 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
1 edit | This was the right thing to have happened.... While I've thought little to nothing of Uverse as a service itself..particularly compared to what Verizon is doing..
as I have expressed on numerous occasions I do support statewide franchises and have felt for all the services faults..and even AT&T's behavior as a company..that they should still be licensed under this new law.
And, that is now apparently going to happen.
There are several important points to remember about what happened here in Ct. AT&T denied they were a cable co.
And, as any 2 year old could have seen in reading the laws that regulate the cable industry..that simply was not the case. And, I believe AT&T knew it..and decided to proceed anyway. That speaks volumes about their corporate responsibility to abide by and follow the law.
How unsure of themselves were they? While they were doing it..they were pushing for a new statewide franchise. Of course they were doing that because of course they knew they were going to lose on the legal points...which they ultimately did.
A Federal court judge here in Ct. made that decision..and said definitively that yes..Uverse is a cable tv service.
Wow..what a big surprise there..huh AT&T?
Meanwhile..what they WERE successful at was in getting a statewide franchise law passed. And, they probably spent more than a few restless nights recently sweating it out when after ALL that..the DPUC said..guess what? We're not approving you under it. I don't think the dpuc did it for any other reason except to uphold the federal courts decision. The dpuc's decision was the wrong one though..because clearly it was the intent of the new law to address this type of service.
And so, here we are today. They'll get licensed as they should. But let it not be forgotten the way that this company proceeded. It was anything but good corporate citizen like IMHO.
None of this addresses the primary issue itself..which of course..is the service itself. At best..this companies showing has been weak in the number of customers they've signed on so far..after all this time..nationwide in their service areas.
It's not hard to see that verizon and THEIR strategy..which should be noted ALSO included recognizing the existing laws...is now blowing them away in terms of customers taking their FTTH services.
And, that is no wonder either..because it truly is the advanced..next generation service to compete with the cable industry.
There is also another reason I fully support this law. Who's really to NOW say that perhaps a Verizon won't at some point now decide to come into this state..and compete as well?
After all..we are surrounded by them. This law will make it much easier to do so.
The bottom line is..Uverse needs to really shape up it's act if they hope to compete here. And to truly attract the numbers of customers they'll need to make it a success.
And, even I think there is opportunity for them to do so. If they start to get creative about it.
Key to that would be the concept I call flexible bandwidth.
If there is a 25Mb pipe coming into peoples homes..WHY.does that have to be restricted to what AT&T wants people to use it for? Why can't a customer decide that for themselves?
In other words..if they want to use it all for the net..and leave the TV's off..let it flow to that.
And..vice versa.
This truly could make uverse be at least something creative and new.
And..could even help turn someone as negative as myself much more positive about the service itself.
I continue to believe however that the real future is for them to follow in verizons footsteps.
Look at their 20/20Mb service now.
That truly is revolutionary..and something that AT&T should be doing as well.
In any event..it's time to move past the regulatory rhetoric..and with this post..I will do just that myself.
The right thing has happened in that regard..whether someone likes the service or not. |
|
|
|
| said by Rick: I do support statewide franchises If the telecomms weren't writing these laws, I'd be for it too. But when they go to state laws, consumer protections are completely dropped and the bar set for service is substantially dropped. Enacting a reasonable law that compensates local communities (it is their property the telecomms are using) and provides for consumer complaints and levels of service is the only way to write a fair and just franchising law. |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | I do think that these statewide agreements for the most part cover the areas you mention.
I also think it's rather unfair to dictate to a company that they HAVE to service every area...especially initially when they're trying to get a foothold into an area or a state.
Personally, I've never really seen that as an issue anyway with this kind of service and I do suspect that it's AT&T's intention anyway to service many of the poorer communities.
Or..at least..the working class ones.
They might be the most ideal customers actually for a service that is competing the way that this one is on price.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
| said by Rick:I do think that these statewide agreements for the most part cover the areas you mention. Have you actually read any of the state franchising laws? I can say for a fact that WI's (based on the Texas law) guts consumer protections and releases them from any monetary requirements for local communities.
As for then not having to service all areas... I disagree as well, as does our government. The USF is made to subsidize rural areas, but that money is a cash cow for telecomms and god forbid they have to use it to actually service rural areas... |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Yes..I have read some. At least in summary form.
While I'm probably the last one on this website to defend AT&T, I do think that it's fair to consider that there should at least be somewhat of a level playing field. The cable co's, vonage..and others are having a field day taking their landline customers to the tune of 400,000k or so per quarter.
And, in the process, are subject to hardly any..if any..regulation at all.
In my mind that didn't excuse them from proceeding with uverse when clearly..there were the cable laws to contend with.
At the same time however, statewide laws are now there to foster competition and to not be too overly restrictive in doing so.
People should remember that just because a law exists in a certain form today..it can be changed and ammended..and often times is. At the onset of something however, it's unfair to place too much burden on a new entrant into a business, and expect them to operate their business in an unprofitable manner. That starts to smell like too much control over a company to me..and not the free enterprise system our democracy values.
Again, I really don't buy the argument that AT&T is out to bypass poorer areas either. In fact, I've seen vrads hanging off telephone poles just today in a city I was in here in Ct. that I certainly wouldn't call an upscale neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination. And, as far as consumer protections..I've seen nothing to suggest that they're trying to overprice the service. Quite the reverse..that's it's strongest point..that it is very reasonably priced overall.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
