| I find these commments so friggin silly.... I am a OSP engineer with at&t in SE michigan. We are currently the state with the highest VRAD/Uverse build out completions. And guess where they are...ready......Detroit. 90% of Detroit (city limits, not suburbs) is Uverse complete. Guess where the poverty level is not only highest for Mi but one of the top 5 in country... you guessed it...Detroit City.
I am so tired of hearing these anti-corporate socialists complaining about everything. At this point if I had the CEO seat I would probably tell CT government.. Fine, Keep your stupid sugar daddy comcast. Bye..
And if one more person says some stupid crap lie that at&t is somehow getting free government money to build uverse, I'm going to puke blood. ALL states and communities see us coming a friggin mile away looking like a big fat pot of money. We are the ones getting robbed in this damn deal. hell Detroit stopped us building Vrads unless we agreed to make every intersection in the city a fresh new Handi-Cap ramp at the cost of 5k each. Current projections are somewhere near the year 265 for a profit in MI.
Sorry but the lies I read get so damn frustrating. |
|
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by attengineer:I am so tired of hearing these anti-corporate socialists complaining about everything. Just as I am getting tired of all these corporate kiss asses who think that ATT is the greatest thing ever, can do NO wrong whatsoever and to hell with the customers and the rules.
All you guys (both sides) need to chill the hell out.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to attengineer
said by attengineer: hell Detroit stopped us building Vrads unless we agreed to make every intersection in the city a fresh new Handi-Cap ramp at the cost of 5k each. I'd love to see a pro-local franchise agreement fanboy defend this... |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | So it is ok for a company to negotiate and try to get the best deal it can but not for the local government to do the same?
If AT&T wants to make money so badly with its U-Verse, it will do what it can to get the local franchise agreement, 'nuf said.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA | The problem with that - is that it just becomes another tax on the people. Who do you think pays for those pet projects in the long run? The consumer. Keep the government out of business dealings all together unless sensible laws are being broken (monopolization, etc.). Let comcast, at&t and verizon compete equally (without franchise agreements) and see who wins! Us - the consumer - via competition. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to bmn
Redlining is common misinterpreted (and quoted) as not serving the poor; when it fact it is not serving the Rural. (which Detroit certainly is not).
That being said, the only issue I have with AT&T deciding where to build their network, is when they take legal action against municipalities for areas they refuse to upgrade/serve. If they don't want to build somewhere, fine; but if a community wants to build their own network and let servicers compete over it; get out of the way. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to tlcbob
Not possible in the wireline business.
Unless you want network cables to darken the sky. I believe there are some pics posted from Taiwan somewhere around here that illustrate this. |
|
 AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA | reply to attengineer
said by attengineer:90% of Detroit (city limits, not suburbs) is Uverse complete. Guess where the poverty level is not only highest for Mi but one of the top 5 in country... you guessed it...Detroit City. If Detroit City has 1 of the top 5 poverty levels in the country, why on Earth would at&t decide to sell UVerse there? Wouldn't the potential customers be too poor (generally speaking based on what you said) to afford this? I've never been to Detroit but based on what I quoted from you, it just doesn't seem like a wise business decision at all. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl:Redlining is common misinterpreted (and quoted) as not serving the poor; when it fact it is not serving the Rural. And here's the ironic part of this. Cable and all these supposed franchise laws that are supposed to be for the comsumers don't serve rural either. I have a friend that lives less than 4 miles from town and can't get cable. Where are the franchise laws? How come the haters here expect at&t to "play by the rules" and provide my friend with service when Charter isn't required too according to these rules? |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to AtlGuy
said by AtlGuy:said by attengineer:90% of Detroit (city limits, not suburbs) is Uverse complete. Guess where the poverty level is not only highest for Mi but one of the top 5 in country... you guessed it...Detroit City. If Detroit City has 1 of the top 5 poverty levels in the country, why on Earth would at&t decide to sell UVerse there? Wouldn't the potential customers be too poor (generally speaking based on what you said) to afford this? I've never been to Detroit but based on what I quoted from you, it just doesn't seem like a wise business decision at all. because they have 20X the population. Someone in a "rich" area already has cable, Dish Network, DirectTv and maybe even FiOS as an option. Exactly what % of that base is at&t going to get, maybe 20-25% if they are lucky? And that base of customers is much smaller. |
|
 fiber_manThings Happen For A ReasonPremium
join:2001-01-27
Port Saint Lucie, FL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to attengineer
Redlining-not serving rural areas Back in 1984 when the federal government broke up At&t is when deployment of services by baby bells was no longer required. Anyone willing to deploy to any area in the country could deploy their services. Problem was that very few companies wanted to. You want deployment to everywhere then the government should re-monopolize the company and force it to as it was done in the past for over 80 years. The federal government cost the taxpayers of this country over 1 TRILLION dollars when they broke up AT&T. Do the math and see where that much money would have gotten us back then. AT&T is the company that has for over a 100 years brought us many new innovations overs the years that make our life's easier.
--
GO NOLES!! |
|
| reply to AtlGuy
Re: I find these commments so friggin silly.... said by AtlGuy:said by attengineer:90% of Detroit (city limits, not suburbs) is Uverse complete. Guess where the poverty level is not only highest for Mi but one of the top 5 in country... you guessed it...Detroit City. If Detroit City has 1 of the top 5 poverty levels in the country, why on Earth would at&t decide to sell UVerse there? Wouldn't the potential customers be too poor (generally speaking based on what you said) to afford this? I've never been to Detroit but based on what I quoted from you, it just doesn't seem like a wise business decision at all. Actually, CATV, VOD and PPV sell just fine in the lower income demographics. It's relatively cheap entertainment compared to ball games, movie theaters, etc. |
|
| reply to attengineer
Amen! |
|
