 
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| And I DON'T want to see them whining when they don't have any other choice but cable internet or WiFi in the press or on this web site. They make their bed and they have to lie in it and shut up about it.
--
Brian
Free health care is 100% a misnomer - it is not free and never will be free. | |
|
 | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: And I DON'T want to see them Verizon seems to have figured out how to provide next-generation services without scattering prominent giant boxes across the landscape. | |
|
| |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
1 edit | Re: And I DON'T want to see them and AT&T chose not to use the same thing - again - I don't want them whining about not having high speed internet like it is their god given right when they actively prevent a solution or some amount of competition. The consumer made their bed - they have to lay in it but we know what will really happen "WAAAAAHHHHHHHHH - I can't get anything but cable internet - there is no competition!" and the tears will begin and those of us that use common sense will only shake our heads and wonder where society has gone wrong...
The boxes can be partially hidden - in fact some can be VERY well hidden but still provide access. the hit to value I think has been VASTLY overstated on purpose... | |
|
| | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them Well if the boxes are placed subtlely then there's no problem, I'd think. There was a cable box in my old neighborhood, dark green and surrounded by bushes, a short walk down the road there were multi-million-dollar houses. Are property values really hurting? Really?
I was under the impression that at&t was not taking aesthetics into concern when placing boxes. If they are, then that's great... | |
|
| | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them Everywhere I have seen them around me - all of them could be partially hidden for very little money.
They are damned if they do - damned if they don't. They are in a no win situation and the majority of folks will be hypocrites by playing BOTH sides at any time. That is what I am sick of... | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | Re: And I DON'T want to see them While people whine all the while about not having high speed internet choices - damned if they do, damned if they don't - classic no win situation the consumer puts them in. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | Re: And I DON'T want to see them Isn't the value of your real estate more important than data services? You're talking about a net loss to your property value so that others may reap the benefits. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them I already think the 'hit' to values is VASTLY overstated and purposely overstated so it sounds nice and bad. How many times have I seen a thread here in the last 7 years that states something along the lines of: "My next house I will make sure has high speed internet available."
I have heard that so many times it is not funny and I don't think that is going away anytime soon so my guess would be it is very important for a lot of people.
Every one has the benefit - if you refuse and the area does not get high speed except maybe cable then it is a good possibility your house may not get sold or if it does at less value than having a box that can be hidden decently for not much money. I know what my choice would be if my choice was TW cable or a box in the yard - I will take the box and can successfully argue for the value to not go down and TW will never be in my house ever again.
Again - it comes down to "...whining when they don't have any other choice but cable internet or WiFi in the press or on this web site. They make their bed and they have to lie in it and shut up about it." - I am simply tired of the hypocrites and their incessent whining. They make their bed - they need to man up and deal with it rather than bitching on web sites about how unfair life is and the horrible monopoly for internet service they have. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them Yeah, but how many areas have high-speed options already without these unsightly boxes? My girlfriend's po dunk apartment on S. Dixie can get both roadrunner and traditional AT&T DSL. This is without conspicuous lawn ornaments.
Verizon isn't deploying anything like this for Fios, Time Warner Cable isn't deploying anything like this to improve speeds and realiability on their Roadrunner network, come to think of it, AT&T are the only ones doing this amidst more than a few ongoing efforts to deliver better speeds to customers. There are ALWAYS other options, this one just happens to work out best for AT&T.
If they were leasing this land from the homeowner then I wouldn't mind so much. The fact remains that cities revoke the rights of homeowners with utility easements which leaves them little say in what gets ploped into their front yards. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them I know large areas of Ohio - read Spring Valley area where NOTHING is available. TW wants to charge thousands to per house to run the line then charge the monthly fee and they have to have a certain % of the people on the street to get cable before they will do anything.
Lots of areas of the country have no high speed internet and would love to have it - even with a box. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them Then let AT&T install these boxes in Spring Valley. Something tells me they won't, because a huge box doesn't make it any more financially viable than a small box or no box.
Furthermore, I present the same challenge to you as I did another poster on a previous thread on this subject: Volunteer your front yard. Call the city, offer your berm for easement and have AT&T put their equipment in your yard. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them Did I say I would not - nope. If they did it would likely be on the easement that is already there any way. The ones I see in our neighborhood seem to be placed at houses on corners of busy streets (main roads) probably to keep any potential value drop small. I find it funny that I keep seeing a value of $10K drop but I see no proof in any of the reports and no proof that drop goes directly to the boxes.
Companies can't negociate with each individual owner - nothing would ever get done and land owners can then hold a neighborhood hostage which would only encourage more bad press for said company. Again - damned if they do, damned if they don't and the customers then play hypocrite for the press. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them Yeah, I don't have a number, but it stands to good reason that any unsightly addition to a property will reduce its value.
If companies cannot negotiate with each homeowner or a group of homeowners, then they should purchase their own property in the neighborhood and put their equipment there. Utility easements are a product of the days of telephone poles and hydro lines. In actuality, the city would be better off if they zoned specific parcels of land for utility purposes that wasn't so conspicuous. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them If all of the property is already owned then they can't do that very well and if they did buy from a current land owner then they have the same problems already mentioned - one landowner holding a neighborhood hostage being one.
To be economical - the company would need to pay one amount or else face plenty of litigation if owners ever found out they got paid a lot less then someone else.
Strategically - I would probably decide to do it the way they currently are - less total risk overall. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them said by CylonRed  :If all of the property is already owned then they can't do that very well and if they did buy from a current land owner then they have the same problems already mentioned - one landowner holding a neighborhood hostage being one. Indeed, and I should have prefaced my statement with that bit of knowledge. It was meant as hindsight, and a way to avoid these things in the future. Easements are not fair to the property owner.
To be economical - the company would need to pay one amount or else face plenty of litigation if owners ever found out they got paid a lot less then someone else.
Strategically - I would probably decide to do it the way they currently are - less total risk overall.
The utility company could always offer a flat rate for any property owners who would volunteer for the service. They could partner with home builders to arrange these things with regards to new development.
The problem I have here is that the local government is giving them permission to put something on property that they don't own. If we are to keep the system of easement in this country then we should demand that our local officials consult with property owners prior to granting easements. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Chainzz
Aka Snippy
join:2004-07-26
Amherstburg, ON
| said by yock :Isn't the value of your real estate more important than data services? You're talking about a net loss to your property value so that others may reap the benefits. I'm thinking property values will suffer with no data access, I will never buy another lot or house without highspeed....damn they can throw a node in my yard along with some bushes or tree's. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them said by Chainzz :said by yock :Isn't the value of your real estate more important than data services? You're talking about a net loss to your property value so that others may reap the benefits. I'm thinking property values will suffer with no data access, I will never buy another lot or house without highspeed....damn they can throw a node in my yard along with some bushes or tree's. First of all, I don't think we're there yet, and it will never be universal. Depending on the property location, rural, urban, or suburban, property value may fluctuyate little or not at all if it doesn't have broadband access.
Secondly, AT&T isn't paying for the landscaping here. As the homeowner, it would be your responsibility to finance hundreds of dollars of landscaping, not to mention ongoing maintenance, to hide this stuff. You would then also assume liability for any damage that your landscaping caused to AT&T's boxes. Root encroachment, tool damage, you name it. Your homeowner's insurance would reflect this new liability too, also affecting the net change in property value. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
1 edit | Re: And I DON'T want to see them Yes - I am for the last 10 years and they have been going in around town as well since I am in Ohio. | |
|
| | | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: And I DON'T want to see them said by CylonRed :Yes - I am for the last 10 years and they have been going in around town as well since I am in Ohio. I thought I saw one over off of Far Hills in Kettering recently. I was driving by and didn't get a good look...but man, if in fact that's what caught my eye then I utterly understand the frustration. | |
|
| | | | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | Re: And I DON'T want to see them There are several in my area of Beavercreek. My area is at the fringes of distance and the newer neighborhoods I am certain are to far for regular DSL or right on the cusp. I am at just over 12,300 ft or so. | |
|
| | | | | 
madmax2000
Premium
join:2007-04-25
Lookout, KY | and this is why Canada is getting yanked by bell and throttling for people like you prevent competition. | |
|
| | | | | |
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | Re: And I DON'T want to see them I wish i could follow your post but I can't... | |
|
| | | | Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Endicott, NY
1 edit | said by pfak :May I ask, are you even a property owner? Here's a dumb question: Why doesn't AT&T compensate the property owners somehow?
When I was working in the WISP business we deployed over a dozen "mini-POPs" (mini point of presence) to reach customers that didn't have a good line of sight to one of our main POPs. We built them out of small sheds and usually offered the property owner free internet access if he was willing to let us place one on his property. We figured that giving away free service to one customer was worthwhile if we got ten paying customers out of the deal. I'm guessing that these boxes serve more than 10 customers and that the ratio would be a lot more favorable for AT&T if they were to attempt a solution like this.
Of course I don't pretend that a solution that worked for a small company with 2,000 customers would scale well for an outfit the size of AT&T -- but this attitude of "Bend over, there's nothing you can do to stop us" is the reason why everybody hates the phone company. Surely there is a better way they could go about this? | |
|
| | | | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs: | Re: And I DON'T want to see them TOTALLY agree and I've said the same thing. I'm not sure why I'm amazed that whatever company doesn't offer the inconvenienced homeowner free, or at least discounted, services in exchange As you say, one freebie for many payers?
Surely...
KM | |
|
dsldude08
Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
 ·CenturyLink
| Ok... Do people want the service or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too, there is always a downside, and an upside. Take your pick. Sheesh.
If it were me, give me as many as you want as long as I benefit from it. 
--
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln | |
|
| probboy
join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA
1 edit | Re: Ok... Score one for the great state of Connecticut.
Do you own a home? These monstrosities ruin property values. AT&T could spend a little bit more to bury the boxes, in the process generating a ton of goodwill. Their belief that they can do whatever they want is ticking off a lot of people.
We'll see what AT&T does to try to counter this move. They'll probably complain to their buddies at the FCC and Congress and get some sort of federal regulation passed saying they can do whatever they want. | |
|
| |
dsldude08
Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
·CenturyLink
| Re: Ok... You may very well be right about the complaining, but from what I understand, this very large boxes, much like any other electrical equipment, need air flow, otherwise they get too hot. The company isn't going to spend money on these and then have to replace them shortly thereafter because of some equipment failure, among other possible reasons. Property value does matter, but really, it's only reducing the value because people think it's an eye sore, and they are not realizing the advantages. People want things all the time, but aren't willing to make sacrifices to get them. Everyone wants a free ride in this world, guess what? It doesn't exist. It's only what YOU make it to be.
Thank you.
--
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln | |
|
| | | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Ok... Advantages? What advantage? Speeds that're a third of what the cableco offers ALREADY? Only two heavily-compressed HD streams that look more like SD expanded to fit the 16:9 ratio? If I want 6 Mbit service over my phone line, I can get DSL. If I wanted something faster, I can get cable. It's not like their service (or its price) is exactly revolutionary. So what am I getting? And why should I, as a home owner, be forced to be host to equipment of a service I might never sign up for, especially when it is quite noticeable and doesn't exactly add value to my land?
| |
|
| | 
JayMan
Whoot
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Earth
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| The only problem with putting them underground is the vault they would need to make would need to be at least 1.5 to 2 times the size of the cabinet so there is room to get a person in it and have the panels open.
--
»www.freeourbandwidth.com | |
|
| | xxTRAGEDYxx
join:2008-03-14
Kannapolis, NC
·Windstream
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| so why aren't these same ppl and you complaining about power transformers??? they're in alot of front yards. I know they're not as big...but... honestly, as much as homeowners hate it, AT&T should put them wherever they want. well. almost.
Have you ever heard of RIGHT-OF-WAY?? EAVESEMENT?? I'm not sure bout CT, but in most states, technically, you don't really have a say-so as to what as far as utilities, is put into the 1st 5-10ft. of your front yard. Thats what the right-of-way is. But leave it to a Liberal state such as CT, to come up with some CRAP like this!! | |
|
| | |
See 10 replies to this post |
|
| | claco
join:2002-09-29
Tallmadge, OH | Hey, I don't want a frigging telephone pole in my yard either, or the state stealing another 5 foot to put in curbs and drains, but it is what it is. | |
|
| | |
See 12 replies to this post |
|
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by probboy :AT&T could spend a little bit more to bury the boxes... It only costs a "little" more to bury the boxes; but it costs a lot more to operate the boxes when buried. Where/how do you exhaust all the hot air? What happens if the cooling systems die? Who should foot the bill for operating buried boxes?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Ok... AT&T should operate them out of their large profit margins. | |
|
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Ok... said by Dogfather :AT&T should operate them out of their large profit margins. As with any business, they should apply the revenues from the service sold to the operation of the service they are selling.
The profits from the data transit business should not be applied to the operation of delivery of consumer services.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | probboy
join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA
| said by NormanS :Who should foot the bill for operating buried boxes? Gosh, I don't know, maybe AT&T? Isn't that part of the cost of doing business? | |
|
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Ok... said by probboy :Gosh, I don't know, maybe AT&T? Isn't that part of the cost of doing business? The question was part hyperbole, and intended to make you think a little. How much are you willing to pay for your Uverse service. Yes, AT&T should pay the immediate cost. But they use revenue collected from provision of service to cover the cost. Double the cost of providing the service does what to your service bill?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | 
didit2yerself
@swbell.net
| said by probboy :Score one for the great state of Connecticut... We'll see what AT&T does to try to counter this move. maybe they just will chose to deploy the service elsewhere. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Ok... said by didit2yerself :said by probboy :Score one for the great state of Connecticut... We'll see what AT&T does to try to counter this move. maybe they just will chose to deploy the service elsewhere. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast···ticut%29
not deploy? hahahaa | |
|
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Ok... That Wikipedia article could have been written about the entire S.F. Bay Area! 
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Isn't part of that in VZ's tiny Connecticut service area? | |
|
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Ok... only the left 1/5th of it, or half of the leftest most green square (Town of Greenwich), Mianus River is the division between Verizon FIOS land (fully deployed/passes everyone BTW) and ATT land (spotty Uverse).
Its really pathetic that back in the 1990s, SNET (baby bell of CT) built a HFC plant throughout atleast Fairfield county, service was called Americast I believe. When SBC purchased SNET, they fought tooth and nail to abandon the plant/service, took bribing the governor to do it. The HFC plant still hangs on poles today below the incumbent CATV provider's HFC plant (Cablevision), missing/damaged in many areas. Some of the fiber in the HFC plant is being used to feed VRADs now. Amazing isn't it? A HFC plant being ABANDONED. | |
|
| | 
Greg_Z
Premium
join:2001-08-08
Springfield, IL | In all do reality, they actually do not. Society has become a bunch of spoiled brats, that got everything as children, and they are carrying it over as adults. As I was always told by a boss of mine "Get over it!" | |
|
| 
N10Cities
SILENCE I Keel You
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Roland, OK
clubs:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
1 edit | said by dsldude08 :Do people want the service or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too, there is always a downside, and an upside. Take your pick. Sheesh. If it were me, give me as many as you want as long as I benefit from it. It won't hurt AT&T a bit to take a little more time making the VRAD installs look good. They should have to work with the property owners to make the install as low impact as possible. If nothing else, it would create a bit of good will between the two parties. If someone walked up to my place and said "This box is going on your lawn, no ifs, ands, or buts", I would be a bit p*ssed. If they come to my door and asked "where would be the best place to put this?", I wouldn't mind so much...
I don't think AT&T would like someone coming to the front lawn of their corporate headquarters and setting down a toolshed or above-ground swimming pool in the middle of their nicely manicured front lawn that they paid someone big bucks to take care of.... | |
|
| |
dsldude08
Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
·CenturyLink
| Re: Ok... I don't think AT&T would like someone coming to the front lawn of their corporate headquarters and setting down a toolshed or above-ground swimming pool in the middle of their nicely manicured front lawn that they paid someone big bucks to take care of.... 
--
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln | |
|
| | 
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by N10Cities :said by dsldude08 :Do people want the service or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too, there is always a downside, and an upside. Take your pick. Sheesh. If it were me, give me as many as you want as long as I benefit from it. It won't hurt AT&T a bit to take a little more time making the VRAD installs look good. They should have to work with the property owners to make the install as low impact as possible. If nothing else, it would create a bit of good will between the two parties. If someone walked up to my place and said "This box is going on your lawn, no ifs, ands, or buts", I would be a bit p*ssed. If they come to my door and asked "where would be the best place to put this?", I wouldn't mind so much... I don't think AT&T would like someone coming to the front lawn of their corporate headquarters and setting down a toolshed or above-ground swimming pool in the middle of their nicely manicured front lawn that they paid someone big bucks to take care of.... Someone near San Antonio, TX. that has an extra toolshed should try this, take pics, and update us on what happens.. I'll pay the bail money...
--
Any unauthorized copying or distribution of the opinion above constitutes stupidity and you should probably be punished
| |
|
| | | |
| | Floid
join:2002-02-11
Ridgefield, CT
| Hey, nice avatar!
I'm in CT and haven't seen many of these yet -- the local RTs are mostly in curb-cuts, sometimes with some evergreens to hide them. (Note that those were put in when SBC was still SBC...)
However, I think there are two issues afoot here:
AT&T is now more proactive about ensuring their installations are actually maintainable (and that maintenance won't create new liability for them). I ran into this the other day with someone with a deep property who wanted to bury his phone cable -- they negotiated and ran overhead cable to a second pole down the property at the edge of his lawn, but now refuse to hookup the buried portion unless he makes that area of the lawn "truck-accessible." Since it's already flat lawn, this means paving it -- someone obviously doesn't want to get in trouble later for tearing up his lawn with a truck (or run the risk that he'll plant his own trees around it). I think that'll end up in compromise with the sort of pavers grass can grow through, but it illustrates their new attitude.
The other is that, in affluent areas that aggregate the get-off-my-lawn property value types, those same people may have lobbied for buried cable decades ago and are now surprised when equipment mushrooms in atop it "without warning." In areas with overhead wiring, it makes sense to site the equipment near existing poles, and the poles themselves remind people not to put their prized azaleas there.
Of course, like the jokey TV ads point out, those people are also more likely to have had cable service since it first appeared and are less likely to be concerned with issues of price or choice. [See also: the Blackberry-toting suburbanites who'll never allow cellphone towers near their homes.]
I don't know what really happened here legally, but I assume it involved enforcing existing law, so they can't fudge on surveys and can't adversely impact the use of the property. Given that the majority of CT by area seems to be owned by those NIMBY types, there's probably an eyesore law already on the books (or the books of each individual town, if the state action confirms the jurisdiction of local zoning boards). | |
|
| 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Most communities have more appropriate areas for this equipment than on a home's front lawn. | |
|
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Ok... said by SLD :Most communities have more appropriate areas for this equipment than on a home's front lawn. I have seen scores of VRADs in the south S.F. Bay Area. I have yet to see on placed on a front lawn.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | If it means AT&T getting a blank check to tear up anything they want...then no, I don't want the service. | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Just because you may have a box in front of your house or next to your house doesn't mean you'll be offered service. That's the thing. This service is only rolled out to who they want to give it to. Not everyone that they can service on that box. There is one in my neighborhood. It's hard to see coming out of the drive way with it where it is at. They only put it there because the Condo Assc. won't allow it on the lawn. And they turn around and dropped another one maybe a mile down the road. After they claim these things can serve around 800 people. There isnt that many people that live in my neighborhood let alone on my side of the street. It's mostly Retail now.
I'm glad at least one state has the balls to stand up to AT$T and put them in their place. And I'd take cable services over DSL any day. Especially their crappy shit. | |
|
| ominae
join:2003-05-11
Columbus, OH
| said by dsldude08 :Do people want the service or not? You can't have your cake and eat it too, there is always a downside, and an upside. Take your pick. Sheesh. You oversimplify the issue. You make it sound as if the option is to either have a lawn fridge and (sort of) next gen internet or no lawn fridge and no (sort of) next gen internet. The truth is, AT&T could have avoided this with a little foresight and planning and it could have been done with little increased cost.
The question is why didn't AT&T deploy Uverse in such a way as to not piss off the very people they want to sell it to? It is possible to deploy a new, next generation internet service without annoying your customers, Verizon's FIOS deployment proves that much. AT&T had options, they just chose to ignore them. They could have worked out some kind of agreement with the affected homeowners (free/discounted service, better placement of the lawn fridge, help with landscaping to better conceal it) but they arrogantly decided to do this without any concern for those who would be impacted.
Yet another reason the "Deathstar" nickname is well-earned. | |
|
| |
dsldude08
Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI | Re: Ok... And in a perfect world everyone would be happy. Just too bad it doesn't exist. | |
|
AGBell
@cox.net | Metal mansoleums I'll bet the phones in legal affairs Bedminster are ringing off the hooks. | |
|
| 
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Aubrey, TX | Re: Metal mansoleums You mean San Antonio? | |
|
goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
·Knology
·Comcast
| this needs to happen I can think of places here where some of these cabinets block the view of intersections and have caused a number of wrecks. Face it, not everyone drives a monster truck and can see over the things.
The idea that they can place these things on private property without warning is insane. They can and should be placed cooperatively.
And no, not everyone wants their service, nor do they want to host these suckers because someone they don't know does. | |
|
|
dsldude08
Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI | Re: this needs to happen That scenario is obviously dangerous and would be an issue. I agree with this when placed in that perspective. | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | 'I can think of places here where some of these cabinets block the view of intersections and have caused a number of wrecks.'
Got pics? | |
|
| | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: this needs to happen said by bogey780 :'I can think of places here where some of these cabinets block the view of intersections and have caused a number of wrecks.' Got pics? Actually I'd like to read the police report stating the 'big, bad, box' was the cause of the "numerous wrecks"... | |
|
skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Shouldn't make a difference to AT&T This ruling by our esteemed Attorney Genital, oops, General shouldn't really make any difference. AT&T already sends out abutter notices whenever something is going on a pole or in the right-of-way. If the homeowner complains within the required time-frame AT&T will do its best to find another suitable location. If the homeowner doesn't respond within the required time frame and tries to complain afterward - it becomes simply "too bad". | |
|
ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| Stick it to 'em It's only fair that AT&T pay for independent appraisals showing the value of adjacent property before and after VRAD installation. This appraisal should take into account both the reduced value due to the VRAD's presence and the increased value due to broadband availability.
I would think that a transferable full-ride subscription to whatever AT&T or its successors have to offer, a monthly charge for the current owner for the life of the mortgage (to compensate the current owner for the aesthetic loss), one-time compensation for the appraisal difference, and landscaping service or fees, would be a good place to start negotiations.
If AT&T won't meet the owner's reasonable demands, neighbors who want the service should pay the affected owner or buy the affected house.
All other utilities, including cable, power and gas, should be subject to the same requirement, but since they are already providing service to a lot of people, equipment already in place should be grandfathered.
Around here transformers are pole-mounted or in underground vaults with sidewalk grates. Cable amps are pole-mounted. There are of course traffic signals & control cabinets, but since those are approved by elected officials, they should be exempt.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
|
| ATT Vet
join:2008-08-23
| Re: Stick it to 'em Yes in a deflated housing market that the lenders and builders created lets hold ATT accountable.
While we are at it how about a property tax refund for my house not selling for its assesed value?
People I have talked to have chosen a neighborhood with a V-Rad over one that doesnt have those services availible so should those homeonwers give ATT part of their increased value?
Not ATT's opinion just mine.
| |
|
| |
ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Stick it to 'em said by ATT Vet :{1}Yes in a deflated housing market that the lenders and builders created lets hold ATT accountable. {2}While we are at it how about a property tax refund for my house not selling for its assesed value? {3}People I have talked to have chosen a neighborhood with a V-Rad over one that doesnt have those services availible so should those homeonwers give ATT part of their increased value? I see your point, and acknowledge that my suggestions are all pie-in-the-sky, perfect-world stuff with virtually no chance of passage.
The idea is that AT&T needs to be ultra-sensitive when they could have a large negative effect on one property, despite the positive effect for all. They are exercising a power not unlike eminent domain, in which case elected officials must pay a fair price to take the affected person's property for the public good.
With that in mind:
1. The two have nothing to do with each other. The appraisal should make that clear if there VRAD is a line item in the comparables section.
2. That's an issue you should take up with your taxing authority, which is most likely under the control of your elected officials. If they are not doing what is fair and what you want, hold them accountable.
3. Presumably they would subscribe to AT&T services and in effect give AT&T a share of their "increased value".
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
|
|
| mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | Re: If only they could make them a bit more squat and not white That's a fantastic idea. I'm thinking of something with lots of thorns... | |
|
MIRV
join:2000-12-01
Louisville, KY | Wouldn't be an issue here I'm assuming this is a suburb issue. My street is lined with utility poles, and there's an AT&T phone box down the block. No one has ever complained about them. | |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | The economy I wonder if the current economic downturn is part of the problem? People see that their home's value has dropped, look around for reasons, see a VRAD... | |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| Sheesh! You have three choices.
1. STFU
2. Move to a real affluent area where AT&T buries their equipment in vaults.
3. Move to a slummy neighborhood like mine where there is virtually zero chance of ever having advanced AT&T services.
The choice is yours!
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
touchtone561
join:2007-12-10
Lake Worth, FL
·AT&T Southeast
|  Fridgerator on the lawn??
How many homes/customers can one of these units provide service for is the other question?
I can't think of a cable or power unit taller than 3' in my area. But there is a major phone "fridge" but thankfully it isn't in front of a home and it isn't u-verse. | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Fridgerator on the lawn?? The one by me is about 6feett tall about 7 feet in length and about 3 - 4 feet wide.
Thats just one box thats one the pad as well. Doesnt include the other. | |
|
posthaste
join:2001-05-20
Champaign, IL | Money Talks Can it be a coincidence that Connecticut is loaded with nouveau riche, hedge fund billionaires who don't appreciate having their palacial estates marred with such eyesores?
Yeah, property values ... money talks, baby. | |
|
|
CT Guy
@optonline.net
| Re: Money Talks I've been trying to sell my $3 million house in CT for the last few months. And guess what right next to my driveway is one of these huge boxes. Matter of fact, they had to remove one side of my brick gate entrance to place the box there, hence, no motorized gate anymore.
You tell me - did this have an impact on my property value - sure bet it did, and I don't even get service from it. | |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| No thanks.. I'd rather keep cable Internet and wireless than get AT*T "Uverse" and get those ugly, huge boxes. Sorry, I just don't see any benefits at this point.
--
www.rr.cx | YourIP.US | MySite.cx | |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| would not be so bad if they turned them on I think it would not be so bad in our area if they would turn them on. We have alot of them in our city for the past two years and they still have not turned UVERSE on in our area. I mean come on if you are going to deploy this large equipment turn it on in a timely manner. Our area was supposed to turn on during the launch (little Rock). Thank goodness we have a wireless provider so we can have broadband of some sort here. | |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| I have to tell you... I couldn't be cheering a decision more. CONGRATS to the Ct. AG..and a Job WELL done by the Ct. DPUC for standing up for what is RIGHT in this state.
I have been absolutely AMAZED at what I have been seeing this company doing in cities and towns around this state in installing these monstrosities whenever and where ever they damn well please.
Refrigerator sized boxes..clamped to telephone polls at STREET level..hanging over side walks.
Refrigerator sized boxes across the driveway from a 1700's historic cemetery of towns founders.
And the list goes on..and on..and on.
And..for WHAT? To deliver a service that people can ALREADY get in various forms..namely cable and satellite service..
and do it in a fashion using decades old technology..namely
twisted pair copper.
This is all for the benefit of NO ONE..except this company...who sued their way..and bullied their way into communities..trying to do it at the lowest cost possible.
I know of a house built in the 1800's...a HISTORIC property built by a VERY prominent family in American History..which now has a VRAD refrigerator sitting on the corner of it now. It is the FIRST thing you see when viewing the property now. You simply don't replace properties like that and it is AMAZING how a box like that will devalue and detract from something.
Imagine coming home and finding one sitting on YOUR front lawn. You would call a tow truck and have it RIPPED from the ground and down the street..and you would be OUTRAGED.
That is what this company is doing to communities with reckless disregard for anyone.
And again..for WHAT? To deliver THIS as a next generation service?
I don't know what..or whom..prompted this kind of action but I can tell you that this company stepped way over the line in this state and I can do nothing but applaud the AG and dpuc for doing what is right.
Residents and municipalities have got to have a say in this or this company will simply do whatever they damn well please.
I am looking forward to seeing some vrads come DOWN..because they will never stand with this ruling now in effect.
After all this time AT&T has managed to scrape together a whopping 300~400k uverse customers. If that isn't a failure of a new service..I don't know what is. People have spoken..
and critics have been right from the start.
AT&T...the message to you is...take down the vrads...
respect the communities you want to serve..
put in the FTTH...
And you will finally have done something right and worthwhile both for yourselves...and the customers you would like to serve.
You will have a next generation..competitive service. And one that is much more accepted and respected...without doing this to communities.
And if you don't..the vrads are going to come down anyway.
Because the dpuc and AG will see to that.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | not being done anyways I havn't seen a single ground mounted VRAD in Fairfield county yet (Greenwich/Stamford/Darien/Norwalk area), all the VRADs are pole mounted (at ground level), so they are legit since ATT can put whatever it wants on the pole, it just cant touch the ground and must get all support from the pole. They even install new poles, often on the opposite side of street, to mount the VRADs, so this ruling is absolutely useless. I dont think the FCC allows states/PUCs to regulate telco equipment size on poles. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: not being done anyways Wow, talk about a technicality... | |
|
jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA
·AT&T DSL Service
·EarthLink
| VRAD locations Thankfully my inept city has arranged for right of way easements that fall outside my lawn area. I would have a very hard time having this very large and very prominent piece of equipment in my yard. Uverse is not an "essential" utility like electricity or gas. People can get by very well on a POTS lines on powerpoles and forego this television/Internet service. Television and internet are luxuries not essential to the health and well-being of a person and in my opinion shouldn't be considered ineligible for "Utility right of way" | |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Easy to skirt Just try out some brinkmanship and mount the cabinets but put regular DSLAMs inside them. Then look at the AG and ask him how well he thought his dictate through. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Easy to skirt "Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had filed complaints with the DPUC saying state law requires consent from abutting property owners when modifications are made to the public right-of-way."
Now, the articles specifically mention VRADs because those are the boxes being deployed, but the claim above would seem to cover any boxes. | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Easy to skirt Then that would affect all utilities who do any work that involves replacing systems. Unless they mean physical modification of the right-of-way itself. | |
|
unoriginal
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA
| I'm still surprised at the size of the "next-gen" AT&T keeps touting U-verse as the next great thing. I'm surprised that the boxes to install it and keep it going are still so big. It seems that almost all electronics keep getting smaller and smaller except for things like these VRAD boxes that people keep complaining about.
Can someone with the knowledge explain to an idiot like me why they are still so big and haven't shrunk to say about half the size of the previous ones instead? | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: I'm still surprised at the size of the "next-gen" A popular standard sized DSLAM once had 48 subs on it. The modern "VRAD" DSLAM houses 4 times that with much greater speeds. They take up a fraction of the cabinet though. | |
|
| | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC | Re: I'm still surprised at the size of the "next-gen" ...not to mention alot of other muxes, SLC's and equipment can be in a 'box', not just Uverse & DSLAM equipment. | |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| In my development this is not a problem I'm in a fairly new development in Austin, TX. The VRADs and other AT&T and power company boxes are already planned for and set up in designated spots that are not intrusive on people's yards or views.
I suspect this is only a problem in older neighborhoods where the easements and right-of-ways go through people's yards. | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T VRADs in CT Need Landowner Approval
·
Re: And I DON'T want to see them
·