Re: While the natural reaction might be in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19322042 en Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:44:53 EDT Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:44:53 EDT Re: While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19332866 Rick : Your characterization of the issues are wrong on several fronts.

First, your statement as far as my being "so anti AT&T" that I "ignore the facts" couldn't be further from the truth.

My position from the start has been that under the laws as they existed..AT&T WAS OPERATING A CABLE TV COMPANY without a LICENSE.

That was PROVEN in Federal Court..and they lost.

CASE CLOSED. My position was completely accurate.

My second point re: their company is with the technology itself and how it rates in terms of being a next generation service vesus what both Verizon and the cable co's are doing. And, while some may view it differently in their areas, I think it's very safe to say that along this entire new england corridor..it's pretty much second rate technology at best. Here we have Verizons fios service..Comcasts 20 to 30Mb powerboost service..Cox's 20Mb HSI service..and OOL.

Tell me..where really does Pewverse fit in with all that?
At the bottom of the barrel.

Third..how about they hang some more VRADS on telephone poles in our states historic communities.
What an eyesore that is if I've ever seen one.
And all for what? Some 2nd rate has been technology?

Fourth. The WHOLE way AT&T has gone about this.
There was NO WAY IN THE WORLD they didn't know they were a cable co. No way. Any layperson reading the law could have told them that. But they did it anyway...and proceeded instead then trying to get NEW laws passed. So they could simply say..LOOK! Ok..we lost..now approve us under this law instead.

Who exactly do you and they think they're fooling?

Certainly..not me.

But, it's not me they have to convince. It's the DPUC.
And the courts. And so far..I guess they're not buying it either.

No big surprise there.

Tell me. If you're arrested for driving in Ct. without a license..go to court..and lose...and AFTER the fact..a new law is passed saying the requirements to get licensed have changed..

does that negate the first offense?

Should it?

Isn't that what you're suggesting here should happen?

I think you're wrong in saying the Atty General has changed his position. From what I've read..he's supporting the DPUC and their decision. It should also be noted that the dpuc's decision was unanimous. To revert back to the cable franchise laws as they existed when AT&T was sued..and illegally operating their service here in the state.

As for where I now stand on the issue. I have mixed feelings about it.
I do support statewide reform. For everyone. Cable operators and telcos alike.
And..based on JUST that principle..I don't necessarily feel that at&t SHOULDN'T be licensed under the new law.

My issues with them remain though as far as the service itself..their proceeding BEFORE this new law was passed..and what should be the penalty for them having done that..
and frankly, for much of their corporate mentality that broguht them to this sad state of affairs to begin with.

And so..please..don't try to argue with me that because this new law now exists..all those issues have suddenly vanished. Because they haven't. They're still all very much alive and well.

What there is however..is a new law. That I do think they qualify under.

And, given that..even though these other issues remain..I do feel they should be licensed under it.

Until they address the other issues however..I'll still not think very much of them as a service..or as a company.

They can..and should..do better.
And do better to set an example of what corporate America should look like.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19332866 Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:49:15 EDT Re: While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19325329 BosstonesOwn :
said by Billusa See Profile :

said by BosstonesOwn See Profile :

Well now you know why they want to own a satellite company !

They can open up their dsl offering and bring Hd VOD via the dsl service. And use the home zone box to deliver the tv from the satellites.

It can be a very good deal if done right. But it really is scary to see how they dropped the ball and should just stop the dsl roll out.

In my mind using home zone is a great idea. Use the dsl for VOD and avoid the local contract for cable tv. Since it can come over the internet it can free at&t.

Now they stop stringing these crappy dsl services and buy dishnetwork , roll out home zone with the dishnetwork gear with VOD , and move over to rolling fiber to the home for voice , and data , and maybe even tv for people who can't get the service because they are being blocked by trees.
DirecTV is doing VoD via the Internet right now on a limted basis, inc. an HD channel. All you need is an HR20-700 and the software. You'll see it opened up next yr to all HR20's.

So, at&t has already missed that bandwagon.
Exactly my point why buying dish may be a better buy.Once thats done then the main pitch for cable , which was VOD , is gone for both satellite services.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19325329 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:09:44 EDT Re: While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19323954 Billusa :
said by BosstonesOwn See Profile :

Well now you know why they want to own a satellite company !

They can open up their dsl offering and bring Hd VOD via the dsl service. And use the home zone box to deliver the tv from the satellites.

It can be a very good deal if done right. But it really is scary to see how they dropped the ball and should just stop the dsl roll out.

In my mind using home zone is a great idea. Use the dsl for VOD and avoid the local contract for cable tv. Since it can come over the internet it can free at&t.

Now they stop stringing these crappy dsl services and buy dishnetwork , roll out home zone with the dishnetwork gear with VOD , and move over to rolling fiber to the home for voice , and data , and maybe even tv for people who can't get the service because they are being blocked by trees.
DirecTV is doing VoD via the Internet right now on a limted basis, inc. an HD channel. All you need is an HR20-700 and the software. You'll see it opened up next yr to all HR20's.

So, at&t has already missed that bandwagon.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19323954 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:57:23 EDT Re: While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322402 BosstonesOwn : Well now you know why they want to own a satellite company !

They can open up their dsl offering and bring Hd VOD via the dsl service. And use the home zone box to deliver the tv from the satellites.

It can be a very good deal if done right. But it really is scary to see how they dropped the ball and should just stop the dsl roll out.

In my mind using home zone is a great idea. Use the dsl for VOD and avoid the local contract for cable tv. Since it can come over the internet it can free at&t.

Now they stop stringing these crappy dsl services and buy dishnetwork , roll out home zone with the dishnetwork gear with VOD , and move over to rolling fiber to the home for voice , and data , and maybe even tv for people who can't get the service because they are being blocked by trees.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322402 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:44:22 EDT Re: While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322042 skrupowies :
said by Rick See Profile :

A FEDERAL court here in Ct. has ruled on that issue..and said that Uverse..however it is delivered..is a cable TV service..and subject to current cable tv franchise regulations. AT&T tried to get around that by applying for the new statewide video franchise license instead..arguing that law should apply.

The state DPUC said NO to that. And the reason appears to be that they are saying that because the ruling was a FEDERAL ruling..it takes precedent over this new state law.


Rick, I actually promised myself I wouldn't argue with you any more because you are SO anti-AT&T that you tend to ignore just about all of my, and everyone else's, facts about the service, but your interpretation is incorrect. I am including part of a letter written but State senator John Fonfara and State Representative Steve Fontana (the original authors of the new law.)

This is what the law actually states:

Sec. 2. (Effective October 1, 2007)a) An entity or person, other than a community antenna television company certified to provide community antenna television service pursuant to section 16-331 of the general statutes on or before October 1, 2007, or an affiliate, successor or assign of such community antenna television company, seeking to provide video service to the state on and after October 1, 2007, shall file with the Department of Public Utility Control an application for a certificate of video franchise authority, containing such information as required by this section. A community antenna television company may apply for a certificate of video franchise authority pursuant to this section for any service area in which it was not certified to provide community antenna television service pursuant to section 16-331 of the general statutes on or before October 1, 2007. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of one thousand dollars.

The letter goes on to explain in the authors' words:

When it filed its application on October 1st, AT&T was an "entity or person" as required under the law and it was not certified as a CATV provider anywhere in the state. The language of the law is clear; AT&T is eligible to become a newly certified competitive video service provider.

Those who argue against allowing AT&T to become certified under the new law are trying to cloud the issue over the fact that AT&T has been providing its Uverse video service in Connecticut since December of last year - under the Department's July 2006 order and then under section 2(b) of this act since Oct. 1st. That is irrelevant. The language of the law states clearly that so long as AT&T was not certified as a CATV provider under 16-331 prior to October 1st, it is eligible to apply under the new law.

Opponents of AT&T's application are also pointing to the federal court ruling overturning the DPUC's decision and finding that AT&T's Uverse service is a "cable service" under federal law. Again, this is irrelevant. PA 07-253 is "technology neutral". It doesn't matter whether AT&T service (or the service of any applicant) is a "cable service" under the law, uses IPTV technology, or some technology as yet to be invented. Rather than try to use technology to define how a service should be regulated - a folly if ever there was one in light of constant changes that technology is bringing to the world - PA 07-253 separates and regulates providers based on whether they are incumbents (providers who were licensed under 16-331 in an area to provide service prior to Oct 1st) or new entrants (those who were not licensed in an area under 16-331 prior to Oct 1st).

Even the Attorney General has changed his stance (and it was him that brought the issue to federal court) and said that AT&T Uverse should be allowed to continue because the competition would be a very good thing for Connecticut. He would like to see AT&T do a build out to as much of the state as possible and that is what he continues to push for.

The bottom line is that the new law SHOULD apply to AT&T because it was NOT licensed to provide video service in Connecticut prior to Oct. 1st AND it doesn't matter WHAT the federal court ruled about the type of service since the law is technology neutral.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19322042 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:41:54 EDT Re: While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19321774 jgkolt : I feel sorry for dish users if the user takes over. Ha you will soon have to buy the 40 dollar phone package instead of just the 5 dollar no phone line fee which is bs. From what I see dish is a good company. I wouldn't pair it with the likes of crappy cingular]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19321774 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:55:37 EDT Re: While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19321686 N3OGH : In other words, The Death Star bungled it. When it's all said and done, if they just would've gone the FTTH route and obtained local franchises instead of trying to cut corners they would be much further along then they are now.

If AT&T is forced to obtain franchise agreements from local municipalities AFTER they've installed U-Verse equipment in said municipality they're, um SCREWED.

The local powers that be will see they have AT&T by the balls, and you can bet they will squeeze.

AT&T will have no choice but to pony up, or lose millions of dollars on equipment that will become obsolete before they're allowed to use it.

Such short sightedness. Someone at AT&T should be hung by their Brooks Brothers suspenders for it.

Oh wait, that CEO left all ready...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power…]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19321686 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:38:34 EDT While the natural reaction might be http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19321614 Rick : why not use this money for a FTTH build out instead of Uverse..perhaps AT&T see's problems now proceeding with that.

I've argued for a long time here that they MUST get going with a FTTH buildout AND they MUST start acknowledging that yes..their service IS a cable tv service..and subject to local franchise regulations.

IE: AT&T needed to do exactly what verizon is doing.

Here's the problem they now have.

A FEDERAL court here in Ct. has ruled on that issue..and said that Uverse..however it is delivered..is a cable TV service..and subject to current cable tv franchise regulations. AT&T tried to get around that by applying for the new statewide video franchise license instead..arguing that law should apply.

The state DPUC said NO to that. And the reason appears to be that they are saying that because the ruling was a FEDERAL ruling..it takes precedent over this new state law.

Here is the BIG problem that AT&T might now have.

This might no longer be confined to just Ct.
What if ANY state out there now says they must proceed with the traditional local cable franchise route?

This will take at&t a huge amount of time to proceed with what they should have acknowledged 2 years back.

IMHO..AT&T might now even be in the very unenviable position of having many other states say that uverse must be halted while they proceed with proper licensing.

That's speculation on my part for sure..but again..a federal ruling has now been handed down and there is nothing that says this issue now is just a Ct. one.

Why proceed with buying a satellite operator instead?
If they want to be in the TV business..it might wind up being their only option while they try to figure out what to do with this issue.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19321614 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:24:29 EDT