AT&T Fighting University Of Wisconsin Broadband Expansion Connecting schools and hospitals would hurt you, says AT&T Tipped by Unxchay 
AT&T lobbyists already convinced Wisconsin lawmakers to pass an AT&T-crafted franchise reform bill, which wound up stripping local consumer protections for broadband services in the state. Earlier this year, AT&T lobbyists pushed for total deregulation in Wisconsin, freeing them entirely from reporting to the PSC or engage in even broadband deployment in the state. Now AT&T and other local carriers are fighting broadband expansion in the state being tackled by the University Of Wisconsin, which was funded in part by federal stimulus funds. "The network is duplicative and it’s going to impact the ability of local telecommunications providers to invest in those communities,” says Bill Esbeck, the executive director of the Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association. "We just don’t believe that with resources so scarce these days that it’s wise for the UW to be using federal money to compete against private companies and threaten local jobs." Of course companies like AT&T already trimmed broadband expansion and jobs, and you can't duplicate connectivity AT&T wasn't willing to provide in the first place. The University of Wisconsin expansion network is being used to connect a co-op of hospitals, health care providers, libraries, public safety organizations and colleges. In other words it would be good for the local economy and residents -- it just wouldn't be good for AT&T, given they couldn't overcharge those institutions via the local AT&T-fueled BadgerNet service. Given BadgerNet charges local institutions $814 a month for 1 Mbps Internet connections, you can fairly quickly figure out exactly what AT&T's looking to protect -- and it isn't "community investment."
|
  rudnickePremium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
kudos:1 | ! F*ing AT&T. I'm sick of all these teclo's.
Just had to get that off my chest. How is the community wiring itself going to be detrimental to AT&T if they choose not to do it.
--
One Big Ass Mistake America | |
|  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: ! said by rudnicke: How is the community wiring itself going to be detrimental to AT&T if they choose not to do it. AT&T already wired it. It is called Badgernet. The stimulus money isn't expanding coverage or creating jobs, it is using Federal money to compete against a private company and lower prices. Some think that is just fine; others don't. The question is a philosophical one. Is it gov'ts job to compete against private companies using money forced from citizens thru taxes or isn't it? I think it isn't gov'ts job; others think it is their job.
| |
| | |  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Re: ! AT&T is using T1's to connect these locations -- not the fiber connectivity that UW is planning. The T1's cost about $600/month for each 1.544Mb pipe.
Can you imagine a college connected with just a few T1's now a days.
There are no other options in many communities. There is no fiber, there is no cable internet service. Just T1's from your local ma-bell.
That's why this project is tryng to launch -- so community hospitals can actually send their X-Rays to specialists via the network rather than waiting for the US Postal Service to deliver them. They are looking for tele-presence, tele-medicine and electronic bookworking, all of which is virtually impossible over T1's or ISDN service. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: ! said by quetwo:AT&T is using T1's to connect these locations -- not the fiber connectivity that UW is planning. The T1's cost about $600/month for each 1.544Mb pipe. I'd bet a lot of money that these colleges, hospitals, research facilities are already connected by fiber run right in to their buildings. And that OC3 and higher connections are already standard. This is all about the cost and not about the availability of high speed to these institutions. And it is about using a free handout from the gov't. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I'm sure - everyone wants a free handout from the government.
If its a co-op/link between a bunch of government sites, then in a pure capitalistic society, it should go out for bid.
Someone could (should) set up a microwave link to all those government sites with a single backhaul point to an ISP (also out for bid).
Who says it has to be AT&T. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ! said by en102:I'm sure - everyone wants a free handout from the government. If its a co-op/link between a bunch of government sites, then in a pure capitalistic society, it should go out for bid. Someone could (should) set up a microwave link to all those government sites with a single backhaul point to an ISP (also out for bid). Who says it has to be AT&T. No, what should happen is the University uses stimulus money to build out infrastructure to these anchor institutions. If only that were happ- oh it is? Well I'm happy. | |
|
| | | | | | said by Romney2012:said by quetwo:AT&T is using T1's to connect these locations -- not the fiber connectivity that UW is planning. The T1's cost about $600/month for each 1.544Mb pipe. I'd bet a lot of money that these colleges, hospitals, research facilities are already connected by fiber run right in to their buildings. And that OC3 and higher connections are already standard. This is all about the cost and not about the availability of high speed to these institutions. And it is about using a free handout from the gov't. Free handout? So taxpayers are giving money indirectly through government to a University to provide their anchor institutions with services charged at fair rates, and call that a handout?
Corporations who can charge a grand per megabit without facing any competition are the ones receiving a "handout". I feel sorry for people like you. You have no sense of community do you. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Here's the thing, and quite honestly I'm sick of hearing this... T1 doesn't "cost" $600 a month.. that is carried over 1990's pricing into a day where a 50meg internet connection from cable or Verizon Fios is more than half that in cost.
It's time that these phone companies stop trying to make everyone believe that a T1 is so ungodly expensive. It's a set of phone lines pushed out from the CO to the location/premise. A lot of the charges claimed on a T1 is the SLA, and "the loop"..
T1 also can't reach everywhere, magically, either. T1 does have limitations.
I am all for the incumbents building out their networks on their own dime to the areas they are granted to serve.
This fight and this argument being made by telecos, even cable co's, had some teeth in it back in the early 2000's.. but not today.
I have the attitude of either "shit or get off the pot." If the local incumbents aren't going to build out their networks with out tax payer money, then step aside and let someone who is willing to do so, do it.
To be honest, the worst thing that ever happened was phone and cable be allowed to even enter the internet business in the first place. The government should have granted two new licenses or permits for two new companies to come in and wire up the nation. Again, here is how existing government failed the people.. 10 years later, the same arguments over phone and cable continue on.
If the internet was treated as it's own 'system'.. then you'd have the two of them fighting each other on interest of data alone.. you'd not have the USF, you'd not have Obama wanting to shill out money to cronies to pocket tax money and still give us nothing (Verizon, can you hear this?) .. and so on.. /rant | |
|
| | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| What the hell do you mean that it isn't creating local jobs? Who do you think lays the out new wires, robots? When communities build physical infrastructure jobs are created in the community because you need to hire people to do it. You don't need to be a private company to make jobs, you just need to be willing to pay people to do work.
Second this isn't the government, this is a university. Now the university is a public one, but universities across the world have always had long histories of involvement with local businesses, communities and the government at large. As for if this is the government's job or not. Please consider the following from the United States' Constitution:
Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress): "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"
Given that the internet is largely replacing the postal system and it certainly does seem to be related to the general welfare of the nation. I can't help but think that this is very much part of the federal government's mandate. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: ! said by chimera:Second this isn't the government, this is a university. But it is Federal gov't money(stimulus funds) that is funding this. Taxpayer money. | |
| | | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: ! No, it's partially funded by the federal government. They aren't the only backer in this case, and they have no vested interest in the plan. It's just part of the stimulus package to create temporary jobs by building out the network and then hopefully allow the community to support more permanent ones by having a more reliable infrastructure. Given that many major telecos have received money from the same stimulus spending I would hardly call that the government competing.
Now if you object to the government spending money on stimulus programs and loans to help private companies, communities and research, that is your right. Please remember that this has been done since this nation was first founded however. My only complaint about this is that it should have been issued as a bond with some requirement for future repayment. | |
| | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
 ·Integra Telecom
 ·voip.ms
 ·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Yea and guess where that money is going......
....to private companies!
Like someone already mentioned, there is a lot of labor involved with bringing fiber out to buildings. In fact, labor makes up the majority of the cost. Obviously you can't outsource this kind of labor when the people have to be there to do the trenching, splicing, etc. Local jobs get created.
We all hate seeing our money go to projects that don't benefit us, that's part of the system, and that's why we have Welfare.
Think of it this way though, if you build out faster networks to other areas, it'll eventually all come back to you in the form of cheaper bandwidth. As the supply grows (other users getting more capacity), it brings down the standard of cost eventually. You have to start somewhere.... | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: ! said by BlueC:Yea and guess where that money is going...... ....to private companies! WOW.. Private money going to the government going back to the private sector... continuing... where it will go back to the government and then back to the private sector.. and so on. This is called, um, "normal?"....
So, the government money going to private companies.. where do you want it to do? .. you want the tax payer money to be spent with in the government? How is our money supposed to make it back into the system? ... isn't that the point?
Face it.. you don't want to see "government money" (ie: tax dollars) going to ATT, Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, TWC, Cox, etc.. REALLY what you SHOULD have said was "I don't want the money going to existing incumbents... " but you can't! you couldn't say that.  The money is to spur jobs.. there is no mandate on WHERE those jobs are created.. it's to spur work! .. it's NOT to spur new competition or new business owners, is it?
Sounds like a little mashing of two agendas into one if you ask me.
And then you ended it with "cheaper bandwidth".. now how is that good for America? and how is the government going to stand behind you on that? Didn't I just talk about that the other day? The government doesn't want to see things devalued.. they want to see them go up in price ultimately.. the more something costs, the more tax money the government gets.
Housing saw an INCREDIBLE price increase in the last 5 years.. taxes went WAY up because of it.. we all KNOW those prices were artificially inflated... now that home values are drastically dropping in MANY areas, the same home owners that got hit with upwards to 35% higher tax bills want their taxes dropped to match today's market prices... ask many people how well that's working for them. The government says "but we need that money!!!" .. no they don't.. they NEED to be honest and reduce taxes across the board, but aren't. You CAN fight them and get YOURS reduced, but it takes forever and a fight, but if all home values in an area are dropping like flies, the government needs to give up the money too.
Government grows, they won't ever look back. So please, tell me, why would the government want "cheaper" broadband prices? That means less tax revenue. To think they want cheaper prices is a myth. People complain that our prices are high in this country - in reality, they are not. People just don't like to pay for the internet - period. People yell daily about how important it is to them in life and all that it does and can do for them.. but they also bitch that it's too much at $40 a month. Oh well.. in the end, people will bitch and reality will move forward.
Oh, too, people complain that they have a home connection, a mobile phone connection, an ipad connection, a laptop mobile card, and SOOOO many different connections.. yet many of these people won't buy a wireless router to use just one connection. Many people do pay a LOT of money for the OPTIONS they CHOSE in life in order to be mobile, but make no mistake, the cost of internet in THIS country based on the income levels of this country (remove the BS unemployment issue we're having right now) .. the prices of internet are NOT out of control. People, if they were being honest, would want it for free.
Guess what.. I've heard this argument now for 20 years.. only, it wasn't the "internet"... people HATED the cable TV companies because they "hated PAYING for TV, something that IS FREE ALREADY"... "... it's the same argument, only a different technology.
Personally, I hate paying for electricity.. I think every home should get a base amount free and it be a tax paid.. but that's MY feeling and I KNOW it will never go anywhere.. so I move on. | |
| | | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: ! That was a long rant about taxing a service that hasn't been taxed in years.
Bandwidth (internet access) is tax-free for most users. On a federal level, it's tax-free for everyone.
The only "tax" some people might see is a grandfathered state sales tax or a USF fee (if you're working with a telco that passes those fees through).
So why would the government want to prop up the costs of something they don't even tax? What's the purpose?
Regardless, you completely missed my point. 100mbps today for most people is insanely expensive, but what if we can drop that price to a reasonable cost (say $40-60/month)? That's my point about reducing prices. It doesn't reduce the base price of a standard tier, it reduces the price of higher throughput availability. There's still a cost of doing business for any provider that sells internet connections, but it would be nice to start seeing the higher speeds drop in price if there is more capacity available at a lower cost (trenching more fiber will help with that). | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: ! Government doesn't have the "ability" to see issues on a case by case basis.. that's not how it's usual MO is.
You guys seem to think that the government really cares about the internet as much as many people here do.. in fact, they don't. lol
I can show you many of them that regret even having the internet in the hands of people because it's also ended the careers of a few. (just a side note is all)
However, my MAIN point is that government doesn't want to lower the price of much because they know it DOES lower their tax base - that's a fact. I even, in my "rant" as you stated, pointed it out. Sadly, if I just said "government doesn't care about lowering prices" I'd get 20 replies saying I don't know what I'm taking about or post a link or any number of usual BBR things.. so I post an example and now it's a rant. what ever. 
Further - please, by all means.. WHY do you, at this VERY moment, need 100meg internet.. and of course it's "insanely expensive"... You live in the Twin Cities and were the first among cable customers to get 50meg internet which just hit the streets recently.. it's priced at about, what $60-70? Seems pretty reasonable to me. But you want the best on the market right now that's just coming out for that price.
I've said this many times before - you want competition and you want multiple players in the market, that doesn't always drop prices like crazy.. it does lower costs, but not as fast as you may like.. remember, marketing isn't cheap and it takes a lot of money to play in a competitive world.. there's some of your cost right there.
The "government" isn't going to give you 100mb internet at $40-$60 a month.
But, as always, I'm going to be fair too.. people keep throwing out figures and prices.. but why do YOU say $40-$60 for 100mb internet would be "reasonable".. ? or, is that just a price that YOU want to pay for it?
Reasonable actually has facts backing it up.. so what makes you say the price you throw out is "reasonable"....?
For the record, as far as I know, the cost of internet, especially in the Twin Cities, HAS in fact "dropped"..
2002
Qwest 256/256: $59.99 a month
Qwest 512/512: $79.99 a month
QWest 1mb/512: $129.99 a month
What are the prices today?
Comcast/Time Warner
1.5/386: $42.95
Today's speed 16/3 - haven't seen an increase in price but more than, what, $2?
We now have speeds of 50mb, which is the top tier and is above the $100 mark, but the base rate for $45 a month is 16mb.
For the record... "government" comprises of county, state, and federal.. I'm not shocked that you see "the government" as the federal government.. I mean, there IS a group in American that forgets that government STILL includes county and state.
As it stands, the "internet connection" is NOT a "federal" issue... and I will happy if it remains that way. | |
| | | | | | | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: ! Now, that was an impressive rant and as usual you made some solid points as well as a few I disagree with. So I'll just jump right to my main bone of contention. For the most part modern governments want two things.
1. A slow but steady rate of inflation to ensure that their debt is reduced and easier to pay off without causing price shocks.
2. A steady increase in real GDP because this is where tax revenue comes from.
The United State's federal government is not very interested in reducing individual price levels unless it risks causing inflation or reducing the GDP due to an inefficient allocation of resources. An example of this is the reaction that you see every time oil prices spike because this drives down real GDP. Extremely high broadband prices fall in this category because the internet is becoming a vital tool for business.
The thing is, we are seeing the real price fall so this isn't a huge issue. The problem that a lot of states and communities worry about is that the price drops are not uniform throughout the country and local representatives are afraid that this will create a haves and have-nots scenario where the people from these communities simply cannot compete resulting in population migrations out of these areas and the destruction of the local culture, history and political and economic influence.
Personally I do agree that the internet should not be controlled by the federal government. Having a single entity control the internet violates an original theory behind the design which is to produce a fault tolerant network, and a massive number of entities all competing and replication each others work while inefficient from a deployment standpoint is excellent in terms of redundancy.
This is one reason I support common carrier laws to allow for new entrants to more easily enter the market. It is also why I have no qualms with states and local communities laying their own fiber and building their own networks because in the end the more the merrier. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | said by Romney2012:said by chimera:Second this isn't the government, this is a university. But it is Federal gov't money(stimulus funds) that is funding this. Taxpayer money. Where do you think the money from corporations comes from? Is it made from thin air?
--
This signature has consumed several bytes of your bandwidth. | |
| | | | | | | ...and at&t also gets taxpayer money. Let's kick them to the curb too! | |
| | | | | | | said by Romney2012:said by chimera:Second this isn't the government, this is a university. But it is Federal gov't money(stimulus funds) that is funding this. Taxpayer money. Where does corporate money come from? Who elects the federal government? Troll is a troll I suppose. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | bla bla.. lol.. sorry.. but I had to get you on this one..
Who do you/we think lays the new wires? No.. certainly not robots, however, I can tell you from experience, over and over again, that when Comcast lays new lines in YOUR town, or AT&T lays new lines.. (and continue that example) .. the contractors can come from as far as 3,000 miles away.. So, I'm sorry, but this money doesn't necessarily "create local jobs" as you may think.
In Sacramento, Comcast had their system rebuild done, in 2007/2008, by a contract company called Cougar. They were not local, or even in-state. If that was the case, I doubt they'd need to book out 2 of the 3 buildings at the Homestead Studio Suites...
This is typical and common. These large project rarely create "local jobs"..
And I'll also disagree that the internet is largely replacing the postal system. Some people call it going green.. but the post office will never be "replaced" unless it's by FedEx, or UPS, which IS taking a big chunk of their business as well.. so maybe the Federal government should consider them in mandates as well. | |
|
| | | | | | | If the government thinks they can do something cheaper than a private entity -- then the private entity is really screwing them. Wouldn't this be considered competition in most places? This is one of the few times when I think the government stepping up is actually a good thing. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: ! heh.. the government CAN'T do it cheaper.. they can't do ANYTHING cheaper.. while they may appear and outwardly show things cheaper, in the long run, they cost us more money...
If they put out a 100% fiber, fantabulous network system across America with 50mb/50mn connection and we only paid $19.62 a month for it (it can't be a typical price because they have formulas they work on, remember?) anyway.. sure, you'd get a $19.62 a month bill, plus all the taxes on it because the government wants a chunk of tax money on already tax money.. THEN, when you see your local, state, or fedeal tax bill going up and up and up, you'll realize that the $19.62 internet bill really is costing you more like $150 a month or more. It's GREAT how the government can simply price out what they want, and appropriate funds elsewhere.. wrap things up in general funds, and so on.
At LEAST what you get for a bill from the private industry is what you get.. | |
| | | | | | | Re: ! So I don't think the government should be an ISP, but that doesn't mean they can't be a network provider (you know people who actually own the network and lease it out at wholesale rates). The issues at hand is that you have a single private company that has built out a network and are impeding competition by limiting other ISPs wholesale access to the network (because they don't want to be "dumb" pipes). What you were saying is that the government would be an ISP. What should happen is the government build out the nice fiber infrastructure and then leases access to those lines to provide internet service to consumers. So you'd get a $50-80 bill from Comcast or AT&T where maybe $10-20 is a service fee for maintaining the public structure (kind of like public roads). But, instead of only having the choice of Comcast or AT&T for internet, you *could* have more ISPs to choose from, some may provide more attractive plans. This would also allow for other services to be provided over the same fiber to, so instead of having a phone line and a coax cable running to your domicile, you would have a single fiber connection. | |
|
| | | | at&t has chosen NOT to offer their services in specific areas that they cover in the state. This project could also allow service to be offered to customers who can not currently get at&t's services because at&t has chosen not to put their product out. | |
| | | | | said by Romney2012:said by rudnicke: How is the community wiring itself going to be detrimental to AT&T if they choose not to do it. AT&T already wired it. It is called Badgernet. The stimulus money isn't expanding coverage or creating jobs, it is using Federal money to compete against a private company and lower prices. Some think that is just fine; others don't. The question is a philosophical one. Is it gov'ts job to compete against private companies using money forced from citizens thru taxes or isn't it? I think it isn't gov'ts job; others think it is their job. It's not forced from citizens, since citizens voted in the government. Sorry to bash your strawman. | |
|
 DrexBeer...The other white meat.Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA
kudos:1
·AT&T U-Verse
| Lafayette Revisited Kinda sounds like Lafayette, LA revisited.
You want to give the people a choice for a better broadband experience? Yeah, well maybe we'll just have to pull our call center. You don't want to lose local jobs do you?
--
Not only does Jesus save, but he makes nightly off-site backups. | |
| | | | Re: Lafayette Revisited And you want to know what happened in that situation. Techs were laid off. So to say that these types of situations stimulate jobs is just downright wrong because sooner or later a job will be affected due to decreased revenue. | |
| | | | | Re: Lafayette Revisited ...and at&t et al aren't laying off techs? All jobs are temporary... It sucks, but loyalty and job security went out the window many years ago... | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | CHOICE doesn't come from the government... CHOICE comes from Government getting out of the way.. setting ONE set of rules for ALL players and letting the market place work.
No.. government either wants to give phone one deal, cable another, and then satellite another set of rules.. and then when they screw all that up, government wants to come in and "we'll just do it ourselves".... think about it.
Pulling the call centers - while underhanded -is called bargaining, and I support this.
They ALL need to be honest, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT, who starts most of, no, starts ALL of this crap, then this will continue.
Government is the only entity that can create messes on the levels that we have them. Give me ONE reason why government ISN'T responsible for the messes we're in!!
If govt' came in pulling the stunts they did to me in LA, I'd threaten to pull call centers - it's a legal option. This is no different that in IL when government wanted to throw political weight around with AT&T, for right or wrong.. AT&T said "Fine, then we won't continue DSL expansion in IL"..
That's just the game - they BOTH play it.
The first step to understanding reality is that government RARELY does anything in the interest of the people it represents.. it does mostly things in the interest of continuing their own political careers.. after all, what good are they to us if they can't keep their jobs, right? | |
| | | |
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| antitrust I vote that any large company that use's laws to prevent progression of technology like this in favor of their networks, but yet refuse to build out their own networks should be broken up via anti trust suit and disallowed to lobby for any such laws ever again, even under another alias.
I am done with companies with this behaviour | |
| | | | Re: antitrust said by decifal:I vote that any large company that use's laws to prevent progression of technology like this in favor of their networks, but yet refuse to build out their own networks should be broken up via anti trust suit and disallowed to lobby for any such laws ever again, even under another alias. I am done with companies with this behaviour If that doesn't work, whack the CEO and the Board.
--
TKJunkMail aliases - ThrowDemsOut, MIllIlITER, MMH, Pimp4Palin, Golf N Sun | |
| | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | Exactly. The new AT&T is already becoming the former AT&T Corporation. They've already acquired numerous Baby Bells that were formed from the split-up and are becoming another huge monopoly while offering second-rate services for full price.
No phone company should cover 3/4 of the US by itself. There should be at least 2 serving the same area.
--
This signature has consumed several bytes of your bandwidth. | |
| | | | | | | | said by runzero:Exactly. The new AT&T is already becoming the former AT&T Corporation. They've already acquired numerous Baby Bells that were formed from the split-up and are becoming another huge monopoly while offering second-rate services for full price. No phone company should cover 3/4 of the US by itself. There should be at least 2 serving the same area. With landline service, I agree 100%. It's not feasible to have every company who wants to compete have their own lines run to a customer's property, there are many reason why this is impractical. The solution is to either allow competitors to lease access to those lines (which the telco's lobbied to eliminate) or, if there is only one provider for that area, regulate them to insure they don't abuse their monopoly over the market. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Stop attacking the companies, alone, and start where all our problems begin which is in government. The GOVERNMENT set the rules that IS AT&T.. think about it..
You want the same body of people that handed these "evil corps" what they have today to "fix" your problems? wow.. that's like your "best friend" who broke your arm on purpose and then says "here, let me fix that for you".. because he's going to be the hero.
You can't fire AT&T.. you can't even use anti-trust in this case.. sorry.. but what you CAN do, is become more involved in politics.. hell, why don't you run for office and make a change? Everyone has the ability to do that... and I"m being serious. You can get into office and every time a lobbyist comes to your door you can say "I won't have any of your nonsense!!" | |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Clearwire Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
| Hmmm shop around? I am sure Wisconsin has access to other providers to give access to schools and government buildings. I am sure any major tier 1 provider will love to steal AT&T's business anyway so why not go that route and get a better price?
It might not solve the issue of the state running it's own projects, but it's a kick to the nuts for AT&T if the state decided to do that. | |
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: Hmmm shop around? said by michieru:I am sure Wisconsin has access to other providers to give access to schools and government buildings. I used to work with a guy that put together a huge proposal to give phone service to any and all state university and state government entities, at prices far lower than AT&T was charging even with AT&T's hefty bulk discount.
Unfortunately the competitor he worked for at the time could not provide service statewide. As a result, AT&T made it clear that the state would be paying rack rates for all the remaining service that was not moving to competitors. That would have cost so much that the effort was abandoned.
So no, the state does not have much choice. And who pays AT&T for this? I do.
I wonder how much in USF-type money is being used to pay AT&T for these types of services.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your USNG coordinates:
USNGWeb | |
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Clearwire Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Hmmm shop around? Not even a Tier 2 ISP could help out provide service to the remaining areas?
If it where me I would of found a way to get around AT&T, have the competitor service the current area's that it can provide, and under contract have a MAN be setup within a 2 year span. For the buildings that would of been out of service until those lines where provided a Tier 2 could of provided T1 connectivity to those buildings. Either way it's your state, I am sure you chose the best decision at the time, but something must be done because the milking simply cannot continue. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: Hmmm shop around? said by michieru:Not even a Tier 2 ISP could help out provide service to the remaining areas? ... For the buildings that would of been out of service until those lines where provided a Tier 2 could of provided T1 connectivity to those buildings. ... This was for Centrex a decade ago or so. For example in Milwaukee AT&T operates one or more switches that are dedicated to State of Wisconsin Centrex. Pretty easy to swipe that business, which of course is most profitable for AT&T and would have been the same for a competitor.
The problem was that outstate they might have had 1 or 10 phone lines in every small town. Not very profitable. And not enough to justify any workaround like a T1 with a channel bank, especially considering the maintenance and rack space issues.
I am sure some rules have changed since then, and it's not a 1:1 comparison, but the people playing the game are the same.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your USNG coordinates:
USNGWeb | |
|
| | | Well, TDS does operate on the West Side of Madison, WI. However, at&t does not provide access to many portions of the state that they cover. For instance, in Stoughton, WI ( about 20 miles South of Madison ) It's extremely difficult to get resident DSL to half of the town... Those people's only option is to go with Charter. That's not choice. It looks like this deal is to protect at&t's interests with business accounts, which also is not good. I, however, do not think that this deal would directly benefit potential customers. Really, these large telecoms should not be fighting communities that want great service NOW, imho.... | |
|
| | This is why I left this company Exact reason I dont give this company my business or anyone I know. | |
| | | Rubbish Why does AT&T even have a right to tell the government what to do. Oh, I forgot that the courts stupidly decided to give corporations the same rights as individuals. In any case, it is true that sometimes governments have to lease some bandwidth from a telco. But that is not the issue. AT&T is an obstructionist company that wants everyone to benefit them. In fact, I just cancelled my DSL service with them. However, TWC is problematic as well. These guys all have declining service. With AT&T (yes I called them man times) I kept getting PADT and disconnects (yes its another forum for that). And now with TWC lost packets (which it shouldn't do if it works right). They all obstruct progress and sit on a giant pile of money and refuse to change or move forward with providing or upgrading broadband services.
Fortunately, so far the state I live in has shelved all these ridiculous corporate sponsored anti-public broadband bills. Surprisingly, the NC general assembly has rejected such bills at least twice. And several cities are either building out a muni broadband network or preparing to do so.
Is anyone tired of corporations having more power in government than individual citizens? Lets kick them out of Washington. If they really believed in the free market and capitalism they wouldn't be working so hard to arm twist the government into giving them the favorable status in local markets. I realize they hire people but if they aren't going to provide these broadband services in WI without charging ridiculous fees (like the $815/mo for 1mbs service which is outrageous and offensive in this day) then the local governments reserve the right to use their own local right of way and build their own networks. Corporations are not involved in this except when it comes to the local government establishing their backbone internet connections (sprint, ATT, vz, level 3 etc). | |
| MTUPremium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | Infrastructure Remind me again how much of the telecom's infrastructure was, and is, subsidized by the gov't. (by the taxpayers). At&t is just a wrapper on products subsidized by the taxpayers, and sold back to those same taxpayers for 'convenience'. | |
| | | | Re: Infrastructure You refer to the USF which needs to be retooled for rural broadband. I will stop short of calling AT&T evil. USF funds are used to provide rural broadband service. Outside of that i am not sure what kind of money is being given to AT&T. Though I would not put it past AT&T to "misuse" the USF. | |
|
| | | "Duplicative" Isn't that one definition of "competitive"? (Isn't at&t being "duplicitous"? ) | |
|  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Ahh.. Sounds just like the ol' AT&T.. Need I post the "Colbert Report - AT&T Cingular Merger" video again?
Seems like AT&T is up to their old tricks again. Now that they're back together and bigger than ever, it'll be even more difficult to break them up.. again.. | |
|
1 edit | AT&T's Still The Same Monopoly! AT&T's still that same old monoply they have been always. AT&T has never changed their true colors they are nothing more than a big rip off! | |
| | | Att needs to upgrade backhaul to towers in Chicago In suburbs works fine, but every-time I am int the city during rush hours its 3g is unusable. I heard NYC has been upgraded. What about Midwest? | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Its time for AT&T to LEAVE WISCONSIN