Wisconsin Realizes Franchise 'Reform' Was a Con State wakes up after bender, notices AT&T in bed next to them... Tipped by ArgMeMatey 
The baby bells have lobbied very hard to gut the existing local franchise system, without it getting much coverage from the technology media. With the FCC's help, they've passed franchise "reform" laws in more than a dozen states under the promise of more jobs and lower TV rates. In reality, the bills are designed to legalize cherry picking, kill consumer protection laws, eliminate local authority and eminent domain rights, and streamline lobbying. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, with TV rates skyrocketing, Wisconsin is the latest to notice that the franchise "reform" bill they were sold didn't actually do anything for consumers that the old system didn't. It was supposed to foster vigorous competition among cable television providers and create jobs. Yet almost a year after Wisconsin's video franchise law was enacted, the debate continues over whether many consumers have benefited. . .But it's unclear exactly where the service is offered or when it's coming to a community because AT&T refuses to provide that information unless it's part of the company's marketing efforts. Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services, while leaving much of the state without much competition and weaker consumer protection. Gosh, if only someone had warned them. Actually the State had plenty of warning, local UW Madison Professor Barry Orton testified to the new bill's dangers at length. Orton explained, but was ignored, how the changes proposed by AT&T and Verizon would actually eliminate some decent consumer protections: State and local consumer protection has worked to the advantage of consumers. Section 100.209 of Wisconsin statutes protects subscribers rights to prompt repairs, refunds for service outages, notice of rate increases or service deletions, and written notice of disconnection. AB 207/SB 107 would eliminate these basic subscriber rights; Wisconsin video service providers could refuse refunds to customers if the service went out, raise rates or cut programming services without any notice, and disconnect customers without notice or reasonable cause AT&T and Verizon spent several years arguing that local franchise control prevented them from deploying telcoTV. With the occasional fib by FCC chief Kevin Martin, the baby bells convinced state legislators around the country that scattered, unreasonable demands by towns and cities were the norm, and were preventing the arrival of TV competition utopia. By demonizing local video franchise authorities, AT&T convinced many States to pass bills that were little more than anti-consumer telco wishlists. Wisconsin's was among the worst. In reality, Verizon deployed FiOSTV to many municipalities under the old system of local franchise control, and has publicly stated that they were able to do so quickly. In most cases it was AT&T, not the local municipalities, that stopped AT&T from deploying U-Verse IPTV service and next-gen broadband infrastructure. AT&T simply didn't want to deploy next-generation services evenly or deal with the tough consumer protection laws in several states, and threatened to sue any town or city that said otherwise. The State by State approach was only attempted because efforts to pass a federal version of these bills failed. Initially, AT&T and Verizon had recruited the help of convicted felon and recently re-elected Alaska Senator Ted Stevens to pass a national franchise "reform" law, but that effort was derailed by the network neutrality debate. On the even less savvy state level, the sales pitch of lower rates was too compelling, telco lobbyists were simply too well funded, and consumers too under-represented. In Wisconsin, AT&T's astroturfing front group, TV4US, was particularly aggressive in getting the law passed, giving promotional packets to State lawmakers with lists of people who supported the measure -- when they actually didn't. TV4US is still trying to swindle additional States into passing reform bills, and is still promising lower TV prices they know will never come.
|
 | | Anyone else... ...here shocked? Anyone? Anyone? Just another story about how a huge corporation is more concerned with profits than serving consumers. Hell, the "Con" isn't even a story. Big business tells government that they really really really do have the consumers in mind when it eventually turns out that they don't. Jesus, how many times has this happened? | |
|  | | Does anyone see he obvious... - Don't trust the Telcos. Vote NO if they put up an issue if you are too lazy to inform yourself.
- Put a referendum on the ballot to overturn this issue. Very easily done, if so many people are negatively affected as this article claims.
- Learn from mistake 1 and educate yourself better in the future Wisconsin. | |
|  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 1 edit | Re: Does anyone see he obvious... Oh please. Here in California we're beyond bankrupt, facing 10.5% sales taxes, 200% increase in car taxes and you have a dumbass electorate voting for $20B ($10B+interest) for bullet trains no one will use. You think for a second that they won't believe the onslaught on cable and telco ads telling everyone that undoing franchise reform wouldn't be a "gov't power grab" or other such bullcrap?
Voters are stupid. | |
|  |  |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM join:2001-08-11 Warwick, RI kudos:5 | Re: Does anyone see he obvious... said by Dogfather:You think for a second that they won't believe the onslaught on cable and telco ads telling everyone that undoing franchise reform wouldn't be a "gov't power grab" or other such bullcrap? Voters are stupid. If I typed the first sentence, GrammarCheck would have a fit, and of 100 people I asked that question as written, 60 would pretend I didn't say a thing and keep on walking because they parsed the grammar and concluded it was a waste of their time. 36 would say "Huh?", 2 would answer Yes, and 2 would answer No.
Of the 36, 52% would approve of "Change, whatever that is" and 46% would approve if it looked like I had legs enough to stand for a couple of more years without keeling over because they liked the color of my hair. The remaining 2% still remember Annette Funicello when she wore that funny looking hat on daytime TV.
Of the remaining 4, all would parse the grammar and half would get tripped up in the double negatives and vote for what they thought they heard, while the other half would sincerely understand what I asked.
So, yes, voters are stupid, but the questions *are* complicated. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Does anyone see he obvious... That was best post I've read in a while. -- Folding for our future!! | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by birdfeedr:.... So, yes, voters are stupid, but the questions *are* complicated. ALL questions are complicated to stupid voters. Questions are also complicated for ignorant voters.
with the stupid voters and the ignorant voters, you end up with laws and regulations they have no clue are bad for them as consumers.
as for the legislators, money makes them stupid, ignorant or both. | |
|  |  |  |  |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM join:2001-08-11 Warwick, RI kudos:5 1 edit | Re: Does anyone see the obvious... And then there's the other whammy. If you are in the minority that really understands the questions, you get slammed by those who aren't because they want to run the show, not the elites, whoever they are.
So it comes down to who can dance the best. Ballet and ice skating are examples. The best dancers are smooth and make it look so easy. Yet we know it takes hard work and constant practice. Once you lose that edge, the best you can do is teach.
Or go do something else. There's always another dancer who looks good.
Annette Funicello was a dancer. »www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6NatiMGTH4
And no, I didn't vote for her. | |
|
 |  |  Bill03Premium join:2007-11-26 Richmond, VA | Some voters are stupid, not all. | |
|  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 1 edit | Re: Does anyone see he obvious... Okay. Way too many voters are stupid. | |
|  |  |  |  |  Bill03Premium join:2007-11-26 Richmond, VA | Re: Does anyone see he obvious... said by Dogfather:Okay. Way too many voters are stupid. No arguement there. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Does anyone see he obvious... I'll leave argument alone. However, it is the obligation of our duly elected representatives to inform its constituency about matters such as this. If the politicians had ANY of the publics interest in mind, then each representative would have made sure it had an informed electorate. But they don't. They bask in the corrupted system that they themselves created. What a F***ing waste.
Don't blame the voters...blame the criminals running this enterprise, and all of the prostitutes that enable this to stand! -- "For duty and humanity!" - Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress | |
|
 |  |  | | said by Dogfather:Oh please. Here in California we're beyond bankrupt, facing 10.5% sales taxes, 200% increase in car taxes and you have a dumbass electorate voting for $20B ($10B+interest) for bullet trains no one will use. You think for a second that they won't believe the onslaught on cable and telco ads telling everyone that undoing franchise reform wouldn't be a "gov't power grab" or other such bullcrap? Voters are stupid. California Voters vote on a lot of stupid things. Of course, Obama will bail them out. -- Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton. -Supergirl | |
|
 DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Telcos buy gov't influence? Say it isn't so. There is no clear good and evil here. You have corrupt local and state gov't vs corrupt corporate racketeers. Meanwhile, as usual, the public loses no matter who wins.
Meanwhile, here is another telco slamming article from Karl Bode ...so will he get the apology from the coaxial kissasses who endless claim bias? | |
|  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Franchise Reform honors the Constitution
Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  boltFormer Broadband ExilePremium join:2003-11-11 Charlestown, IN kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by ThrowDemsOut:]Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. Ya, that deregulation bit has worked so well, for the airlines, the banking industry and the energy businesses. | |
|  |  |  lesopp join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution Yes, let's not forget the opposition to strengthening regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. | |
|
 |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements. | |
|  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by marigolds:While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements. Lets switch to communism where the community owns all property in the USA and then we wont have silly little fights, comrade. | |
|  |  |  |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by patcat88:said by marigolds:While abusing the public trust in the process and profiting off public lands. Isn't America great? If AT&T and cable companies want to pick and choose where to offer services, they can do it on private land and purchased private easements. Lets switch to communism where the community owns all property in the USA and then we wont have silly little fights, comrade. Oh, I get it, you think that public trust lands are communism.
Because I know you don't read the newspapers:
Martin v. Waddell: »supreme.justia.com/us/41/367/ Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois: »supreme.justia.com/us/163/142/
And a good summary too in case that is too much: »www.slc.ca.gov/Policy_Statements···rine.pdf
I think you will find Illinois Central particularly relevant and enlightening on this particular public trust issue. Meanwhile, Martin v Waddell should firmly establish for you why the public trust is a Constitutionally granted foundation of the American Republic and a capitalist society. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by marigolds:I think you will find Illinois Central particularly relevant and enlightening on this particular public trust issue. Meanwhile, Martin v Waddell should firmly establish for you why the public trust is a Constitutionally granted foundation of the American Republic and a capitalist society. Screw that, 1 mille per breath of air or I'm bagging your head to prevent theft of property. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution I don't even know what that means but it's funny! | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Uhhh, the "community" does own public land, and easements are private property. In what sense should at&t or any telco/cableco have the right to do anything they want to with land they don't own? Would you simply give over to them the right to do anything with your land that they want to? someone else's land?
All your land are belong to us! | |
|
 |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ | said by ThrowDemsOut:Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. ahhh...tk, where would we be without the neo-con spin that you provide on a daily basis...
what the telcos have done using franchise reform is allowed themselves not just to choose where they want, but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition. this allows them to offer higher speeds at the same price or lower where areas have competition from indie-sources or cable, but in ares where this competition is lacking, allows a "monopolistic" approach to speeds and pricing. we can see it all over in the disparities between speeds and prices in fios areas and those who aren't served by fios. this is just another incarnation of it.
q. -- those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it... | |
|  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by tubbynet:but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition. How so? From what I understand, the franchise reform minimizes the requirements to deploy new technologies into markets. How does that allow an incumbent to choose where competition exists?said by tubbynet:we can see it all over in the disparities between speeds and prices in fios areas and those who aren't served by fios. So competition works? Or am I missing your point? | |
|  |  |  |  TsumePremium join:2004-02-23 Johnson City, TN Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by openbox9:said by tubbynet:but it allows them to choose areas where there is competition. How so? From what I understand, the franchise reform minimizes the requirements to deploy new technologies into markets. How does that allow an incumbent to choose where competition exists? Before: Local franchises dictate 98% coverage of their population.
After: State franchise has little to no coverage requirement.
Result: People in rural / less "competitive" areas get no cable / phone / etc. They choose where competition exists and where to compete. Rather than serve an entire city, they can "cherry pick" and serve only the "rich" area that will buy more of their services. | |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by Tsume:Before: Local franchises dictate 98% coverage of their population. After: State franchise has little to no coverage requirement. I understand the before/after situations, what I don't understand is tubbynet 's comment about allowing providers to choose areas where there is competition. Franchise reform aids providers to choose where they deploy service, but doesn't necessarily allow providers to choose where there is competition...short of them choosing not to compete in a market, which they already do.said by Tsume:Result: People in rural / less "competitive" areas get no cable / phone / etc. How's that different than before?said by Tsume:They choose where competition exists and where to compete. Rather than serve an entire city, they can "cherry pick" and serve only the "rich" area that will buy more of their services. Is there proof of that? I see the "redlining" comment bantered around a lot, but haven't seen any actual evidence. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution They can choose areas where the median income is above average. For example, look at this map with communities with professional degrees »www.city-data.com/top2/h188.html
overlapped with most income »www.city-data.com/top2/z0.html
now look at where Verizon Fios is »/gmaps/fios
now tell me with a straight face that theres no "cherry Picking" going on. -- "For duty and humanity!" - Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution All I see is three lists. I don't see any correlation done by you proving anything. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution Not to mention that S_engineer 's links list macro level details while most arguments against franchise reform highlight micro level concerns. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by openbox9:Not to mention that S_engineer  's links list macro level details while most arguments against franchise reform highlight micro level concerns. incorrect, what the maps show (in general) are areas where the limited fios resources (micro)are being deployed in more affluent areas. Of course they're going to want to bypass municiple franchise laws by just doing at the state (macro) level. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by S_engineer:said by openbox9:Not to mention that S_engineer  's links list macro level details while most arguments against franchise reform highlight micro level concerns. incorrect, what the maps show (in general) are areas where the limited fios resources (micro)are being deployed in more affluent areas. Of course they're going to want to bypass municiple franchise laws by just doing at the state (macro) level. S-engineer - You don't have any maps and you haven't shown anything. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution There were maps at the links. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Did you look at Verizon's wireline network map by state? It oddly lines up more or less with the user reported Verizon FiOS deployment map...and the top earning zip codes...and the professional degree locations that you highlighted previously. The only correlation that I see from this relatively high-level data is that Verizon is deploying FiOS across their footprint that coincidentally happens to be the highest paid, most educated areas of the country. Accusations of "cherry picking" are still far fetched and undocumented from what I can see based on this info. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  See 14 replies to this post |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | said by ThrowDemsOut:All I see is three lists. I don't see any correlation done by you proving anything. instead of using the pins, i'll use the FIOS map with illinois as a test case. I'll run a covariance model using cokriging of professional degrees and income as a predictive for FIOS deployment, and we'll see how it comes out. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution Of course, that will not prove anything since we are still looking at a community level, which local franchises will not affect. Still though, it can indicate a pattern. The better test would require census block or block group level deployment statistics (we're supposed to have those any day now, right?) | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by ThrowDemsOut:Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. so TK, you have no problem with me opening a car dealership in your front yard with no conditions and no compensation to you? | |
|  |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution said by nasadude:said by ThrowDemsOut:Critics of the video franchise law say it has given AT&T and cable companies the freedom to pick and choose where they want to offer their services Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. so TK, you have no problem with me opening a car dealership in your front yard with no conditions and no compensation to you? Not as long as you pay me $500,000 for the privilege. Because a car dealership isn't an easement. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Franchise Reform honors the Constitution I get the distinct impression you don't believe in easements, since it's one of those "big brother" things.
besides, with your zeal for all things free market, I would think you would jump at the chance to sacrifice for the greater good of corporatism. | |
|
 |  2 edits | said by ThrowDemsOut:Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. The Constitution says nothing about states dictating the terms under which business can operate in their respective boundaries.
Actually, it just dawned on me, the 10th Amendment actually give states those rights to do just the opposite of what you've stated.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 1 edit | said by ThrowDemsOut:Wow, imagine that. In the United States of America, the right of a private company to do business WHERE they want and WHEN they want without big brother making the choices for them. What is this world coming too. Funny you should mention "Big Brother." AT&T and Big Brother are practically synonyms.
I don't even agree that these are wholly private companies when their infrastructure overlays substantial private lands, public rights of ways and public airwaves. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|  | 
approval from: ArgMeMatey 
| If this was a robust competitive market, with many competitors and with low barriers to entry I would agree with you.
Since it is a very capital intensive market that seems to constantly tend toward one company controlling all the wires, with very high barriers to entry, and since these companies need access to a lot of other people's land to get all these wires to potential customers (it requires the government to coerce millions of property owners into granting access to portions of their land for use by such a company), why is it unreasonable for the government to impose conditions on these companies which pressure them to provide universal service in exchange. Easements require everyone to make a sacrifice by telling them what they can do with their property and by forcing them to provide a free benefit to a company. Why shouldn't the company have a reciprocal requirement to provide a benefit in exchange for the benefit that they are receiving from everyone else? Why is this so unfair or oppressive? | |
|  |  1 edit | Try reading the constitution again TK. Most amendments do not apply to private institutions. | |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Meanwhile in Phil Montgomery's reelection campaign... Phil Montgomery's campaign donations from telecom sources jumped from $2k in 2004 to $10.7k in 2008. This includes 8 out of state maximum donations from AT&T/SBC employees. | |
|  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Yes, this was a total con Its amazing that many consumers in Wisconsin that previously had one choice for cable now have at least two, if not three choices for video content. How ATT pulled off this horrendous con is mind boggling, since providing more competition is clearly a terrible thing. The citizens of Wisconsin should demand ATT immediately cease deploying services, as they are furious they can now choose between two (or more) providers.  -- Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|  |  See 44 replies to this post | |
 BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | WOW you can judge results after one whole year? nice SLANT article instead of NEWS.
sorry local franchise control is a joke and anyone thinking otherwise is either ignorant obtuse or both. The only thing my local franchise authority ever got us is higher prices and fewer channels.
Cherry picking? That was going on already. Charter for YEARS in my state has given certain area upgrades while ignoring others. For example in some parts of my state you can get 16 Mbps internet here it's only 10 Mbps. In some areas you can get VOD, my area stil waiting even though the county right below me has had it for nearly 4 years. If that's not cherry picking then I don't know what is. So please. | |
|  |  | | Re: WOW you can judge results after one whole year? said by BF69:sorry local franchise control is a joke and anyone thinking otherwise is either ignorant obtuse or both. The only thing my local franchise authority ever got us is higher prices and fewer channels. That's odd, our local franchise authority has been quite the opposite. They had always been responsive to complaints from subscribers. Don't measure every local franchise authority by the yardstick of the obviously inept franchise authority in your area. -- --- Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: WOW you can judge results after one whole year? said by NetAdmin1:That's odd, our local franchise authority has been quite the opposite. They had always been responsive to complaints from subscribers. Don't measure every local franchise authority by the yardstick of the obviously inept franchise authority in your area. absolutely agree. our local franchise authority is great.
when I was having problems with comcast some years ago, I actually got on a first name basis with one of the guys in the county office. He always returned calls or emails and helped quite a bit - it's interesting how hard it was to get comcast to respond to me, but shortly after talking to Keith in the county office about a problem I would magically hear from comcast. | |
|
 |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 1 edit | said by BF69:In some areas you can get VOD, my area stil waiting even though the county right below me has had it for nearly 4 years. If that's not cherry picking then I don't know what is. So please. It's not cherry picking. Cherry picking is not, "They get VOD and we get PPV". Cherry picking is, "We complained that we were not getting VOD, so they turned off our service, took down our nodes, put our address on the "no service" list, and left their wires behind and told us to deal with it." -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
 | | Just another notch on the Corporate bedpost Yes Wisconsin you have also been screwed by AT&T without a kiss to the consumer.
I was one of a state-wide group that opposed this type of bill in Ohio, with similar results. We were ignored by state senators and congress people who were seduced by ATT's promises of roses and chocolate (read jobs and economic development)
Why is it politicians believe the large corporations over their own citizens and local officials?
State after state the Bills written by AT&T are accepted by the politicians. What can be done to break the "AT&T spell? | |
|  | | re: CA high speed rail One might be tempted to point out that proceeding to build an automobile based infrastructure in earnest just as one's domestic oil production was peaking was ill-advised. One might be tempted to point out that refusing to even admit that there might be a problem with importing 60% of one's oil to keep said automobile infrastructure going right about when the world's oil production is peaking is, well, batshit crazy. And one might also point out that a continued irrational attachment to one's automobile based infrastructure, in defiance of international finance norms, of international law (when one needs to 'unilaterally' launch wars to dislodge 'terrorists' from the 2nd or 3rd biggest puddle of oil in the world), and a rejection of the most certain cure, rail; well, one could, couldn't one? But then one would be off-topic, wouldn't one? | |
|  hdmanFlt RiderPremium join:2003-11-25 Appleton, WI Reviews:
·Cellcom Wireless
| Wisconsin needs CHOICES!! (Not change...) Yep, this state voted for change! Thats all we will have in our pockets at the end of 2012, thats for sure!
Many of us RURAL people don't have ANY choice for broadband other than dial up or satellite. Cable? Nope.... DSL? Nope.... This Reform did nothing more that strip away local control of services that people need. I don't think I will ever see broadband at my home in the next 10 years because of AT&T's hold on our liberal State!
HDMan -- The proper way to break in a Harley: Grab a fist full of throttle, and ride it like you stole it!!! | |
|  |  Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: Wisconsin needs CHOICES!! (Not change...) said by hdman:I don't think I will ever see broadband at my home in the next 10 years because of AT&T's hold on our liberal State! HDMan AT&T may have a hold in that many liberals support union jobs, but Phil Montgomery, a republican, was pushing this bill for Big Telecom. So how are the "liberals" involved in the CTPRB (conspiracy to prevent rural broadband)?
Have you checked into socialist options such as municipal or coop fiber or WiMax? If you're not into that, I do believe there is a private WiMax entity setting up systems in your neck of the woods.  -- USNG: 16TDN2870 Find your Lat-Long: Geocoder | |
|  |  |  hdmanFlt RiderPremium join:2003-11-25 Appleton, WI Reviews:
·Cellcom Wireless
| Re: Wisconsin needs CHOICES!! (Not change...) This was past through our liberal Governor and his liberal croanies....
There are no fibers or WiMax in the area. If you think there is a private WiMax operator in the area, let me know. I have checked them all. The closest one is the City of Waupaca, and that does not reach to where I live. Zip code here is 54961..... | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Gee. The same thing they did in Oklahoma.... ... except I'm sure the legislators here would still consider it a great deal, being such a red state and all. | |
|
 | |
|
|