how-to block ads
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Having read a good deal of the fine print
when it comes to the Geneva~AT&T issue, LEGALLY..I'd have to side with Geneva on this one.
In a nutshell, the law appears to clearly state that AT&T needs to have a franchise agreement to deliver their IPTV services because it fits into the definition of what cable TV services are as defined by the Cable TV Act.
And, as such, AT&T is subject to following the law as it exists today in rolling out this service to communities.
Note the very clear difference there between them and Verizon once again. While Verizon certainly doesn't LIKE it..they choose to FOLLOW those laws while doing as AT&T is obviously doing, to seek to have it modified.
To Geneva, I think it's like this. They have a speed limit set up in town saying you can drive 35MPH. AT&T says there ain't no stinkin speed limit and we can drive as fast as we want. Verizon says there is one and we will drive it, while seeking to legally have it changed or raised.
Who is right in that scenario? I think that CLEARLY, Verizon is.
Whether either of them like it or not, our country is founded on a rule of law. And no man, nor company..should be above that.
Apparently, what AT&T is hoping for is that they'll just kind of get all this up and running anyway and meanwhile, legislation will someday make it all right for them to have done it. A statewide franchise gets passed..they sign it..and all this high speed driving they've been doing anyway will somehow have been ok.
The funny thing is, somehow..sometimes..what is right anyway somehow manages to catch up to you.
Their 15 to 20 markets turns into 1 or 2...making their whole strategy appear problem plaqued anyway..and meanwhile Verizon and their strategy just keeps rolling right along.
Funny how things work sometimes eh? When you do it right..the first time around.
Can I help AT&T with a suggestion?
Actually, 3 of them.
Lose the Uverse. And go with FTTH right now.
Drop the lawsuits...and start negotiating with these communities instead of suing them.
And, continue on with your legal attempts to change and reform the system. Properly constructed statewide agreements really are the better answer for everyone concerned meaning them as a company and we as consumers.
In other words..Think like VERIZON!
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now just Rick! | |
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| 
att vs Vz 1 year |
said by Rick  :Can I help AT&T with a suggestion? Actually, 3 of them. Lose the Uverse. And go with FTTH right now. Drop the lawsuits...and start negotiating with these communities instead of suing them. And, continue on with your legal attempts to change and reform the system. Properly constructed statewide agreements really are the better answer for everyone concerned meaning them as a company and we as consumers. In other words..Think like VERIZON! Shareholders tend to disagree with you quite clearly...
FTTH has been more expensive than previously expected, with not nearly the return expected.
Even if AT&Ts choice so far goes kaput (which is likely, the real question is when, 1 year or 5 years?), when they do get towards FTTH, it will be cheaper to do than verizons is now | |
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :when it comes to the Geneva~AT&T issue, LEGALLY..I'd have to side with Geneva on this one. In a nutshell, the law appears to clearly state that AT&T needs to have a franchise agreement to deliver their IPTV services because it fits into the definition of what cable TV services are as defined by the Cable TV Act. On this, I would have to say you are wrong, based off of precedent. When the cable companies entered the VOIP market, they argued that they should not be subject to the 1996 Telecom Act because they are cable companies and different from the Telecom companies. The Federal government agreed and cable VOIP service is not subject to all of the regulations that the regular Telecom companies are (i.e. line sharing, USF, etc.). The Telecom companies are subject to the 1996 Telecom act, not the Cable TV Act. Unless the Feds change the rules, I don't think the municipalities have a legal leg to stand on.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
2 edits | I think I am right. Without rehashing it all here, if you were to read the legal opinion that geneva paid for from one of the countries leading legal firms, I think you'd see why AT&T in this instance would be subject to the cable act.
The link to the story above summarizes that legal opinion in part of it's story.
»arstechnica.com/articles/culture/u-verse.ars
I agree that when you look at the whole picture, perhaps it's not fair to the telco's that while the cable co's can deliver VOIP without the cumbersome restrictions, they have to follow the cable act. But unfortunately for the telco industry, it's the way the laws are today.
Hence, my comments about the way to proceed is to first, follow them, and second, to work to change them.
What is wrong here is for at&t to simply take the laws into their own hands and in this case, to ignore them completely.
Also, if you read the above story, you'll see that AT&T was really trying to pull a fast one on these communities.
They never breathed a word about their real uverse intentions and the fact that it was also a video service.
Obviously, they hoped to just get it installed and up and running before anyone really knew what hit them.
What a crazy plan that was from the start.
BTW..to the above poster posting the respective stock charts might I first say..who cares?
Short term investor sentiment really should play no part in the ultimate outcome of this. It only matters to their shareholders in the short term, not in the long term. And it certainly doesn't matter to we prospective customers.
And secondly, are they really right? Clearly, AT^T is going to spend a whole lot of money anyway for what certainly is a whole lot of problems right now.
Meanwhile, Verizon is rolling right along.
Sometimes it pays to spend more upfront to do the job right. | |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by Rick :Sometimes it pays to spend more upfront to do the job right. And watch VZ go bankrupt or sold off trying appease the BBR whiners.
You guys don't care for the companies. You want your fiber at all cost. Where is the love for Verizon's Wireless service?
Why do people use WIFI? Don't they know Gigabit is faster? Everyone should run gigabit outlets throughout their homes.  | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| AT&T makes PLENTY of money and can well afford to do what Verizon is doing.
The sad thing is, way too many investors can't seem to see past the next quarters results and have completely forgotten what it's like to invest for the future.
Verizon is kicking AT&T's butt when it comes to doing this job right.
Uverse, is a flop.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now just Rick! | |
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Rick
I read the article and am unclear on one thing. If At&t doesn't need a franchise agreement, could they then place the 52b's (monster boxes) in public rights of way (my front yard) wherever they want without permission. My legal opinion is "yes" they would be able to. And without a local franchise authority, I wouldn't have anyone to complain to. | |
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | The 52b is a standard sized telephony environmental enclosure. It's placement is subject to the same rules that have been around for decades regardlessof franchise agreements. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to icp1
said by icp1 :Shareholders tend to disagree with you quite clearly... FTTH has been more expensive than previously expected, with not nearly the return expected. Shareholders are idiots. They just want money in their pockets now and how little interest in the long term. The fact is FTTH is a long term solution that will, in time, more than pay for itself and then some. All that ATT is doing is doing what seems to be cheaper, but in the end they will have to roll out fiber anyway. Which means they are going to actually spend more money on their infrastructure for a longer time than if they had just invested in the future now. | |
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to xerxes3642
said by xerxes3642 :I read the article and am unclear on one thing. If At&t doesn't need a franchise agreement, could they then place the 52b's (monster boxes) in public rights of way (my front yard) wherever they want without permission. My legal opinion is "yes" they would be able to. And without a local franchise authority, I wouldn't have anyone to complain to. Even if AT&T doesn't need a franchise agreement, they would still have to abide by the permit rules for putting in the 52B boxes. That is not without permission, but there are far less possible reasons to deny the permit and little information that the city can ask for. You could only If you objected to the box, you would complain to either your city's permit department or perhaps the utilities commission. | |
highjinx
join:2000-10-12
Alturas, CA
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :I think I am right. You always do 
said by Rick :Without rehashing it all here, if you were to read the legal opinion that geneva paid for from one of the countries leading legal firms, I think you'd see why AT&T in this instance would be subject to the cable act. That is a paid for Legal Opinion, not law. There are pleny of Law Firms lined up to give legal opinion in any direction you are willing to pay. Like they say, opinions are like a$zholes... The crux of the argument is around whether or not IPTV is the same as cable. The Cable Act of 1984 defines "cable services" as "the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or other programming service, and subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service." AT&T argues their product is not. (Please quit commenting on the great job Verizon is doing. Verizon is not delivering IPTV, so they will have to follow franchise laws.
said by Rick :I agree that when you look at the whole picture, perhaps it's not fair to the telco's that while the cable co's can deliver VOIP without the cumbersome restrictions, they have to follow the cable act. But unfortunately for the telco industry, it's the way the laws are today. Know it... The Telco's deliver VoIP without restrictions too. I'm glad you brought this up because this is how the Cable Co's legally thwart telecom regulations. And if a Telco's video service is one-way broadcast, they'll follow the Cable Act. If you can't legally box it into the Cable Service description (AT&T's argument), then that's unfortunate for the cable industry.
said by Rick :Hence, my comments about the way to proceed is to first, follow them, and second, to work to change them. Thanks for the input on how you think things should develop. However, the legal team at AT&T felt their product doesn't fall within the guidelines of Cable TV how the Cable Act of 84 defines Cable Service. Using your logic, you would have AT&T roll out a service following the laws and guidelines created for a different service work to change the laws that govern them which in turn gives advantages to their competition. This logic makes me dizzy.
...
said by Rick :BTW..to the above poster posting the respective stock charts might I first say..who cares? Short term investor sentiment really should play no part in the ultimate outcome of this. It only matters to their shareholders in the short term, not in the long term. And it certainly doesn't matter to we prospective customers. Who cares? With a Market Cap of 136 Billion and recent volume running around 30 million (28% increase in stock price over the last year), I'd say a lot of folks and institutional buyers care. There is no doubt that The Street isn't taking kindly to Verizon's game plan. Or, maybe the Street likes AT&T plan better?
said by Rick :And secondly, are they really right? Clearly, AT^T is going to spend a whole lot of money anyway for what certainly is a whole lot of problems right now. Meanwhile, Verizon is rolling right along. Sometimes it pays to spend more upfront to do the job right. Over the long run AT&T will spend a whole lot of money getting Light Speed deployed, but Verizon will spend more and deploy slower. Only time will tell who's was right.
hj | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| said by highjinx :Insert long winded rant What about this don't you and AT&T understand?
"The Cable Act of 1984 defines "cable services" as "the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or other programming service, and subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service."
Hello? Anyone home? Are you home or at your AT&T funded office?
Guess what Uverse is?
It's a one way video service..and hence, subject to the current laws as they exist today.
Whether this is a paid for legal opinion or not, the fact of the matter is that is what the law states, and that is what uverse is today.
And all your long winded rhetoric simply won't change that fact.
Again, whether it's completely fair or not really isn't, and hasn't been my point. There is always going to be things about whatever given law that some might not think is fair or that always creates a level playing field.
But, the way you approach it isn't to simply ignore the law as you would have AT&T do..and as they simply apparently believe they have the right to do.
You follow the law..and, if you have a problem with it..seek to change it.
And no, I don't always think i'm right. But I do think I am about this...and so too do the several communities now out there opposing them. In addition, I think it's common sense as to how a business should operate.
Your comments about the street really do show your bias towards this..towards at&t, and your short sighted investor mentality. If you really believe that simply because something impacts a stock in the short term, then you don't know much about investing I'd imagine and fall instead into the over anxious, gotta have it all now kind of investor who really is also the underlying cause of many companies now phonying up their books to try to give the "street" what they want.
Trying to simply appease their shareholders isn't the way to go with something. Doing what is right for the future is the way to do things.
AT&T's uverse strategy so far has been a dismal failure.
What a waste of money to them..and a disapointing rollout for their customers.
If you really think that they're going to save anything with this failure, I'd highly suggest you rethink your position. Lawsuits with communities..creating ill will with the local governments..20 markets that is now maybe 2..all for a last mile copper network that couldn't even get many people decent dsl service.
What a waste.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :BTW..to the above poster posting the respective stock charts might I first say..who cares? Short term investor sentiment really should play no part in the ultimate outcome of this. It only matters to their shareholders in the short term, not in the long term. And it certainly doesn't matter to we prospective customers. Who cares? Wow. Invested much? Ran a large business before?
You are clearly one of the masses who want everything you want for nothing, and who cares if the company that provides it goes under (or just gets hurt even) doing it... | |
|
