ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| reply to phattieg
Re: Lol
said by phattieg  :: Sorry Sir, your IPTV U-Verse account had to be shut off due to the lawsuit being lost for franchise rights in your area. The good news is we can now offer DSL up to 100Mbps. Then at that point it would be time for me to go complain to my franchise authority and do something about it. Until then, they need to follow the rules.
I guess you are one of those that drive over the speed limit, because you think the posted speed it too slow, and think the "man" is just out to get you because you were not following the rules.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to ropeguru
said by ropeguru :said by HyPeRbAnD :said by DaBavarian :I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. I think that is the argument from att, that IPTV is not the same as traditional TV. And if it is an information service, there MUST be a ruling before you go potentially breaking the law. Everyone these days only what to look at what is on the surface from these issues, ie. quick roll out of IPTV, and refuse to look deeper and see what other issues may be caused by allowing all of this to happen. : Sorry Sir, your IPTV U-Verse account had to be shut off due to the lawsuit being lost for franchise rights in your area. The good news is we can now offer DSL up to 100Mbps.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to squid7
said by squid7 :The burden is on the state to prove AT&T is doing wrong, not AT&T to prove they are doing right. And as for information service, the FCC already ruled that information services aren't "cable". This was a win for the cable companies who wanted their HSI to not be regulated like their CATV products were. The city loses and AT&T wins in this case. And you are right. AT&T gets to do its rollout and the city has to prove they shouldn't have done that. Not the other way around.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to squid7
As long as AT&T doesn't try to shortcut the placement of the boxes in the rights of way. I thought that was a big issue with some communities. In order for at&t to deliver their UVerse they need to upgrade equipment, which includes placing more of the large cabinets. The cities should be able to place demands on at&t in regards to those issues. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | reply to ropeguru
The burden is on the state to prove AT&T is doing wrong, not AT&T to prove they are doing right. And as for information service, the FCC already ruled that information services aren't "cable". This was a win for the cable companies who wanted their HSI to not be regulated like their CATV products were. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| reply to HyPeRbAnD
said by HyPeRbAnD :said by DaBavarian :I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. I think that is the argument from att, that IPTV is not the same as traditional TV. And if it is an information service, there MUST be a ruling before you go potentially breaking the law. Everyone these days only what to look at what is on the surface from these issues, ie. quick roll out of IPTV, and refuse to look deeper and see what other issues may be caused by allowing all of this to happen.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
HyPeRbAnD
join:2006-01-07
Stow, MA
| reply to DaBavarian
said by DaBavarian :I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. I think that is the argument from att, that IPTV is not the same as traditional TV. |
|
