Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
Re: Yes, this was a total con
How come it never happened under the old franchise system then? Because AT&T decided to sue any town or city that told them they could ignore existing laws. The reality is that Verizon deployed FiOSTV to countless markets under the old franchise system (by their own admission quickly, I might ad).The bottom line is if municipalities keep pushing back on the carriers, then they will simple pass over that town/city/etc and move on. Guess who gets hurt when that happens......THE CONSUMER. So stripping consumer protections is pro-consumer. I bet stripping away environmental laws is pro-environment? So glad we have the truth brigades around to clear things up. Because a few municipalities wanted cable TV run to the local high school, the whole system needed to be replaced with a bill that simply suckled the regional teet of the local incumbent phone operator and gave consumers and localities fewer rights? So glad we've got you loyal soldiers out there fighting the good fight for consumers. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by Karl Bode  :Because AT&T decided to sue any town or city that told them they could ignore existing laws. Again, that just further proves my point. If the original laws didnt have so many conditions attached then ATT would have simply built out to begin with.
said by Karl Bode :So stripping consumer protections is pro-consumer. It depends. If one of the "consumer protections" is a requirement that some abandoned warehouse 10 miles from town be wired for HSI, then yes. Other such ludicrous requirements actually discourage companies from investing in the local area, which snowballs into a larger economic problem for the whole region.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to Karl Bode
Choice is the ultimate consumer protection. I had crummy customer service and experience with my previous cable provider. They failed to fix on going issues and they got they got fired. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to wifi4milez
Also, the requirements never would have related to an abandoned warehouse 10 miles outside of town.
Normally they were along the lines of a minimum 20 households per fiber mile. Occasionally you saw as low as 10, but that was pretty rare and only in extremely profitable areas. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez :Again, that just further proves my point. If the original laws didnt have so many conditions attached then ATT would have simply built out to begin with. Not so. AT&T decided a long time ago (back when they were SBC) that they would withhold DSL, and later Project Pronto, and now U-Verse to anywhere who didn't give them a big sweetheart deal and protection from competition and consumer protections.
And they played hardball, actually telling end consumers that the reason they couldn't get said services was because of their PUC, or Corporation Commission, or because of certain politicians, and that you need to contact xxxxxx to complain.
Most states folded like wet paper bags. Wisconsin was just one of the more recent.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| said by KrK :said by wifi4milez :Again, that just further proves my point. If the original laws didnt have so many conditions attached then ATT would have simply built out to begin with. Not so. AT&T decided a long time ago (back when they were SBC) that they would withhold DSL, and later Project Pronto, and now U-Verse to anywhere who didn't give them a big sweetheart deal and protection from competition and consumer protections. And they played hardball, actually telling end consumers that the reason they couldn't get said services was because of their PUC, or Corporation Commission, or because of certain politicians, and that you need to contact xxxxxx to complain. Most states folded like wet paper bags. Wisconsin was just one of the more recent. I think you are just confirming what I am saying. ATT didnt think the original conditions presented to them by the state/local government were fair. Now that those conditions are more reasonable, they have rolled out their services as promised.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| said by wifi4milez :I think you are just confirming what I am saying. ATT didnt think the original conditions presented to them by the state/local government were fair. Now that those conditions are more reasonable, they have rolled out their services as promised. They were plenty fair. SBC then AT&T just wanted to lock out the competition and lock in their monopoly. They succeeded to a large extent. They promised all kinds of benefits like lower prices, more jobs, advanced deployment, etc.
You could argue they did then deploy--- in the areas where they were planning too in the first place--- but for the rest, pshaw....
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
