dslreports logo
 story category
Florida PIRG on AT&T 'Franchise Reform'
'Your lawmaker is hearing more from the Bell lobbyists than from you'

Florida PIRG's Brad Ashwell isn't buying AT&T's promise of competitive utopia if the state legislature passes their desired IPTV "franchise reform," because he's heard this song before. "A quick look at the legislation being pushed through the Florida legislature reveals that this competition flag-waving is really a game; AT&T's real agenda, it seems, is to eliminate the widely supported non-discrimination laws by allowing the giant telephone monopoly to offer services exclusively to the rich side of town, thus severely limiting competition but fattening their bottom line."

The bill in question is SB0998. Also see this report in the St. Petersburg Times.

Multichannel News says the bill has passed the Florida Senate, but it now includes an amendment that says telephone companies must pass 50% of the low-income homes in their video-service areas within three years. "The chamber also eliminated caps on fines against providers found guilty of "cherry-picking," says the report.

update: We contacted Florida PIRG's Brad Ashwell who says all cherry-picking provisions were pulled from the bill completely. The bill now simply needs to be signed by Florida Governor Charlie Crist. "We just weren't

organized early enough," Ashwell tells us.

view:
topics flat nest 

ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana

3 edits

ronpin

Member

Quid-pro-quo?

"You want a statewide franchise? -- how about FTTP fiber and no FTTN crap? (and you got a deal)"
ronpin

1 edit

ronpin

Member

Re: Quid-pro-quo?

(blank)

DaBavarian
Premium Member
join:2006-02-22
Saginaw, MI

DaBavarian to ronpin

Premium Member

to ronpin
Not a whole hearted bell fanboy here...but Comcast hasn't deployed its telco srv everywhere that it serves and still little by little adding new areas to this day. What is the big deal with television service being rolled out area by area by AT&T? I mean we are talking their corporate investment like Comcast and telephone should be the same for AT&T and television.
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

1 recommendation

jimbo21503 to ronpin

Member

to ronpin
said by ronpin:

"You want a statewide franchise? -- how about FTTP fiber and no FTTN crap? (and you got a deal)"
.. to add to your comment:

... "You want a statewide franchise?"
--- Offer it... STATEWIDE!

NowVOIP
In the beginning there was POTS
join:2006-03-05
Round Lake, IL

NowVOIP

Member

????

And this is news why? AT&T has been doing this everywhere.

JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA

JamesPC

Member

Re: ????

exactly, just like the them deploying here in LA. Any new services that can compete with cablecos is great for competition.

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

What is wrong with discrimination?

After all, the poor do not need AT&T, only the rich folk do. If you are poor you should be glad that AT&T is not taking your money. Unless you are a Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, or any any one of the many 'beautiful' people, you do not deserve to have certain services (and besides, you do not provide triple digit returns for the stockholders)

Discrimination is wonderful, as long as you are the one doing it and not the one receiving it.

Albatross
join:2000-12-22
Dallas, TX

1 recommendation

Albatross

Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

Right. And the reason that I had faster internet and IPTV available at my old house that was worth half of what my current house (where I don't have IPTV or fast DSL available) is . . .? Because clearly deployment decisionmaking is based on the income of neighborhoods and not on other things like, for example, the age of the existing infrastructure and other factors that ease deployment.

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

said by Albatross:

Right. And the reason that I had faster internet and IPTV available at my old house that was worth half of what my current house (where I don't have IPTV or fast DSL available) is . . .? Because clearly deployment decisionmaking is based on the income of neighborhoods and not on other things like, for example, the age of the existing infrastructure and other factors that ease deployment.
According to AT&T, the potential return on certain neighborhoods did not warrant extending service to them. Comcast did not see it that way and are the cable provider in my town now. Both my area and the area not desired had to have completely new infrastructure, so the primary factor for AT&T was one area was poor and one area was upper middle class.

Your mileage may vary.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

What's next?

Tiffany has to build new stores in the slums for each new one it opens downtown?

Yeah, Tiffany is a luxury--but so is cable TV and, under current government policies, broadband. You want to make it a necessity? OK, then what's next?

Safeway or Kroger has to build one new store in a depressed area for each one it builds in the suburbs? Believe me, groceries are more of a "necessity" than broadband, in any comparison.

PIRG is just continuing its socialist stance--equivalency (read: mediocrity) for all, ignore capitalist concepts of "accomplishment" or "success", and support the "fellow travellers" on the left while you're at it--particularly through local "public interest channels" that carry leftist cr@p all day because the "social services" people who nurse at the teat of the public exchequer are the only ones who have time to babble on camera like pseudo-celebrities.

While "discrimination on the basis of ability to pay" may sound offensive to the leftists, it is not only generally legal, it is the primary motivation that gets people to work each day.

calvoiper

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

said by calvoiper:

What's next?

Tiffany has to build new stores in the slums for each new one it opens downtown?

calvoiper
Hmm...I would not compare cable to Tiffany, I can't even afford to think about the store much less shop there so I just use one of the many options that give a better value for the cost. Many people here on DSLR seem to compare cable/internet more to Phone and Water. I know I need the internet just for my work personnel and financial activities, but unlike most of the lower paid workers here, I have one at my desk so I do not have to have internet at home unless I want to go over something with my wife.

I wonder what the people in the areas that have a hard time paying for electricity or do not use much electricity would think if you shut them down. After all, electricity is not really needed, so unless you can consume and pay for a lot you are a drag on the profit sheet. They can use candles and firewood, and walk to the store daily for perishables.

Oh and define slum, some people think our poorer areas are slums, but I have been in places in LA that make our 'slums' look like quality housing. Or do you consider a slum anyplace where you can not make triple digit return on your investment? That is apparently what AT&T thought since Comcast thought they could make money.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

First, you deliberately ignored my subsequent statements which do not treat broadband as a luxury--they point out the same fallacies in the "forced deployment" argument even if it is a "necessity".

Second, people who don't pay for electricity get shut off all the time--that's how utilities keep the money flowing in.

Third, trying to derail this discussion with an argument about the definition of "slum" is disingenuous, to say the least. Let's stay on point and not pick at my choice of words--feel free to substitute "economically disadvantaged residential area" for "slum" if you get off on politically correct euphemisms.

Finally, you need to realize you are (all?) saying that broadband should be considered a UTILITY, like gas, electricity, or water. Realize that the "utility" category assumes monopoly status--do you really want broadband only offered by a monopoly? If so, please develop a consensus on whether it should be cable or telco, then come back with those arguments.

calvoiper

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

Hate to break this to you, but cable has been treated as a utility for over 40 years, at least in places I have lived. Just because new uses have come along that were only dreamed about in the 60's does not change that, even though it looks like politicians and laws are being bought to do so in various ways.

And talking about derails, I said
said by RayW:

I wonder what the people in the areas that have a hard time paying for electricity or do not use much electricity would think if you shut them down. After all, electricity is not really needed, so unless you can consume and pay for a lot you are a drag on the profit sheet. They can use candles and firewood, and walk to the store daily for perishables.
Nothing about NON PAYMENT!, a totally different subject. Just referring to the fact that you might not get many of them (those in poor neighborhoods) and the ones that you do will get the cheap packages and not the big money makers. But like the other utilities when they too were luxuries, as more on-line access is required, more will eventually become customers. And like other utilities, you may have to take action and delete them (easier since right now cable is not a 'survival' issue).

Forced deployment, nothing wrong with that historically, for better or worse it helped get us to where we are today. Rural electrification was forced and in some cases done by the government, and telephones had requirements to go out to other areas that were not as lucrative.

Nothing is forcing your company to do what the franchise wants, but someone else will do it (AT&T vice Comcast is an example here). If you think being required to furnish service to areas (and to make sure you do not misunderstand again: and to get at least the minimum fees from those who partake even if they do not buy into the overpriced frills that make the executives rich) is too much trouble, then keep out of the way, just like AT&T eventually did here.

Oh, and I do not advocate going into areas where it is demonstrable hazardous to the installers and excessively hazardous to equipment. Might as while nip that argument. It might be useful socially, but the potential cost in life is too high.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

I'm missing your argument regarding electric service--it was in fact built out to rich neighborhoods first. For residential service, I don't think there are different "packages" that customers can buy. Eventually, over decades, electric service became near universal. Still, in rural areas, customers may face substantial costs to build out long service lines to new locations.

Regarding telephone service, telcos generally didn't "go out" to non-profitable areas until the Rural Electrification funds were expanded to include telephone service. (Note that this has now become a huge slush fund.) Some states still have areas where there is no telco available at all--only satellite service is possible. California has many such areas in the Sierra.

My point is that all this takes time, forcing the issue isn't necessarily a good idea, and today's subsidies become tomorrow's slush funds. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

calvoiper

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

I know you are missing the point of the electrical service but that is ok, it is only history.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

It is history--and history has shown us that networks develop over time, are concentrated in certain areas first, and not everyone automatically can connect tomorrow.

This is, of course, offensive to those who believe that every person in the country should have exactly the same environment, regardless of where they live, how hard they work, or what they might want.

RayW, I'll agree that it's appropriate for me to subsidize broadband expansion in the suburbs of Salt Lake City around the same time you agree it's appropriate for you to subsidize the expansion of parking garages in San Francisco. We each made our choice of where to live and work, and we need to live with the consequences of those choices.

calvoiper

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

said by calvoiper:

It is history--and history has shown us that networks develop over time, are concentrated in certain areas first, and not everyone automatically can connect tomorrow.

This is, of course, offensive to those who believe that every person in the country should have exactly the same environment, regardless of where they live, how hard they work, or what they might want.

RayW, I'll agree that it's appropriate for me to subsidize broadband expansion in the suburbs of Salt Lake City around the same time you agree it's appropriate for you to subsidize the expansion of parking garages in San Francisco. We each made our choice of where to live and work, and we need to live with the consequences of those choices.

calvoiper
Parking garages? What does that have to do with Broad Band? And we do not need you to subsidize Broad Band out here, just keep your crappy company from suing our local government (and buying laws against) for trying to do what you could/would not.

If you can't do the job right, then get out of the business and let companies like Comcast or local governments do it. Your excuses of why you can not do it are just as bogus today as your predecessor's were 40 years ago (and I see that certain companies still made enough money to spend on buying laws despite the loss from wiring "poor" areas).

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: What is wrong with discrimination?

Ray, there's no "you" here--I don't work for or represent in any fashion any telco. Please don't accuse me of not doing some job "right"--by your political standards.

I do however, reject the efforts by tin-pot dictatorships called local governments that try to manage competition, extort free broadband for government, require "public access" channels that run puff pieces on local politicians, and otherwise seek to turn business into their own little piggy bank.

Doing the job "right" means different things to different people--and in the case of local government, it all to often means kissing up to the cable company that has been distributing Christmas gifts to government honchos for years and sticking it to the telcos that have been regulated at the state level.

Requiring "build-out" by telco video competitors is one more ploy to delay video competition--a ploy that you are either part of, or deluded by.

calvoiper

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO

marigolds to calvoiper

MVM

to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:

For residential service, I don't think there are different "packages" that customers can buy.
That might depend on where you are. Here there are about a dozen different packages of electric service available with different types of billing and different "mixes" of energy sources.
marigolds

marigolds to calvoiper

MVM

to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:

What's next?

Tiffany has to build new stores in the slums for each new one it opens downtown?

Yeah, Tiffany is a luxury--but so is cable TV and, under current government policies, broadband. You want to make it a necessity? OK, then what's next?

Safeway or Kroger has to build one new store in a depressed area for each one it builds in the suburbs? Believe me, groceries are more of a "necessity" than broadband, in any comparison.

PIRG is just continuing its socialist stance--equivalency (read: mediocrity) for all, ignore capitalist concepts of "accomplishment" or "success", and support the "fellow travellers" on the left while you're at it--particularly through local "public interest channels" that carry leftist cr@p all day because the "social services" people who nurse at the teat of the public exchequer are the only ones who have time to babble on camera like pseudo-celebrities.

While "discrimination on the basis of ability to pay" may sound offensive to the leftists, it is not only generally legal, it is the primary motivation that gets people to work each day.

calvoiper
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Tiffany, Safeway, and Kroger are still usable by depressed areas because of connecting transportation and mail networks.
Cable television and broadband are almost purely site based services. You can use a Safeway in the same town as you but 12 blocks away; you cannot use cable television in the same town but 12 blocks away.

And when Safeway and Kroger make use of public trust resources, they often do so with requirements to build in depressed areas. So, the Safeway/Kroger example actually reinforces the idea that companies making extensive use of the public trust should be required to match community needs in doing so. (I am not sure if the issue is the same for Tiffanys.)

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

And that redlining claim is bogus and has never been proven. But, given that they have few other arguments, they use this to try and drum up support for their typical anti-corporate rants.

TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium Member
join:2002-01-25
Lithia, FL

TechieZero

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

Additionally --- its makes no biz sense. You want earn profit from as many customers as possible, not the fewest. Welcome to socialism double-speak.
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA

chemaupr

Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

What socialism? This is a service that we all need to remain competitive and have opportunity and access to information, education, etc…

Is not all about business here. Is about giving everyone access. The Internet is becoming a necessity for many and it will be soon for every one. How many personal transactions (medical, financial, education, government, etc) you can handle now online and thus use your time more effectively for your personal and business life. So, are you saying that because someone has fewer resources ATT should not serve them, because they will profit less. If that so, we will not have the telephone system we have today. And the way I see it, the Internet (broadband) is fast becoming the “service” the telephone was 20-40 years ago.

And, the government for once needs to make sure that the entire citizens have equal access to that service so we can all have the same opportunities.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

said by chemaupr:

Is not all about business here. Is about giving everyone access.
No, it is about government dictating to businesses that they must do business everywhere instead of where they can afford to provide service. And that is socialism at its most pernicious.
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08

SunnyFL8

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

Yeh your right the government should not tell them what to do they should just compete for the service making sure everyone gets access. Just like everyone gets access to water and electric you should be able to get cable and telephone and internet access no matter were you live.

It is a big investment to put a RT Dslam in a poor neighborhood. But we all know the Bells can afford it its only a business decision.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

said by SunnyFL8:

Yeh your right the government should not tell them what to do they should just compete for the service making sure everyone gets access.
"Making sure everyone gets access" is the whole point of contention and does require government stipulating requirements to commercial entities to provide the same service to all constituents at a shared cost and regardless of the ROI. This is a socialistic concept, which is TCH's point.
said by SunnyFL8:

But we all know the Bells can afford it its only a business decision.
I know you can afford the equipment, so why don't you purchase the RT, install it, connect to the telco, and then let the telco provide you service at their monthly rate? It's a business decision that doesn't always make sense financially for the for-profit business. Why can people never grasp this concept. Everything has a cost and no sane business is going to willingly take a loss out of the kindness of their heart to provide a service that may or may not be wanted to an area that doesn't provide an appropriate ROI.
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08

3 edits

SunnyFL8

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

said by openbox9:

said by SunnyFL8:

Yeh your right the government should not tell them what to do they should just compete for the service making sure everyone gets access.
"Making sure everyone gets access" is the whole point of contention and does require government stipulating requirements to commercial entities to provide the same service to all constituents at a shared cost and regardless of the ROI. This is a socialistic concept, which is TCH's point.
said by SunnyFL8:

But we all know the Bells can afford it its only a business decision.
I know you can afford the equipment, so why don't you purchase the RT, install it, connect to the telco, and then let the telco provide you service at their monthly rate? It's a business decision that doesn't always make sense financially for the for-profit business. Why can people never grasp this concept. Everything has a cost and no sane business is going to willingly take a loss out of the kindness of their heart to provide a service that may or may not be wanted to an area that doesn't provide an appropriate ROI.
YOu know I can afford it? What are you on? Wake up read my quotes..... I didn't disagree.

You know the Telco can afford it.. they got plenty of money.. no lies there.

And i know TCH's point I wasn't disagreeing....
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

said by SunnyFL8:

YOu know I can afford it? What are you on?
That's my point. I'm assuming you can afford the investment just like you are assuming the telcos can afford the investment.
said by SunnyFL8:

And i know TCH's point I wasn't disagreeing....
My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08

SunnyFL8

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

said by openbox9:

said by SunnyFL8:

YOu know I can afford it? What are you on?
That's my point. I'm assuming you can afford the investment just like you are assuming the telcos can afford the investment.
said by SunnyFL8:

And i know TCH's point I wasn't disagreeing....
My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.
I know what your saying and I am not trying to disagree but I hear the money these telco's have and from what I hear they can afford it. ATT showed profits the only company taking a real hit is Verizon because of FIOS. But its worth the investment.

Sorry we both got off wrong ....

asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net

asdfdfdfdf to openbox9

Anon

to openbox9
Why are you assuming that everyone who isn't presently covered would be a loss to the company. In fact, those who aren't covered generally become miraculously covered in those instances where competition comes in. We are supposed to believe that places where a new entrant comes in suddenly become profitable to a company like ATT? Or is your assumption perhaps flawed? Companies will spend money where they can maximize profit, but it doesn't follow that those places they don't spend money are necessarily money losers. ATT wants to spend money getting into the video business rather than expanding dsl coverage. It doesn't follow that expanding dsl coverage could not generate profits for ATT.

"...provide the same service to all constituents at a shared cost and regardless of the ROI. This is a socialistic concept,..."

How can you say something like this with a straight face. Everyone who signs up for ATT service today pays a consistent price. Do you really believe that this means that it costs the same amount of money to get service to each and every home passed? When verizon builds out fios they figure an average cost per home passed. Every home doesn't actually cost that average to reach, but they don't charge each home based on an actual apportionment of the specific cost to reach that home.
Costs are always shared. Profits from voice subscribers to ATT are what helps fund the build out of infrastructure to their future video customers.

This isn't true only for telecom. To give just one of endless possible examples, there are externalities imposed by SUV drivers. Their heavier cars put more wear and tear on roads and produce more pollution. These costs are not actually apportioned accurately to each individual based on the real costs of that specific individual.

There is simply no practical way to accomplish your ideological insistence that every individual should actually pay their own and only their own costs in this world. Trying to actually accomplish such a thing would become such a costly, complicated nightmare that it would swamp the economy.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

said by asdfdfdfdf :

Companies will spend money where they can maximize profit, but it doesn't follow that those places they don't spend money are necessarily money losers.
Agreed, it's about maximizing ROI and not specifically loss avoidance.
said by asdfdfdfdf :

Do you really believe that this means that it costs the same amount of money to get service to each and every home passed?
No, what I'm referring to is when a company has to raise rates for all customers to compensate expenses related to deployments to non-profitable areas. And more specifically, when government dictates that corporate entities must serve everyone, regardless of costs.
said by asdfdfdfdf :

There is simply no practical way to accomplish your ideological insistence that every individual should actually pay their own and only their own costs in this world.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I don't want to pay extra to cover exorbitant costs for "Joe Snuffy" to have broadband in the middle of nowhere.

asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net

asdfdfdfdf

Anon

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

"No, what I'm referring to is when a company has to raise rates for all customers to compensate expenses related to deployments to non-profitable areas."

I thought you agreed, just above, that the assumption that coverage was stopped at the point where there could be no profitability was flawed? It isn't clear that the areas that aren't covered are incapable of showing profit. Many of the people who still can't get dsl are in newer subdivisions on the outskirts of towns, which is where most new construction happens. Dave Burstein's most recent best estimates on coverage at dslprime show coverage largely stagnant at anywhere from 60-80%. I don't believe there are that many americans, living in the middle of nowhere, to explain such statistics.

We agree that costs are shared and you are concerned that expanding coverage could raise everyone's costs. You seem to agree that the point that coverage has stopped isn't necessarily the point at which profitability becomes impossible. Why couldn't we make the same argument that if coverage had stopped at 50% this would have led to a lower average cost. Maybe if they had instead stopped at 40% or 30% it would have been even better for the 30% who got to be the haves. I'm sure the people who first got broadband would have been content to stop coverage at that point to reduce the average cost, and to hell with the other 95 or 99% of the population.
asdfdfdfdf

1 recommendation

asdfdfdfdf to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
Regulation is not socialism. It is an alternative to socialism.

You don't seem to be bothered by the idea that individuals should conform to social norms so why are you so appalled at the assertion that businesses should conform to social norms or that there should be mechanisms in place to constrain businesses that do not conform to norms.

It is not in society's interest to isolate people. It is in society's interest to make sure people have access and can participate.

Notwithstanding trickle down theory, broadband coverage does not seem to be expanding much anymore. If a business that dominates a market will not provide access then society should find ways to route around that control, to see to it that access is provided and to ensure that the business isn't in a position to subvert alternative solutions. I would much prefer that, rather than imposing service requirements on ATT, the government aggressively create conditions for other businesses to enter the market(such as spectrum reform), supplement this with municipal infrastructure build out, and tell ATT to piss off when they try to undermine these activities with their lobbying money and lawyers.

It is fine that business seeks its profit. It is NOT fine that society is held hostage to that profit seeking or that other interests are forced to sacrifice themselves to the profit seeking of a market dominating company. ATT profits may be the supreme value for ATT, but there is no reason why they should be the supreme value of the larger social order, of which ATT is only a very small part.

•••••••••••••••••••

idjk
@sprintlink.net

idjk to chemaupr

Anon

to chemaupr
You may not remember - but I do telephones were slow to get to the burbs and so was cable. Any company will go where the greatest profit is 1st then fill in the blanks, when we start saying everybody has the "right" to anything we are moving into socialism.
I also seem to remember that cable was deregulated some years ago (at least in Fl.)so why should telco IPTV be different.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

1 recommendation

calvoiper

Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

To amplify, phones were very slow to go rural. Indeed, in many small towns, the old AT&T never got there at all--that's why we had GTE and United Tel, as well as thousands of "Independents."

It's how networks develop, and it's one of many factors involved in choosing a place to live. Get over it.

We shouldn't force competitive companies to serve specific geographies any more than we force piano movers to equalize rates between NYC and Pembroke, NY.

calvoiper

TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium Member
join:2002-01-25
Lithia, FL

1 recommendation

TechieZero to chemaupr

Premium Member

to chemaupr
said by chemaupr:

Is not all about business here. Is about giving everyone access. The Internet is becoming a necessity for many and it will be soon for every one. How many personal transactions (medical, financial, education, government, etc) you can handle now online and thus use your time more effectively for your personal and business life. So, are you saying that because someone has fewer resources ATT should not serve them, because they will profit less.
Oh yeah? What does you and your family do? If people can't afford your services or goods do you just give it to them? How about if your Boss can't meet payroll, do you just say "Hey Boss, I will just work for little or nothing for you."

Unreasonable right? Why do others think the telecommunications companies that employs people in the 1000s should do the same?

Because they "need" it? Phone and internet? Amazingly I had neither growing up in my life and I was able to get by. These are called conveniences not necessities. As it is deactivated cellphones and phones in many areas are able to dail 911. This is a public service provided by these very same ebil, ebil companies.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
you're forgetting AT&T in bed with the NSA for the purported reason of, you know, important stuff like spying on us terrorists.

yee haw! goodbye privacy! hello triple play by the new at&t! with added single bill convenience! wow! could life get any better?

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And that redlining claim is bogus and has never been proven. But, given that they have few other arguments, they use this to try and drum up support for their typical anti-corporate rants.
Oh?
AT&T said they did not want to wire certain parts of our town (poorer), yet Comcast said they would do the job. AT&T lost the franchise, Comcast has the franchise. At this point I do not know if they followed through, although they did put a lot of fiber into my area (predominately white upper middle class area) but I do not know if they have fulfilled the franchise contract in the poorer areas. I was told by the mayor of another town that they are having problems with Comcast not taking care of certain neighborhoods, so who knows.

Do not know if that fits your definition of red-lining.

••••
PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL

PeterCollins to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Depends on your take of what redlining is.

You don't have to be poor to be redlined. As it has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you could be redlined because the density of homes in your neighborhood is too low. I know for a fact we went through this with DSL service in some of the wealthiest parts of our city.

Again, this isn't an "anti-at&t" argument from a city p.o.v., but rather a "pro-citizen" outlook. The city's job is too make sure all parts of its territory (and those who operate in its r.o.w.) are treated equally.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

1 recommendation

calvoiper

Member

Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining

...and to extort bandwidth for government use; and to force "public access" channels full of puff pieces about local politicians; and to otherwise push the political interests of those in power....

calvoiper

TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium Member
join:2002-01-25
Lithia, FL

TechieZero

Premium Member

Money!

Yeah I can't imagine why a business would want to take care of paying customers. For shame!

bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC

bobjohnson

Premium Member

Re: Money!

It seems to me that it is not about the amount of money in the areas that they are wanting to exclude from competition but also the population of these areas also... For example, I live in an area where the majority of the people are wealthy but there are not as many people so in return we still do not have access to dsl and the areas where cable internet is available is still spotty (we still don't have digital cable)... But they do not plan to upgrade here and do not compete or seem to want customers in this area
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Money!

said by bobjohnson:

It seems to me that it is not about the amount of money in the areas that they are wanting to exclude from competition but also the population of these areas also... For example, I live in an area where the majority of the people are wealthy but there are not as many people
It's about the ROI. Sparsely populated areas and/or areas that are unlikely to subscribe to a provider's services most likely won't meet the threshold to justify capital expenditures. Businesses are there to make money. They do not desire to potentially take loses for the sake of 100% customer coverage.
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

lesopp

Member

Let'em have their cake...

I live in Florida and I'd like to see this reform pass. For the past several months I've seen too many anti reform commercials by some cable shill group saying how bad it will be for us. When you remove the hyperbole and innuendo it becomes an empty message. I am curious if this shill group is even paying for the ads since there have been so many. I believe the cable companies are playing a shell game with funding to make it look like the group is paying for the ad time. I'm serious when I say its worse than the last two political seasons.

I would rather see the reform pass and in two or three years after they become invested revise the law so they have to serve poor/rural areas.

•••

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium Member
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Michieru2

Premium Member

!

POTS and AT&T have to go, it's time for companies to start releasing wireless cellphone technology for standard home telephones.

A simple and great way to do this is to replace the NID box located outside and fitted with a very big battery yet also acts as an ATA and providing power to standard phones. The device has an antenna sticking out of the box from the top which can operate normally even under severe conditions and people will be able to place a call even during power outages.

I don't see why we continue to look at new ways to use the copper when it has reached its limited unless shielding it as cable which was forced to do from the start. Not only that but we have now one less cable to snap during a storm. A tower can be protected to handle CAT5 winds and if the tower falls a truck right after the storm can setup a temporary mini tower providing phone services to those who need it most.

Cellphone technology can surpass that of POTS in reliability if the technology was improved and money was invested into it.

The only issue I see is the actual design of the box, and by creating energy efficient chipsets battery life can be extended surpassing the month mark.

The other issue which should be the biggest one is to finally see on what exactly is killing our freaking bees. Cellphones give out radiation, but then again most things do, so why the cellphone...