rlsomrak
join:2000-01-29
Independence, OH
|  Area Code 216 exchange 524 Blackballed?
A local rumor is that 216-524-xxxx customers are being blackballed by AT&T because a local community (Independence) is suing AT&T about line charges when Rockside Road was widened.
As a result, according to this source, we could be waiting 18 months or more while the city and AT&T fight out an issue unrelated to U-Verse.
While I can respect each party's right to litigation - holding back services to the customers seems to be a pretty petty way of trying to force a municipality to relent.
I sure home this was inaccurate, or someone at AT&T decides not to punish the citizens/customers over an issue for which they have no control.  |
|
Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Not that I agree with "blackballing", but you do have control over this issue, due to these being elected officials and you either voted them in or failed to keep them out of office. Or are you saying that you have an inactive part in your community politics?
--
R.I.P. Moby 1964 - 2007 |
|
ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·magicjack.com
| I think I agree, sadly. If you have a problem with this, you should go and speak at your local town council meetings. Citizens by definition have control over their elected officials.
If you were AT&T, why would you invest in new equipment and facilities in an area where the local gov't did not respect your (AT&T's) lines in the first place? I take it the local gov't disrupted AT&T's lines during the widening project.
I mean, I know it sucks for you there in Independence, but at the same time, the infrastructure for U-Verse is a major investment for AT&T, and they have to protect it. |
|
rlsomrak
join:2000-01-29
Independence, OH
| reply to rlsomrak
Well to heighten my frustration, I am in a municipality downstream from Independence. So I have no control either directly or indirectly. I have no voting rights in Independence.
I entirely support AT&T's right to cover their costs. At the same time, Independence, if they feel they were overcharged has every right, actually mandate, to pursue that. They are charged with insuring that all expenditures that the city makes are fair, proper, etc, etc. I applaud Independence if they are acting soly to protect the right and pocketbooks of the Taxpayers.
Both sides have recourse under law to have their day in court. And up until now, I was really impressed with the way AT&T has changed the company around. All my dealings with them have been very satisfactory. I guess since they have other recourse (the court system), that they are being childish in this matter. If they weren't affecting parts of 3 communities by this ploy I wouldn't care. But - IMHO - AT&T as a utility has a obligation to support their customers and citizens in a manner similar to the responsibilities of government. Utilities are protected monopolies and in consideration for that status have a special responsibility to the public.
At 61 years, I have had the time to be disappointed in utilities that act like they don't bear a special responsibility to cities and citizens.
Bob |
|
ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T U-Verse
·magicjack.com
| I am not familiar with Ohio law and utilities, being from IL. Did the Buckeye State grant AT&T Video power thru a state-wide franchise? Or did AT&T go the local franchise route that has been the norm for cable providers for years?
Either way, you might have some recourse, either thru your State Franchising body/State Attorney General, or thru your local community and the local franchise agreement.
Also, is there a direct informational link regarding the conflict between Independence and AT&T? Newspaper, court filings, etc etc? I would like to see what happened, then see if my take on the situation changes.
Totally off topic and unrelated, are the Buckeyes actually going to WIN the Crystal Football this New Years? |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to rlsomrak
said by rlsomrak  :And up until now, I was really impressed with the way AT&T has changed the company around. What would AT&T change? They were taken over by SBC, and any changes would be driven by SBC management.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Ed in Lyndhurst
@ameritech.net
| reply to ILpt4U
There was a law passed statewide in Ohio that trumped local municipality laws on the installation of the Uverse boxes. That having been said, I understand that AT&T was very responsive in Lyndhurst in dealing with the city regarding some of the box's placements even though they didn't have to. |
|
rlsomrak
join:2000-01-29
Independence, OH
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :said by rlsomrak :And up until now, I was really impressed with the way AT&T has changed the company around. What would AT&T change? They were taken over by SBC, and any changes would be driven by SBC management. Yes, you are technically right, but since SBCGlobal has chosent to rename themselves AT&T then I just generalize to credit to AT&T for the good work that has been done. |
|
rlsomrak
join:2000-01-29
Independence, OH
| reply to Ed in Lyndhurst
said by Ed in Lyndhurst :
There was a law passed statewide in Ohio that trumped local municipality laws on the installation of the Uverse boxes. That having been said, I understand that AT&T was very responsive in Lyndhurst in dealing with the city regarding some of the box's placements even though they didn't have to.
That does me little good. While that bill frees up AT&T to place their boxes freely, my concern is that they are setting back installation in an area to coerce the local community to drop their lawsuit. And it otherwise makes little sense. The 'Rockside Corridor' has many businesses that should be very attractive to AT&T. It seems that all the factors are present to have this are designated as prime for UVerse expansion unless other factors are at work. |
|
