cokesat
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Cleveland, TN
| reply to heels_fan
Re: AT&T U-Verse
said by heels_fan  :Only because of the compromise between ATT and the others. What compromise is that??? |
|
heels_fan
No Tag Needed
Premium
join:2003-02-07
Columbia, TN
| For one, ATT was planning on using the state wide franchise to build out into the more "profitable" areas of the state(Metro-Nashville, Memphis, etc* and not pay attention to the more rural area (Bon Aqua, Soddy Daisy, Mt Pleasant, ect)*
With the compromise, ATT will now hove to build out to a certain percentage of rural areas and in a certain amount of time.
*(These cities are used just for an example and are off the top of my head) |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to cokesat
said by cokesat :said by heels_fan :Only because of the compromise between ATT and the others. What compromise is that??? The cable companies can get statewide franchises too. And at&t has to offer uverse to 30% of "poor" people by 2011 |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to heels_fan
said by heels_fan :For one, ATT was planning on using the state wide franchise to build out into the more "profitable" areas of the state(Metro-Nashville, Memphis, etc* and not pay attention to the more rural area (Bon Aqua, Soddy Daisy, Mt Pleasant, ect)* With the compromise, ATT will now hove to build out to a certain percentage of rural areas and in a certain amount of time. *(These cities are used just for an example and are off the top of my head) If I was starting a business I think it would make sense to put franchises in areas that were more profitiable then spread out once the income flow started. So the hypcocrisy of this bothers me.
If I was going to open a chain of stores, I'd be damned if the state told me that I HAD to put 30% of my stores in areas where I was guaranteed to lose money. |
|
