AT&T VRADs in CT Need Landowner Approval > And I DON'T want to see them

reply to pandora

Re: And I DON'T want to see them

Isn't the value of your real estate more important than data services? You're talking about a net loss to your property value so that others may reap the benefits.

I already think the 'hit' to values is VASTLY overstated and purposely overstated so it sounds nice and bad. How many times have I seen a thread here in the last 7 years that states something along the lines of: "My next house I will make sure has high speed internet available."

I have heard that so many times it is not funny and I don't think that is going away anytime soon so my guess would be it is very important for a lot of people.

Every one has the benefit - if you refuse and the area does not get high speed except maybe cable then it is a good possibility your house may not get sold or if it does at less value than having a box that can be hidden decently for not much money. I know what my choice would be if my choice was TW cable or a box in the yard - I will take the box and can successfully argue for the value to not go down and TW will never be in my house ever again.

Again - it comes down to "...whining when they don't have any other choice but cable internet or WiFi in the press or on this web site. They make their bed and they have to lie in it and shut up about it." - I am simply tired of the hypocrites and their incessent whining. They make their bed - they need to man up and deal with it rather than bitching on web sites about how unfair life is and the horrible monopoly for internet service they have.

Yeah, but how many areas have high-speed options already without these unsightly boxes? My girlfriend's po dunk apartment on S. Dixie can get both roadrunner and traditional AT&T DSL. This is without conspicuous lawn ornaments.

Verizon isn't deploying anything like this for Fios, Time Warner Cable isn't deploying anything like this to improve speeds and realiability on their Roadrunner network, come to think of it, AT&T are the only ones doing this amidst more than a few ongoing efforts to deliver better speeds to customers. There are ALWAYS other options, this one just happens to work out best for AT&T.

If they were leasing this land from the homeowner then I wouldn't mind so much. The fact remains that cities revoke the rights of homeowners with utility easements which leaves them little say in what gets ploped into their front yards.

I know large areas of Ohio - read Spring Valley area where NOTHING is available. TW wants to charge thousands to per house to run the line then charge the monthly fee and they have to have a certain % of the people on the street to get cable before they will do anything.

Lots of areas of the country have no high speed internet and would love to have it - even with a box.

Then let AT&T install these boxes in Spring Valley. Something tells me they won't, because a huge box doesn't make it any more financially viable than a small box or no box.

Furthermore, I present the same challenge to you as I did another poster on a previous thread on this subject: Volunteer your front yard. Call the city, offer your berm for easement and have AT&T put their equipment in your yard.

Did I say I would not - nope. If they did it would likely be on the easement that is already there any way. The ones I see in our neighborhood seem to be placed at houses on corners of busy streets (main roads) probably to keep any potential value drop small. I find it funny that I keep seeing a value of $10K drop but I see no proof in any of the reports and no proof that drop goes directly to the boxes.

Companies can't negociate with each individual owner - nothing would ever get done and land owners can then hold a neighborhood hostage which would only encourage more bad press for said company. Again - damned if they do, damned if they don't and the customers then play hypocrite for the press.

Yeah, I don't have a number, but it stands to good reason that any unsightly addition to a property will reduce its value.

If companies cannot negotiate with each homeowner or a group of homeowners, then they should purchase their own property in the neighborhood and put their equipment there. Utility easements are a product of the days of telephone poles and hydro lines. In actuality, the city would be better off if they zoned specific parcels of land for utility purposes that wasn't so conspicuous.

If all of the property is already owned then they can't do that very well and if they did buy from a current land owner then they have the same problems already mentioned - one landowner holding a neighborhood hostage being one.

To be economical - the company would need to pay one amount or else face plenty of litigation if owners ever found out they got paid a lot less then someone else.

Strategically - I would probably decide to do it the way they currently are - less total risk overall.

reply to yock

reply to CylonRed

reply to Chainzz