PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: Bias
Doc:
This is really not about getting additional funding out of AT&T. They lose nothing in adding a franchise fee to their billing, because they turn right around and pass it through directly to the end customer - just like Comcast does. It's not a hidden fee on the bill. It's pretty clearly called out.
The cities involved with this issue really have nothing new to gain moneywise that they aren't already getting now. One lost Comcast subscriber to AT&T equals the same fee to the city. We just want equal treatment and coverage for everyone in town.
If they're going to act as a cable/multi channel landline based video provider, they should be held to the same level that traditional cable providers are. That is universal coverage across the city. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Hi Peter.
I'm not saying that they (you) think they will lose revenue if a customer moves from Comcast to AT&T (which, anyone who has studied Lightspeed can tell you, is a stretch anyway).
I don't see any real problem with requiring AT&T to provide service to all of the incorporated area either. However, requiring them to provide the exact same service to every square inch ignores the limitations of the technology involved. And you don't require Comcast to provide residential-class HSI connections to businesses, nor do you require them to provide residential class cable TV to a bar. This isn't much different.
Having been "interacting" with Chicagoland suburban municipal government for over 20 years--and having read what your own has said about their fear of Comcast's legal department--you can't seriously state that it's not about money. If it wasn't, there would have been no mention of it last week before an official spin was concocted, and you would waive Comcast's franchise fees too.
I really like the socialist slant though: "universal coverage across the city". Is universally awful OK? How about universally absent?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| Doc:
Our cable franchises don't require universal business coverage either, nor do we expect AT&T to cover all our businesses under a franchise model. We do expect them to serve every citizen equally though.
Obviously, the cities receive fees. But as far as a reason for a franchise, it really is about upholding the "Level Playing Field Statue" and universal citizen coverage. If the money doesn't change one way or the other, it's kind of difficult for it to be the reason for a stoppage. As much as it pains me to say (due largely to their past similar behavior during the referenda), we are legally bound to defend Comcast's franchise with the city.
And, if nothing else, that franchise provides for service to all of our residents. |
|
