ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to pnh102
Re: Thames Valley Communications = Losers
said by pnh102  :Perhaps instead of waiting for a competitor to help them out, maybe a better course of action would have been to get franchise rights to dig into the ground and run underground cable instead. Oh wait, it is easier to blame your competitor instead.
Fine but they should force T to bury their cable in all service areas. T shouldn't be allowed to cut costs by using power company poles.
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by ib50MbSoon :T shouldn't be allowed to cut costs by using power company poles. If AT&T and the local power company come to a mutual agreement for the former to use the latter's utility poles then there's no problem with that.
If AT&T owns the poles, then there is also nothing stopping TVC from coming to a similar agreement, and if it can't, it will have to pursue alternatives.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
wolverine_99
Premium
join:2004-12-07
Mckinney, TX
| reply to ib50MbSoon
said by ib50MbSoon :Fine but they should force T to bury their cable in all service areas. T shouldn't be allowed to cut costs by using power company poles. Alternative providers in Connecticut have been complaining for years that they're having a hard time completing projects because AT&T is slow or non-responsive to requests to share poles jointly owned by AT&T and regional utilities. The poles are jointly owned by AT&T. Your comment doesn't apply to AT&T cutting costs by using the asset of another company since it owns rights to the pole. |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | Excellent! Lets have all telecom competitors put in their own poles. Our streets and highways would look real nice then.
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! |
|
wolverine_99
Premium
join:2004-12-07
Mckinney, TX
| Yes, let's go to that extreme because that's exactly the answer. It's a new provider w/new service. Incur the cost and bury your lines. Do I feel all line should be buried? Yes, but it won't happen since it costs too much money for the companies at stake. I'm fortunate to live in an area where we have buried lines for phone, cable, etc. Looks nice too. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| said by wolverine_99 :Yes, let's go to that extreme because that's exactly the answer. It's a new provider w/new service. Incur the cost and bury your lines. The only unfair piece is that T and VZ and all the other Bell companies have built up a large barrier to entry using monopoly power and profits. It was easy to build out the poles and infrastructure when paying for it was basically cost plus. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to wolverine_99
said by wolverine_99 :Yes, let's go to that extreme because that's exactly the answer. It's a new provider w/new service. Incur the cost and bury your lines. Do I feel all line should be buried? Yes, but it won't happen since it costs too much money for the companies at stake. I'm fortunate to live in an area where we have buried lines for phone, cable, etc. Looks nice too. Then who will force the baby bell to bury their lines? huh? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :If AT&T and the local power company come to a mutual agreement for the former to use the latter's utility poles then there's no problem with that. If AT&T owns the poles, then there is also nothing stopping TVC from coming to a similar agreement, and if it can't, it will have to pursue alternatives. If there is no legally binding rule, law or regulation mandating that ATT share their poles - WHY WOULD THEY DO IT? There is a compelling financial reason for ATT NOT to share - keeping out competition. If this is the case, tough sh!t, TVC is screwed.
If there is a reg or law (most likely as a condition of the rights of way use) that mandates ATT must share poles (at a reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates, etc.), then ATT is doing their best to take as long and make it as difficult as possible to do so, for the same reason as above: to discourage or prevent competition.
If the second is the case, ATT should be fined hugely and swiftly to make them comply with their agreement, otherwise the rule or law is useless (as it appears to be if there is one).
the reason the 1996 telecom act did zero for competition is the telcos just ignored the law and ate the fines when they got caught (the fines were apparently not huge enough).
Although I consider ATT evil, they are just acting like any other company should when there is no regulation - do whatever possible to prevent and/or eliminate competition to enable as high a price for their product as possible - it's the corporate way and they are legally bound to make money for their shareholders.
BUT, that's why regulation is needed in some cases: some companies don't care about their customers and if they are in a low competition or no competition environment, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. They also don't have to care about the common good or what is good for the country.
Obviously, some people on this forum want to live in the kind of world where corporations do whatever they want - rape the environment for private gain, prosper at the expense of the well being of customers and the country, etc.
That's all fine and good, but that's not the kind of country I want to live in.
and in response to the certain comeback (don't live here), I have certainly thought about that lately.
and when things change back eventually (and they will), I say the same to you - if you don't like it, don't live here. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to wolverine_99
said by wolverine_99 :Your comment doesn't apply to AT&T cutting costs by using the asset of another company since it owns rights to the pole. at&t sharing the pole with the utilities that put it in. Therefore, they should also have to share it with other utilities, even if they ARE competitors. If they won't share it, then they shouldn't be allowed to use it either.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
