) is going to get U-verse? NEVER. So the "old rules" help me how? Beside anyone that thinks a local franchise authority is there to help the consumer is an idiot. Mine is run by the same idiot politicians than can barley read at a 3rd grade level. I would LOVE for my local franchise authority to be run by the state. | |
|
 | scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... I'll bet that you won't see U-verse if AT&T GETs what they ask for either.... | |
|
| | | | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... NC and SC disagree apparently. They're getting 600 million for U-Verse upgrades. | |
|
| | | | | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... said by bogey780:NC and SC disagree apparently. They're getting 600 million for U-Verse upgrades. Hmmm as I look at the same 3mb DSL we've had for 3 years...
Of course I'll admit, even if they did roll U-Verse here the only thing they could compete with Comcast on is price. I'm sure for many a single HD feed and 6mb of service is grand. But most folks I know who have an HD set want the ability to DVR more than one HD source at a time... | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | franchise agreements help ensure consistent converage and accountability by the provider. it gives some local teeth to the otherwise faceless corporation located hundreds of miles away. in other words, it's there to help the citizens of that area.
it is a fact that AT&T has an is using it's big bad lawyers instead of attempting to follow the laws on the book. google it for proof. it is simply cheaper to do so. i'm sure they have run the numbers. plus, it fits with AT&T's corporate policy of "We are above the law": break the law first, sue to get the law changed later. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... said by morbo:franchise agreements help ensure consistent converage and accountability by the provider. it gives some local teeth to the otherwise faceless corporation located hundreds of miles away. in other words, it's there to help the citizens of that area. Please let me know when this is suppose to occur in my area. All my local FA has done is allowed Charter to raise rates so they can collect more franchise fees. Anyone who thinks their purpose is anything other than that is dumb. | |
|
| | | | Oh... So there actually supposed to be something in addition to three crummy "local access" channels showing weirdo home-made tv programming and an additional $6 "franchise fee" on the cable bill? Some sort of protection? Consistent coverage?
Why does this almost always mean "there can only be one" cable company?
I'd love to see franchise monopoly go down in flames but nobody seems to care as people don't see any alternative and current situation is "good enough". If someone wants to offer IPTV, let them. If newcomers want to cover part of the area and offer cheap service there, let them. They will expand eventually, and there will be a slim chance at competition, instead of none with the franchises. | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... -no competition? satellite has always been an option.
-replacing a shitty system (cable franchise agreements) with an equally if not more shitty system (no agreements/coverage levels/accountability) is not the answer
i'm all for competition as long as everyone is on the same playing field. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... Satellite is not an option, we're talking about local "wired" delivery systems. Though I bet if local gov could give exclusive franchise agreements for satellite, we'd have one too. For those who doesn't live on south side of the building how satellite is an option?
I'm advocating ANY competition versus none at all. Franchise essentially locks all local users into one company, that smooched its way to the monopoly.
Every time local cable complains that other party needs to do the "build-out" too they're trying to compare years of competition-less contracts with a "build it in 3 years" program. Their build-out requirement has already been paid by the chance of raising prices three times faster than inflation and being The provider.
No wonder cable guys are against state-wide franchises.
So... let at least a bit of competition in. | |
|
|  aSicapplication specificPremium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL | said by BF69:Beside anyone that thinks a local franchise authority is there to help the consumer is an idiot. Mine is run by the same idiot politicians than can barley read at a 3rd grade level. All I can say to that post is wow.
That sounds like a personal problem to me. Cause guess what idiot voted those "idiot politicians" into office? YOU. 
You think those other "idiot politicians" up there at the capitol give a rats ass about you in your rural county? No. They care most about the large cities (tax revenue) who, guess what, will be the only ones that will get UVerse/Fios/whatever new generation technology they're wanting to change the laws for.
Why not work within the system to get things done, rather than give up your local rights and give them to the state? Next thing ya know we'll be giving them up to the feds.
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say. | |
|
| |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... "That sounds like a personal problem to me. Cause guess what idiot voted those "idiot politicians" into office? YOU."
Um, he could have vote for someone else, er the LOSER.
Unless he was voting in Iran.....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| | | FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1 | Re: cheaper for AT&T to use lawyers.... said by N3OGH:"That sounds like a personal problem to me. Cause guess what idiot voted those "idiot politicians" into office? YOU." Um, he could have vote for someone else, er the LOSER. It sounds like he got a loser either way!  | |
|
|  Homer JMmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield
1 edit | Well maybe you should do something about getting those politicians out of office and get some better people in their jobs. I live in Knoxville, we just got rid of a bunch of politicians who got into office through backdoor politics. So it can be done. We will likely see U-verse one way or the other. I still think AT&T needs to compete on a level playing field. Seems if they spent more time simply getting the franchises and building service and less time lobbying legislatures, they would have a lot more deployment done | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by morbo:it's very telling when a corporation as huge as AT&T uses legal threats to bully states into seeing things their way. I can't blame them. The state literally has unlimited power to regulate a company to death. You have to be prepared for battle.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
|
|
