republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » AT&T VRADs in CT Need Landowner Approval » And I DON'T want to see them
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Ok... »
« great job AG :(  
AuthorAll Replies


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Speakeasy

reply to yock
Re: And I DON'T want to see them

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.


yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH

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.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Speakeasy

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.


yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH

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.


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Speakeasy

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.


yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH

said by CylonRed See Profile :

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.
Indeed, and I should have prefaced my statement with that bit of knowledge. It was meant as hindsight, and a way to avoid these things in the future. Easements are not fair to the property owner.

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.
The utility company could always offer a flat rate for any property owners who would volunteer for the service. They could partner with home builders to arrange these things with regards to new development.

The problem I have here is that the local government is giving them permission to put something on property that they don't own. If we are to keep the system of easement in this country then we should demand that our local officials consult with property owners prior to granting easements.
Forums » AT&T VRADs in CT Need Landowner ApprovalOk... »
« great job AG :(  


Thursday, 08-Jan 03:20:53 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 9 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [160] New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
· [112] After 10 Years Of Service, Charter Declares Home 'Unserviceable'
· [105] iTunes Dumps The DRM
· [71] AT&T, Verizon Stocks Tumble
· [54] Feds Start Wait List For DTV Converter Coupons
· [52] Cable To Grab 75% Of New Subs In 2009
· [48] DOCSIS 3.0 Gets Faster
· [40] Verizon Again Tweaks DSL Bundles
· [38] Netflix Via LG HDTVs
· [36] ISPs Won't Admit Participation In New RIAA Plan
Most people now reading
· [ Professions] Northrend Herbalism and Mining Tracks [World of Warcraft]
· Customers punished and sent to ERX06 ! [TekSavvy]
· How to download windows 7 beta [Microsoft help]
· Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here [Comcast HSI]
· Can't order UVerse and then cancel TV later [AT&T U-verse]
· Powering AC worklights off of DC batteries [Home Repair & Improvement]
· [WotLK] Hit Rating Cap - Hunters [World of Warcraft]
· [ PVP] Looking for DK Frost or Unholy PvP build [World of Warcraft]
· What the heck is going on in SoCal? [Road Runner]
· 3.0.8 Patch Notes [World of Warcraft]