BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Not econimical
"After Lightspeed is fully deployed and U-verse is fully deployed, there will be areas that are just not economic to offer fiber everywhere," recently stated AT&T's Homezone managing director Ken Tysell.
Can you say "Redlining"? I knew you could.
This is just what cities like Geneva, IL. are trying to avoid.
--
A difference which makes no difference is no difference. - Spock |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by BK3  :"After Lightspeed is fully deployed and U-verse is fully deployed, there will be areas that are just not economic to offer fiber everywhere," recently stated AT&T's Homezone managing director Ken Tysell. Can you say "Redlining"? I knew you could. This is just what cities like Geneva, IL. are trying to avoid. So AT&T should be forced to deploy their network everywhere, even if it looses them money?
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir |
|
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
2 edits | said by joako :said by BK3 : So AT&T should be forced to deploy their network everywhere, even if it looses them money? No, if they want to deploy in Illinois, they need to follow state law -->
Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)]
Since Geneva requires equal access by other providers (Comcast) and Comcast complies, then it is only correct and legal that AT&T do the same.
Redlining will not be permitted.
Some will say that AT&T is not providing TV services like comcast, since AT&T calls it an IP service. To this is reply by saying:
A rose by any other name ......
An Addendum:
AT&T wants to deploy using the city owned Rights-of Way and easements. Since these are city owned and controlled, shouldn't the city have some say in how they are used? According to AT&T, evidently not. AT&T appears to feel the the ROWs are free for them to use as they see fit, which is not so. If AT&T wants to deploy in Geneva, using Geneva's ROWs, to Geneva citizens, then they can do so, but they must then follow Geneva's (and the state's) rules. We will not be bullied by a big corp.
AT&T not only doesn't appear to want a level playing field, but appears to want an unlevel playing field in their favor, and are willing to (and have) go to court and sue to get it. This, to me, has the appearance of very poor corporate citizenship, it seems more like a small child throwing a tantrum. Rather than working with us to achieve a mutually beneficial resolution, they want it all their way. This from a company that said in the not-to-distant past that fiber was an "unproven technology".
It also leaves a bad taste in my mouth and leads me to mistrust them in any future endeavours.
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
Yours may differ
Sorry for the rant, but this issue strikes home (both literally and figuratively)
For reference:
»www.geneva.il.us/att/Lightspeed.htm
»Interview: Fighting AT&T
--
A difference which makes no difference is no difference. - Spock |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to BK3
Well if the law states they must do x, then they must do x.
Otherwise I see no reason why anyone should tell them what to do. If they decide to install fiber in the areas that they think will make them profit and move all the DSL equipment to those areas that they feel will all be profitable, that's totally fair!
If there is a neigborhood where most of the people are below the poverty line, IE: cannot afford luxury services, why should AT&T deploy those services there, much less be required to do so?
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| reply to BK3
said by BK3 :said by joako :said by BK3 : So AT&T should be forced to deploy their network everywhere, even if it looses them money? No, if they want to deploy in Illinois, they need to follow state law --> Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)] Since Geneva requires equal access by other providers (Comcast) and Comcast complies, then it is only correct and legal that AT&T do the same. Redlining will not be permitted. Some will say that AT&T is not providing TV services like comcast, since AT&T calls it an IP service. To this is reply by saying: A rose by any other name ...... That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. Yours may differ. Speaking of rose being a rose, why do the calbe companies not complain about not following the POTS regulations with their VOIP service. THey are afterall the same service. Or at least no more different than IPTV vs cable tv. |
|
