AT&T Will Get CT Customer Consent Before Deploying VRADs > How This can be Turned Around on CT.

How This can be Turned Around on CT.

Sounds like a plan. Lifetime top-tier access in exchange for a perpetual easement for the VRAD.

AT&T is too cheap for that. they are tightening their belts all around. no way they would gift free service for life.

reply to megatron266
They can't name drop as a marketing ploy to get customers to pitch fits. They also can't "make people look bad" for using their right to refuse.

The state is not saying that AT&T can't install the service. It's saying that AT&T has to get permission before installing on a customer's lawn/property. The argument that "well we can't give you service because of Joe Schmoe at 1132" doesn't fly, because they COULD give the service if they just installed their VRADs in a location not owned, in part or in full, by an individual. That's the whole reason for the ruling in the first place, matter of fact - AT&T's refusal to be considerate to the homeowner's property (easements be damned, sorry).

There are other options. This just forces them to pony up the cash for said options and work with the munis to get it.

Oh, and for those who'll say "AT&T will jack up prices then!!!" guess what? All it will take is one class action lawsuit and the price will be balanced - if they try to price ramp a community that didn't allow VRADs in the lawn versus a community that did.

Bottom line - AT&T needs to come out of the pocket and do it right, and they'll have the customers they want.