Fighting AT&TThe battle over franchise agreements ( old news - 02:24PM Monday Dec 18 2006) tags: business · telcoIf you ask telco execs, lobbyists and the FCC, local video franchise agreements are the worst kind of bureaucracy. Towns are little more than greedy parasites that make absurd demands at every opportunity and rarely have local residents' interests in mind. Telco lobbyists suggest that the existing franchise system needs a lobotomy, and by replacing the current system with statewide or federal system, they can speed up next-gen broadband and IPTV deployment. If you ask municipalities, they'll tell you that local video franchise agreements are the only leverage they have against massive corporations that have no real interest in the community they serve. Franchise agreements allow them to hold companies accountable for poor service and ensure deployment to more rural areas. Local town leaders argue this franchise "reform" push will allow companies to cherry pick their communities, leaving massive swaths of the country un-served -- while taking authority and revenue away from localities. As AT&T deploys "Project Lightspeed," they've argued they don't need to follow franchise agreements whatsoever and have sued any locality that has challenged this position. Back in June we interviewed Peter Collins, the IS Manager for Geneva, Illinois; Collins says his town is doing battle with AT&T in court because they want some say in cabinet placement and fair broadband deployment. Ars Technica is running a good piece that explores this largely overlooked debate.
Related:- Embarq Improves Hotline For The Particularly Annoyed
- Verizon Offers 'Free' DVR Promotion
- U-Verse Voice Hits Wisconsin
- AT&T Stops Selling CallVantage VoIP To New Customers
- Qwest, Union Strike Deadline Sunday
- Qwest, Union Contract Expires, Negotiations Continue
- Qwest, Unions Strike Deal
- AT&T Shutters Old BellSouth TV Service
|
 
John T
@northgrum.com
 from:
TK Junk Mail 
| Do local franchises actually help rural buildout? I can see how local franchises can force companies to serve all of a locale, but I really don't see how, e.g., the City of Philadelphia signing different franchise agreements from its suburbs can prevent Verizon from serving the suburbs but not Philly.
It actually seems to me that statewide agreements are more likely to be able to force a company to serve everyone in a state, and so on. The federal universal service fees and such work similarly-- it is tremendously expensive to run copper, fiber, or anything to rural customers in the middle of nowhere with massive multiacre parcels. There's no real way around that, and for the most part of the century the "solution" has been getting everyone else to subsidize the people in the middle of nowhere. (Combined with regulation, of course.) | |
| |  | | | | 
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Peace Here in Saugus, we have a cabinet farm as you enter our tract. I was talking with the techs who were doing cable cleanup. No date on turn-up yet. I plan to use it to up my speed, but IPTV and all that...forget it. I want a free trial with no commitment and prices laid out to the penny before I even think of switching. All problems are to be solved before I give them my business. Especially considering ATT thinks they can deliver TV (more than 1 tv at a time), phone, and high speed internet over 1 pair. Sorry, I'm not buying it yet.
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. | |
| | | | 
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas! | Re: Peace No video for you? No VRAD for you either. It's a bundle, all or nothing. | |
| | | | |
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA | Re: Peace They want my business? My terms. | |
| | | | | 
ninjatutle
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Peace Yes.
Quit hating because you live in one of the tiniest states out there. No one wants to service you guys with the latest stuff.
Quit crying already. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Peace said by ninjatutle :Yes. Quit hating because you live in one of the tiniest states out there. No one wants to service you guys with the latest stuff. Quit crying already. You live in the woods, you need to drive to get to your neighbors house. No density there. We are older 200 years older than you. | |
| | | | |
ninjatutle
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Peace Maybe that was the case here 30 years ago but they're building lots of homes here now, we are now a new suburb 
We are a new zip code. | |
| | | | 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| said by ninjatutle :Yes. Quit hating because you live in one of the tiniest states out there. No one wants to service you guys with the latest stuff. Quit crying already. LoL. you mean like OOL and Comcasts powerboost, who already service this state?
Obviously, both already blow away your next generations status symbol, which hasn't even arrived basically anywhere yet anyway.
The fact of the matter is, with the exception of your beloved AT&T whom you either obviously own stock in or work for judging by your posts..this states technology is leading edge.
The sad fact of the matter is, with AT&T being the major phone provider here, we're confined to looking forward to crap such as Uverse from them unless they're willing to change their plans to something a little more competitive with what is already here.
The really funny thing is, judging by news reports, this state has already approved Uverse to be here.
I guess it's so problem plaqued though, AT&T can't even get it into this "tiny' state.
But, sigh, I guess all those wealthy people who live here in what is the richest state in the nation will just have to suffice for services that provide twice what uverse reportedly will.
God..what a flop Uverse is.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | |
ninjatutle
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Peace Judging from all your post, an ATT employee must have boned your wife during a service call. All this hatred you have in you, tisk tisk. Very unhealthy... | |
| | | | | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: Peace Just the kind of educated reply i expected from such a uverse fan as you've proven to be.
But trust me though, the chances of that having happened in this residence are zero.
You wouldn't find any AT&T service in this home. None at all.
Why have what's second rate compared to what I already have?
Who would need their much slower HSI here when the best they could ever do is deliver half the speeds I already get?
Who would need them for video when they don't have any?
And who needs them for phone when I have cell and voip?
Bye bye AT&T.
Tis such sweet sorrow to part.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: Peace I don't try to discredit them. I call it like I see it.
And again, why do I do this? It isn't to take a pro cable company stance, as I've said repeatedly.
Quite the reverse, I would like to see AT&T succeed in a big way. To be able to offer some real competition for all of us in their service territories.
On January 7th...my connection will be taken over by Comcast. I'm not particularly thrilled about that. It's one more smaller cable company eaten up by the giant.
Some people are already posting that they're not even connected for a few days and they're already receiving rate increase letters.
The bottom line is, there is no one to stop them.
Here, and in many places, they own these cities and towns and it's their game..or no ones.
I speak about AT&T as I do because I don't see anything in uverse that will really change that.
It's not even here yet and it's already half the speed of what comcast offers with powerboost.
My connection will go to 6MB with powerboost to 12MB apparently. What exactly is uverse in the face of that?
It's just another low end service trying to compete with the cable giant. Just the way it is today with dsl.
AT&T CAN change this if they have a mind to. Adopt verizons strategy.
Those markets are seeing the real competition on service and price.
That's what this is all about. Having at&t simply do this the effective way...if they're going to do it at all.
I'm sorry, but I think that uverse will be a very costly flop for them. I just don't think that people on a wide scale will want their tv service delivered over their last mile telephone wires. They'll see this as a company struggling to compete..something thats second rate compared to what cable already offers.
I hope.for their sake..I'm wrong.
But I don't think I am.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | | | | | 
jamez818
please hold during the silence
join:2000-09-18
Sunland, CA
·EarthLink
| Re: Peace I have seen a U-Verse Demos showing a tech sync at the protector with 25mb and a max of 89mb. I don't think the speed boost can compete with that. Putting down AT&T is not going to make them change. Cable customers are going back to AT&T every 11 seconds after trying cable(I saw the billboard). The cable co voice service still lacks quality and is unreliable. Until then AT&T has anything to worry about.
--
just whiners and complainers... | |
| 
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| I'll vote for Geneva on this one. Maybe the FCC comments are correct for big municipalities. I certainly felt that way about things when I was a resident of the city of Chicago.
I've been a Geneva resident for 18 years. They really are concerned about their citizens. By contrast, AT&T and comcast seem to only care about their bottom line.
--
Never underestimate the ability of a large organization to screw up | |
| | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. I agree. ATT/Comcast's obligation is to their shareholders. If they can squeeze our interests in too, then ok. If not, we lose.
A muni's obligation is to the community. | |
| | | 
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cingular Wireless
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. Yea, and if that means making ATT put in a rec center, then so be it right? Thats the heart of the issue, and while i am ok with a local or state franchise, what im not ok with is the unnessary demands (see above). I think it should be like this:
Require carrage of 3 Public Access TV Channels (Not including PBS), Such as we have it here:
1 is a Goverment Access Channel (city councel meetings, ect)
1 Is a community access channel ( local community produced content, hs "news" channels normaly)
the last one is a community bulleten board. highlihgt community events.
Require reasonable restoration of service
Such as If a tree limb falls on your lines, you have 24-48 hrs to restore service, 72 hrs if winter and ice/snow is involved.
--i would rather untities burry they lines to prevent these issues, though then there is the risk of them being dug up.--
lastly any cabnets,pedistals, ect put into the public or utilty right of may must be maintained (i.e not rusting) and if over 1 ft tall, require couperation with the homeowner/business it is near(i.e. in front yard of) to work out landscaping to aprove astetics.
for meeting the above requirements, we only ask a 5% of total revenue generated from all services (pots/phone, video/catv, and internet/dialup) and this cost CANT be passed along to the comsumer, it is to be considered the cost of operations.
when deploying new services/outside plant upgrades, service will be required to be provided to at leats 75% of the serviceable area.
How many think this is fair for both sides? | |
| | | | | | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by JTRockville :Communities can't bargain for a rec center. There is a VERY short list of things a community CAN bargain for. ... Where on earth do you get your information? The request for a rec center was publicly reputed. Whether or not it's true, we will probably never know for sure. There is no law broken when a jurisidiction makes an unreasonable "request" as part of negotiations or bargaining, and thus no reason for it to be thoroughly investigated. It results in a legal issue when a franchise application is formally refused because of it.
However, I think it's misleading to refer to a "VERY short list of things a community CAN bargain for". You make it sound like it's all cut and dry, but it really isn't. There really isn't a list, is there?
| |
| | | | | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by SD6 :However, I think it's misleading to refer to a "VERY short list of things a community CAN bargain for". You make it sound like it's all cut and dry, but it really isn't. There really isn't a list, is there? There really is a list. It is written into the telecom act.
A town requesting a rec center would be in violation of the good faith negotiations clause of the act which specifies what a town is allowed to ask for.
The "Rec Center and Swimming Pool" example comes from the negotiations between Parma, OH, and Ameritech New Media in 1999. The example is based on a filing by AT&T in the case, which Parma has reiterated several times was a false filing to attempt to create a case for bad faith negotiation. AT&T failed in their attempt to make the case too. That has not stopped Martin from using the false filing in an attempt to slam the franchise negotiation process.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by marigolds :said by SD6 :However, I think it's misleading to refer to a "VERY short list of things a community CAN bargain for". You make it sound like it's all cut and dry, but it really isn't. There really isn't a list, is there? There really is a list. It is written into the telecom act. A town requesting a rec center would be in violation of the good faith negotiations clause of the act which specifies what a town is allowed to ask for. There is no list in the Telecom Act. A good faith negotiations clause is not a list, nor does it specify what a town is allowed to ask for. | |
| | | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by SD6 :There is no list in the Telecom Act. A good faith negotiations clause is not a list, nor does it specify what a town is allowed to ask for. 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(4), (b)(3)(D), (c), 542(b),(h)(1)[read this one carefully], 543(a)(4)(B), (b)(4),(b)(5)(A-D), 544(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(a), (c), (e)
and the important ones
544(f)(1)
546(c)(1)(A-D) (546 applies to overbuilders by 543(b)(5)(A-D)
546(d)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by marigolds :said by SD6 :There is no list in the Telecom Act. A good faith negotiations clause is not a list, nor does it specify what a town is allowed to ask for. 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(4), (b)(3)(D), (c), 542(b),(h)(1)[read this one carefully], 543(a)(4)(B), (b)(4),(b)(5)(A-D), 544(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(a), (c), (e) and the important ones 544(f)(1) 546(c)(1)(A-D) (546 applies to overbuilders by 543(b)(5)(A-D) 546(d) Sorry, but those provisions are not a list specifying the limits of the things that a town can ask for. I suggest you review the FCC papers when they make their rulemaking and you will understand the legal situation better. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by SD6 :said by marigolds :said by SD6 :There is no list in the Telecom Act. A good faith negotiations clause is not a list, nor does it specify what a town is allowed to ask for. 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(4), (b)(3)(D), (c), 542(b),(h)(1)[read this one carefully], 543(a)(4)(B), (b)(4),(b)(5)(A-D), 544(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(a), (c), (e) and the important ones 544(f)(1) 546(c)(1)(A-D) (546 applies to overbuilders by 543(b)(5)(A-D) 546(d) Sorry, but those provisions are not a list specifying the limits of the things that a town can ask for. I suggest you review the FCC papers when they make their rulemaking and you will understand the legal situation better. I suggest you look at what I listed.
Yes, FCC rulemaking is just as important (in particular, section 543 adds in the references from section 17 and fcc rulemkaing), but these statutes in combination are an inclusive list of what a municipality can request. Now, in order to counter an unallowed request, a company must go to arbitration in order to get a finding that the municipality did not negotiation in good faith, but that option is available without a refusal first.
I call it an inclusive list, but obviously the equipment and facilities portion of the list is fairly open ended and that is where things like rec centers and swimming pools could try to sandwich in. That is where the FCC draws lines around what is and is not directly related to the administration of a franchise.
There is also the cavaet that case law (mostly around rate freezes, but applicable to other aspects of franchise contracts) has made it possible for cable companies and municipalities to create contracts external to the franchise agreement. In practice, these contracts are very common. But they are not part of the franchise agreement and, in my experience, done immediately before or immediately after the franchise process to keep them separate from the franchising process. This is important, because it means that these external contracts are not part of the materially similar criteria applied to overbuilder franchises. In other words, while the overbuilder has to provide the same interconnects as the incumbent because that is part of the franchise, if the incumbent does contract to provide funding for a rec center, the overbuilder does not have to provide similar funding nor even discuss such funding in the initial franchise negotiations.
I think the telcos are much more scared of the franchise initiative process than franchise barrel rolling. The price of a swimming pool is not much compared to the mandatory bankrolling of local elections for each new franchise.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by marigolds :I suggest you look at what I listed. Yes, FCC rulemaking is just as important (in particular, section 543 adds in the references from section 17 and fcc rulemkaing), but these statutes in combination are an inclusive list of what a municipality can request. Now, in order to counter an unallowed request, a company must go to arbitration in order to get a finding that the municipality did not negotiation in good faith, but that option is available without a refusal first. I call it an inclusive list, but obviously the equipment and facilities portion of the list is fairly open ended and that is where things like rec centers and swimming pools could try to sandwich in. That is where the FCC draws lines around what is and is not directly related to the administration of a franchise. There is also the cavaet that case law (mostly around rate freezes, but applicable to other aspects of franchise contracts) has made it possible for cable companies and municipalities to create contracts external to the franchise agreement. In practice, these contracts are very common. But they are not part of the franchise agreement and, in my experience, done immediately before or immediately after the franchise process to keep them separate from the franchising process. This is important, because it means that these external contracts are not part of the materially similar criteria applied to overbuilder franchises. In other words, while the overbuilder has to provide the same interconnects as the incumbent because that is part of the franchise, if the incumbent does contract to provide funding for a rec center, the overbuilder does not have to provide similar funding nor even discuss such funding in the initial franchise negotiations. I think the telcos are much more scared of the franchise initiative process than franchise barrel rolling. The price of a swimming pool is not much compared to the mandatory bankrolling of local elections for each new franchise. I am familiar with these provisions. I have never seen a pre-application arbitration, much less a finding of bad faith resulting from a pre-application arbitration. Even if I was advising the company and was sure that a local official made an improper request, I would not recommend an arbitration unless I was damn sure I would win on the facts and that the official would be out of their position afterwards.
OK it seems we have finally gotten to the point where we agree it's open ended and does not prevent asking for things like rec centers. I agree with your comments that such things are sometimes done in side agreements outside the franchise agreement and are "voluntary", although I would not describe that as very common. I have seen that done to insulate the franchise agreement from later attempts to invalidate it. But it is the overbuilder's legal need to obtain a CATV franchise that causes them to make such side agreements, and towns do ask for rec centers and such, notwithstanding that they do not make their way into the franchise agreement as I said earlier in this thread.
I am not sure what you mean by your last paragraph. I don't think AT&T for example is scared of having to pay for a swimming pool, but why do you think telcos are much more scared of the franchise initiative process thant barrel rolling? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by SD6 :Why do you think telcos are much more scared of the franchise initiative process thant barrel rolling? Look at the cost of special elections. For a local election, this can easily run $4+ per capita. For statewide elections, you will rarely see these costs go above $1.25 per capita (and the state franchise bills so far do not require a ballot initiative). For a small metro, that is an awful lot of money. That is on top of election advertising and all the legal costs just getting the initiative, ordinance, and contract prepared. A barrel rolling swimming pool at least has a guarantee of money behind it (as well as costing less and being a relatively rare thing) since it only happens after approval. The initiative carries no such guarantee: win or lose you have to pay it.
More importantly, there is legal recourse when a city turns you down because you will not build a swimming pool. There is no legal recourse when you lose the ballot initiative and you are locked out for up to 20 years at the local level.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Sounds good, but each town can probably think of some details that someone at the state level might not consider.
How about bringing in all the municipalities to a big state-wide conference, then let everyone work out the state-wide agreement together? Leaving the decisions to a few corruptible or ideological people, when it affects everyone for decades, is a mistake; a congress of all the affected parties would be better. | |
| | | | 
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO | name a town that put a rec center into their cable franchise? can anyone? I'm not saying that a city somewhere hasn't tried, but I doubt the lawyers allowed it.
that argument is a fallacy | |
| | | | | SD6
join:2005-03-26
| Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. said by xerxes3642 :name a town that put a rec center into their cable franchise? can anyone? I'm not saying that a city somewhere hasn't tried, but I doubt the lawyers allowed it. that argument is a fallacy Yes, it is doubtful that the lawyers would allow it. But to be more precise about the argument, it's that when there is little limit to what a jurisdiction can ask for, they are likely to ask, and negotiate, and bargain, and go on with it, and so it is cumbersome to go through the franchise process for land-based TV. | |
| | | | | |
xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO | Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. don't think that cities don't have a reason to want the franchise to go through quickly and inexpensively. | |
| | | | | | soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
·Speakeasy
| One of my best friends was a lawyer for a smaller community here in Washington, and was in charge of negotiating their franchise agreement with Comcast. The city's primary concerns were service all residents (no cherry-picking) and timely upgrades (e.g., didn't want to stay at 40 channels sans internet when every other community around them was getting the 100+ new package plus high speed cable internet). They were not even remotely concerned about "rec centers". | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| Both have their obligation to their 'shareholders'...
Comcast (aka Commiecast/Comcr@p) is out there to make profit, boost its stock price and investors return (and CEO's pay). On the good side (if there is one), large corp's will push new services if they can make money from it, or better yet... they have to have high enough profit margins to be deployed.
Muni is out there to service its shareholders...aka the taxpayers, and not spend more than needed. The problem with Muni is that it can be slow to deploy/rollout/upgrade/change due to typical government mentality (not all).
So pick your poison...
Gov't/Muni = access for all, possible limitations/restrictions on use, upgrades, speed, etc.
Corp = typically we will give you whatever you want, assuming its profitable enough. | |
| | Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
·SaskTel Saskatchewan
| said by nwrickert : By contrast, AT&T and comcast seem to only care about their bottom line. to be fair, most business's are ruled by the bottom line
good will from a community doesn't tend to pay for expensive infrastructure that you may never recover the isntallation cost for | |
| | dchakrab
join:2006-02-25
Forest Park, IL
| From my reading, it appears that AT&T makes the argument that competition is in the best interests of citizens in Geneva, and that in the interests of fair and open competition with Comcast, they should be allowed to enter the cable market. Geneva's response has been that they are happy with the idea of fair and open competition, so AT&T should pay the same franchise fees and have the same build-out requirements that Comcast does. AT&T's response was to refuse and to sue.
AT&T's been playing dirty from the start...from astroturf groups purportedly representing residents (but actually being funded by AT&T) to fake letters from "residents" who turned out to be AT&T employees. If you read the 200 Billion Broadband Scandal, other interesting background emerges; these networks that AT&T is having such a hard time funding are things they were *already* paid to build out, years ago, and simply never delivered on. We're still paying for it, and Teletruth is suing (I believe) in some states to put a stop to it.
In the case of Geneva, Batavia, and St. Charles, I *definitely* side with the municipality against AT&T on this one; they should serve as more of an example to other communities being bullied by telco giants. | |
| | |
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | Re: I'll vote for Geneva on this one. You have summarized the situation very well. | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | The Capitalism of today... demands immediate,big return on investment with NO humane thoughts. ALL rights not specifically reserved to the federal govt belongs to the states | |
|
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! | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
mabellappendage
@verizon.net
| harsh words from a ma bell appendage this coming from the company who charged todays equivalent of $3 per minute for LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS!! it's not wise for at&t exec's to spit in the face of people they will eventually have to negotiate with. the merger with sbc was only at the behest of the fcc/doj, and local rights of way can be UNDONE in favor of a 3rd party to do the broadband triple play project "the right way"... | |
| | | |
|
|
·
We are getting IPTV any day now. I signed up at a launch event they held yesterday.
limiting me to 2500kbps/512kbps (on a 3008/512 package). You can call AT&T to find out their buildout. According to them, there's no plans within the next year for my neighborhood.
·
·