wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| I would be pissed if I lived there!
If I found out that my local municipality had effectively prevented a carrier from building (at no charge to me) an advanced network that would give me more options at a lower price I would be VERY angry. People on this site always bitch and moan about how the telco's and ISP's never build out to smaller communities, and yet in this case they (at&t) tried and was actually forbidden to do so! The irony is thick I tell you.........
--
сумасшедшая обезьяна! |
|
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Don't you mean shame on your local officials unless your neighborhood is one that would be skipped without the build-out requirement?
--
~Team Discovery~ It's what to do with your PC when you aren't doing anything with your PC. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| said by Old_Grouch  :Don't you mean shame on your local officials unless your neighborhood is one that would be skipped without the build-out requirement? I suspect there is more to the story. While AT&T is no doubt playing hardball to get what they want, they have maneged to local and state franchise agreements for lightspeed. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to Old_Grouch
said by Old_Grouch :Don't you mean shame on your local officials unless your neighborhood is one that would be skipped without the build-out requirement? If the option is some people can get it versus no people can get it I chose option 1. Anything else is just selfish.
--
сумасшедшая обезьяна! |
|
58483323
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL | reply to wifi4milez
Naperville isn't a small community. It's the fourth largest city in Illinois..
And I agree, AT&T shouldn't be cherry picking. |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| reply to wifi4milez
said by Old_Grouch :
said by wifi4milez :
If the option is some people can get it versus no people can get it I chose option 1. Anything else is just selfish.
I am sure if you were skipped and you had no other choice of advanced broadband, you would be screaming up a storm. |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
1 edit | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez :If I found out that my local municipality had effectively prevented a carrier from building (at no charge to me) an advanced network that would give me more options at a lower price I would be VERY angry. People on this site always bitch and moan about how the telco's and ISP's never build out to smaller communities, and yet in this case they (at&t) tried and was actually forbidden to do so! The irony is thick I tell you......... That's really not it at all. ASST&T was told that they would either have to provide service to everyone or none at all. AT&T, as they always have, wants to focus its build out on areas who will most likely get the service, as in, they will most likely serve the most affluent areas.
The city forced, via their franchise agreement, all cable providers to provide service, indiscriminately, to all. The municipality believes that since AT&T will be offering a competing service (a service that replaces cable), they should follow the same rules. I agree. If AT&T is allowed to roll out service only to whoever they believe will spend the most money, it was wholly unfair that the cable company was not allowed to do the same.
Basically, at the core of issue, we have a greedy corporation wanting to cherry pick, and we have a municipality who wants fairness of service to all of its citizens. Since fairness and big-business are like oil and water, it stands to reason that somewhere, somehow, someone will stand up to them and demand fairness. That's exactly what we have here. Leave no one behind so-to-speak.
Basically, the municipality says "OK, you can do this if you do it for everyone." AT&T says "Screw you guys! We will provide service to whoever we want, however we want, whenever we want. And if you don't like it, piss off! If you try to stand in our way, we'll sue your ass! We've got the money to do whatever the hell we damn well please and that's exactley what we are going to do!"
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Except that Naperville was perfectly willing to let AT&T 'cherry pick' (as you like to call it) as long as the city got the full amount of the franchise fee. In other words Naperville was perfectly willing to be just as greedy as the evil corporation, and offered to sell its citizens our for a buck.
POSTED AT 19:11 CDT
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to owenhome
I generally agree. But...
As a company out to make money, AT&T has every right to want to cherry pick.
As a community, Naperville has every right to not allow that.
So what should they do? The American Thing, of course! Enrich the lawyers!
Or, AT&T could just say fine and walk away and let Naperville provide its own muni infrastructure. When AT&T gets over their hurt feelings, they can come back and offer service over those muni lines and still make some good money.
Nah, court is easier.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 |
Ummm...Lets all forget the mention of the state fairness and "level playing field" statute, shall we? I'm sure the municipality and AT&T can just ignore that, right? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez :If the option is some people can get it versus no people can get it I chose option 1. Anything else is just selfish. Unfortunately the side effect of "level playing field" laws is that the entire playing field is leveled to providing no service to anyone.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Unless, of course, others agree to the terms then service is provided. There's no reason a WISP couldn't come in and offer service to everyone. The cable operator there is already under franchise, right? So folks can get broadband...right?
Or let them develop their Muni project.
This isn't an 'AT&T or nothing' battle, as much as AT&T would like you to believe it.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| reply to RadioDoc
And if I speed, I get a speeding ticket.
Now hold on before you think I'm crazy, hear me out.....
If AT&T, or whoever might end up in a similar situation, was to look at the way we do, they might see at as a more sensible proposition.
"We can either offer service to these sites, and pay the tax from the amount collected for the service....... or we will skip them under the guise of them not being ""profitable"" and still have to pay the tax just as though they were, in fact, a customer."
Personally, I see that as a way to financially compel them into providing service to all. "Either provide the service and make the money, or don't and pay the tax just as if you were providing service."
I see that much the same way as a traffic citation. The reason we all go the speed limit (ok, some of us LOL) is because if we don't, we have to pay. We pay a fine, money out of or pocket (key word coming up) for nothing. The municipality gets the money from our speeding. We can speed anywhere we want, anytime we want. All we have to do is be willing to pay the municipality to do so. Simply put, we are financially compelled to do the speed limit. We have much the same thing here too. They can skip anyone they want to but they are financially compelled not to do so. If they don't skip them, they get they get to profit from the service they provide and the customer pays the tax. If they do skip them, AT&T has to pay the municipality for doing so. It's a very similar idea.
AT&T, however, they don't see that as fair. They feel that they should be able to do whatever they please. And of course, as usually is the case, they please to deploy into areas where the likelihood of making a profit is highest. And possibly, over time, they might deploy to the rest of the citizens after the infrastructure is in place and the cost of the deployment goes down. When that happens, the financial risk goes down as well. I would call that cherry picking. It's not what I "like" to call it, as you put it, I simply see it as a fitting analogy. What's wrong with that?
It's not that AT&T is an "evil corporation" either. It's just that, like every other commercial and government entity in this great country, their decisions are primarily financially motivated. They are in the business to make money, period. This not some well-intended, golden-haloed, service-for-all company here. They will take the direction that provides the highest profits with the smallest investment, and the least risk. It's nothing personal, it's just business. But where that fails, where that ideology is flawed, is that when it comes to the product, the service, the service is for the people. It's there that the big-business, steamroller, get-out-of-the-way-or-get-run-the-F-over methodology fails. They use their lawyers, their pocketed law-makers, and every other thing they can buy, to keep on keeping on. All the while with the primary motivation to make cash. Sooner or later though, there will be a bigger dog. One that won't get out of the way or be run over.
And that, friend, is where we are now.
The municipality says "You may do business here, and provide your service. However, if you wish to provide this service, you will provide it to all. If you choose not to, this is what the consequences will be." There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I applaud their decision.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| said by owenhome :The municipality says "You may do business here, and provide your service. However, if you wish to provide this service, you will provide it to all. Except that is not what Naperville said. They said "You may do business here and provide your service. However, if you wish to provide this service, you will pay us as if you were providing it to all even if you don't provide it to all, or any.
Huge difference.
Posted at 17:54 CDT. Aren't post holds great?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to owenhome
Just to follow your argument, if the Cable Cos provide "digital voice" or any other named voice product, do you think they should be required to provide to all possible housholds within the entire telco boundaries for this community, even though this may cause them to build out several miles outside the city limits? At least this would put them on par with the rules that the telcos have to play by on voice service. Most Cable Cos do not venture very far outside the city limits. I would love to see the Cable Cos have to bring service to the few that are 9 to 12 miles out, in areas where the local telco is their only option. I don't have a problem with seeing the telcos play by the local cable rules, as long as any voice offerings from cable is delivered under the same rules applied to the telcos.
--
My posts are mindless ramblings, use at your own risk. |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| Your's would be a rather redundant argument. You see, when the cable company deployed in the first place, the municipality forced them to provide service to the entire city and all its residents. So if they were to offer voice services, those services, by their very nature, are of course available to all who wish to subscribe. Because of the original franchise agreements, the services would already be available to any resident who wished to sign up for them.
In a way, because of the requirements originally imposed, they can already provide service to every household by means of an infrastructure that's already in place. So, you see, it would be an argument without cause because they would have already provided cable service to all households within the area specified by the municipality.
Beyond that, I am unaware of any municipality that requires services from any provider outside of the municipality, much in the same way water sometimes isn't always provided outside city limits or how fire departments must be created by the residents and operated by volunteers. That would be "outside of their jurisdiction" and under that of the county. Not to mention the fact that the incumbents phone infrastructure was basically funded for them, for the good of the people. It's easy to impose service area requirements when someone else pays for it. I would say, if the government paid for the cable company to provide service to all outlying areas, in the same way they paid for the phone company to provide service, sure. Why not?
It's all about fairness and a level playing field. They feel that a competitor should have to play by the same rules as the incumbents. If they didn't, it would hardly be a fair and competitive area now would it? Would it not give the competitive advantage solely to AT&T if they played it the way AT&T wants them to? Of course! That's why, and the only reason why, AT&T wants it that way.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
