 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Lol Way to go!
I hate it when cities try to limit progress like trying to block Walmart from opening shop, stop McMansions, etc. | |
|
 | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Re: Lol said by ninjatutle  :Way to go! I hate it when cities try to limit progress like trying to block Walmart from opening shop, stop McMansions, etc. Well, I hate it when these large corporations think they are above all the laws in place and ignore them. If you don't like it then do something to get it chenged. Otherwise, until that change occurs, OBEY THE LAW!!!
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | 
Mega DETH
It's All About The Ping
join:2003-08-20
Watertown, WI | Re: Lol No matter what side your on, it's the consumer once again that gets fuked over..
--
"Action does not equal Achievement" | |
|
| | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02 | That is the point...whether or not the cable TV franchise law there applies to AT&T and their IPTV service.
The court will decide. | |
|
| | | VariableARK
join:2003-03-17
USA | Re: Lol It all just comes down to the government wanting their slice of the pie. Why can't they government just leave us all alone? | |
|
| | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02 | Re: Lol Because gov't, like any business, exists to grow and they can't grow unless they take. | |
|
| 
DaBavarian
Premium
join:2006-02-22
Saginaw, MI | I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. | |
|
| | HyPeRbAnD
join:2006-01-07
Stow, MA
| Re: Lol said by DaBavarian :I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. I think that is the argument from att, that IPTV is not the same as traditional TV. | |
|
| | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Lol said by HyPeRbAnD :said by DaBavarian :I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. I think that is the argument from att, that IPTV is not the same as traditional TV. And if it is an information service, there MUST be a ruling before you go potentially breaking the law. Everyone these days only what to look at what is on the surface from these issues, ie. quick roll out of IPTV, and refuse to look deeper and see what other issues may be caused by allowing all of this to happen.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | Re: Lol The burden is on the state to prove AT&T is doing wrong, not AT&T to prove they are doing right. And as for information service, the FCC already ruled that information services aren't "cable". This was a win for the cable companies who wanted their HSI to not be regulated like their CATV products were. | |
|
| | | | | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Comcast
| Re: Lol As long as AT&T doesn't try to shortcut the placement of the boxes in the rights of way. I thought that was a big issue with some communities. In order for at&t to deliver their UVerse they need to upgrade equipment, which includes placing more of the large cabinets. The cities should be able to place demands on at&t in regards to those issues. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by ropeguru :said by HyPeRbAnD :said by DaBavarian :I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. I think that is the argument from att, that IPTV is not the same as traditional TV. And if it is an information service, there MUST be a ruling before you go potentially breaking the law. Everyone these days only what to look at what is on the surface from these issues, ie. quick roll out of IPTV, and refuse to look deeper and see what other issues may be caused by allowing all of this to happen. : Sorry Sir, your IPTV U-Verse account had to be shut off due to the lawsuit being lost for franchise rights in your area. The good news is we can now offer DSL up to 100Mbps.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
|
| | | | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Lol said by phattieg :: Sorry Sir, your IPTV U-Verse account had to be shut off due to the lawsuit being lost for franchise rights in your area. The good news is we can now offer DSL up to 100Mbps. Then at that point it would be time for me to go complain to my franchise authority and do something about it. Until then, they need to follow the rules.
I guess you are one of those that drive over the speed limit, because you think the posted speed it too slow, and think the "man" is just out to get you because you were not following the rules.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by DaBavarian :I thought IPTV was an "information service" just like all of the VOIP providers that don't have to pay into all the fees that the traditional copper line phone companies pay into. No, IPTV is not an information service.
Here is the heart of the Vonage decision:
``capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications.´´ 47 U.S.C. § 153(20). The process of transmitting customer calls over the Internet requires Vonage to ``act on´´ the format and protocol of the information. 47 C.F.R. § 64.702(a).
IPTV as AT&T offers it would not clearly qualify (that would take a court to decide). YouTube would be a much closer example that would qualify.
In the absence of a finding that a service is an information service, it is a telecommunications or video service and the appropriate laws apply.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Yeah, just you wait until it's your business they want to destroy, or your house they want to seize land next to and bulldoze and set up 24/7 operations on.
There's a reason cities need zoning laws. | |
|
| |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Don't they know? Might makes right. If AT&T pushes their money, influence, and power around then local laws be damned, they will do what they damn well please. | |
|
| 
sea93
join:2001-11-01
River Grove, IL
| Re: Don't they know? I thought that some of these franchise agreements(short sighted) these towns have specifically mention cable, and this is how AT&T figures it does not have to comply.
The law is....what the law is.....
I love how people whine and cry when others play by the laws that the whiners wrote and it doesn't work out quite as planned. | |
|
| | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Re: Don't they know? I would be quite sure though that AT&T is rather happy to "compete" against those who actually have to abide by the franchise agreement system (assuming AT&T doesn't).
If they were all exempt and they had to compete against an unfettered cable build out they might not be so thrilled, and would likely file a suit against the city on that.
Personally I don't really think these agreements have actually done a lot of good over the long haul. There might be pockets of benefit, but overall I think it is negligible.
K.
--
Race season is over, now what?!? |
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap | |
|
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by sea93 :I thought that some of these franchise agreements(short sighted) these towns have specifically mention cable, and this is how AT&T figures it does not have to comply. The law is....what the law is..... I love how people whine and cry when others play by the laws that the whiners wrote and it doesn't work out quite as planned. Franchise agreements only regulate the franchisee. They have no affect on other providers.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| said by Maxo :Might makes right. If AT&T pushes their money, influence, and power around then local laws be damned, they will do what they damn well please. No one pushes their money, influence and power around more than gov't. | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Don't they know? **WE** are the government.. in case you forgot. | |
|
| | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02 | Re: Don't they know? No WE aren't. | |
|
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Don't they know? Yes WE are.... "We the people, in order to form a ...."
The government is of the people, by the people, for the people...
We represent ourselves.. we elect our voice in the greater body called the government..
Please.. correct me, and all of our documents in this country that make me correct that WE are the government.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
4 edits | Re: Don't they know? Wrong again. That's "We the People...establish this Constitution"...not government. The perversion of the Constitution that resulted in our current gov't came many years and Amendments to that sacred document later.
Read the document you're quoting. We don't represent ourselves. We are a Representative Republic system of democratic republic with those Representatives looking out for their OWN interests instead of their constituents which would be the "We".
Politicians and their donors are the gov't. Not "We".
I don't remember "We" sending us to Iraq, killing us with an abusive tax code or denying us a-la-carte cable programming. The whores in Congress do that.
We the Senate...
We the House...
We the Special Interests...
That's the gov't thumb we live under. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Don't they know? That's very much a bitter Billy way to represent your side, but you are still wrong. We are a Democratic Republic form of government.
WE the people.. WE the government.. we self govern..
You can spin what you want... you can cloud the situation with all the things wrong with who is in office.. but it still remains that WE THE PEOPLE can remove those who abuse the system.. WE THE PEOPLE don't.
Please, get your facts straight when coming here and stop trolling.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | Re: Don't they know? said by Maxo :said by squid7 :I don't remember "We" sending us to Iraq, killing us with an abusive tax code or denying us a-la-carte cable programming. The whores in Congress do that. We reelected the scumbag that did all that. The President doesn't authorize the tax code or authorize war spending or much of anything else. The Executive Branch in all reality has very little power other than the bully pulpit in our system of government when comparing to Congress. The power to make these obtrusive laws and pass these massive spending bills lies with the whores in Congress who are beholden to special interests, not "We the People" as the cable shill would like to believe. The Constitution was written so that would be the case (that Congress would have the power...now that they would be whores LOL). Only after FDR has the Executive branch become as powerful as it is today and compared to the power of Congress the Executive still pales.
I think the Founding Fathers would crap a brick if they saw the mess our inept, corrupt and bloated gov't has become. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| Re: Don't they know? I don't think you can take the blame of the war in Iraq and the massive tax cuts for the extremely rich of of Bush. The congress certainly shares a large part of the blame. The congress and the President have been acting as a single entity, more or less, for the last 6 years.
The American people share a large part of the blame too. It's one thing to put someone back in power and have them screw you over. It's another to put him back in for another full term.
(This is all, of course, putting aside arguments about whether or not he actually won the election. No need for a tangent.)
We have all failed the system and ourselves.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
|
| | | | | | | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | Re: Don't they know? Oh for sure, Bush policy and Congressional eagerness to make political gain by looking tough after 9-11 (with the force authorization) is what got us into Iraq.
But I would like to take exception with the tax cut comment. The tax cuts were directed to those who paid the taxes. Given the progressive tax system where the bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 4% of the income tax revenue while the top 1% of wage earners pay more than 33% of the tax revenue (even when their share of wages earned are far less than 33%), it only makes sense that a tax cut will go the people with the highest wages...again because they paid by far the most taxes. As a percentage of taxes paid, the middle class got a larger percentage tax cut that the higher income earners did.
Another thing to note is that "wealth" isn't income and isn't subject to income tax. Point being "rich" people don't pay taxes because they're "rich". For example if a CEO who has a net worth of $5 billion earns $50 million in taxable income, he'll pay the same tax an iron worker with a $100,000 net worth who won $50 million in a lottery. The iron worker certainly isn't rich but would pay the big bucks.
Source: »www.house.gov/jec/publications/1···ares.pdf
As for the teaming up to screw us, yes in the case that Bush didn't seem to see a spending bill he didn't like and the lack of vetoes permitted the excessive spending. Tax revenues as a result of the tax cuts (because of economic growth offsetting the cuts) is actually up, but the Congress spent it ALL plus more. It's like the Treasury gets in an extra buck and Congress spends an extra $2. I read somewhere, don't remember where that the Congress in the first 4 years of the Bush Administration increased the size of gov't more than Clinton did in 8.
As a Republican I'm repulsed by this and in looking at the election see that I'm not the only one. It's Republicans changing their votes that gave the Democrats Congress and if the Republican whores don't start acting Republican for a change they'll hand the Democrats the White House as well. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: Don't they know? Whether the rich deserved the tax cut or not, if you don't like it Bush shares in the blame, but is hardly the only person to blame.
On the other points I don't disagree.
I remember in the last election when all the republicans where saying they needed to stay in office or the Dems would increase government and spending. Pot Kettle? Holy crap.
I've heard many republicans giving the old speech of "I haven't left the party, the party left me." I think you could define Bush and co. as being the opposite of the Libertarians. Fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
There are some Republican candidates that look like promising conservatives that I hope make it on the ballot for the next election, to get the republican party back on track.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
|
| | | | | | | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | Re: Don't they know? Some Neo-Cons in Washington I think got the message that they can't ignore their constituency. They may realize that they can't rely on the "left" being a worse choice therefore the Conservatives will have to vote for Neo-Cons.
If the Democrats keep putting up centrist candidates they will continue to win elections...if they return to the left with a candidate like Hilary Clinton (the HilaryCare disaster is still fresh in the minds of many voters) they will lose when the Republicans counter with a popular centrist like McCain. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Dude, seriously.. if you want to talk about government and what's wrong with it.. why not take this to the red or blue room. You are SOO off topic here.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
3 edits | Re: Don't they know? There isn't only one kind of democratic republic fiberguy, there are many.
It appears that you are confusing direct democracy and representative democracy.
A "We" are the gov't government would be a direct democracy, where We the People are making all of the decisions.
Our system of democracy is a representative republic. We elect representatives to make those decisions. They are the government supposedly working in our interests and on our behalf but as we see all to often they do neither.
We stopped being the government when we elect people to do that job in our stead.
But since you can't seem to engage in civil discussion without the constant insults and name calling I'm done with you. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Don't bother with him. He can't take something on topic with out dragging it on 2000 tangents.
As soon as he learns what a Democratic Republic is, he will understand what "We the people" means.
Further.. he's just complaining that government has corrupt people in these offices doing the B.S. things they do... that still doesn't change the fact that WE the people are the government.
The minute he understands the difference between a monarchy or a royal rule or those kinds of governments.. maybe he will learn. Until then, he's just a victim of yet another child left behind.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
| Re: Don't they know? Fiberguy, a democratic republic is any democracy without a monarch. There are lots of different forms of democracy that would be considered democratic republics. The parliamentary system could also be a form of government that would be a democratic republic. You don't have to have a direct democracy where all of the people make the decisions for it to still be a democratic republic. We are both a democratic republic and a representative republic since the people don't vote on all the individual issues. "We the people" isn't a form of government, it's just words from the Preamble to the Constitution. The Articles in the Constitution, not the preamble, define the foundations of our government. We are the government only in that we vote for people to represent us in making these government decisions but once those people are voted for, they don't have to vote the way the people want.
If things worked the way they were supposed to, the politicians would vote the way the people they represent wants them to but we find that is often not the case. That may be a cynical view but that is what happens. | |
|
| | | | | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
2 edits | What spin? We don't govern ourselves as we are not a direct democracy but a representative republic. The only cases of direct democracy in California would be our initiative system which does not exist in Federal Gov't.
Special interests get money from a noisy minority or from corporate profit.
They purchase a political hack and give them money to buy advertising.
A minority of people believe everything they see on TV and put the hack in office.
The political hack repays whoever gave them the biggest contributions.
Regardless of what side you're on that is how our system of gov't works regardless of how you wished it worked or not. To deny it is to deny reality. | |
|
| | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI | Get out the tinfoil... Like anything, government has the potential for abuse, but in this case, Milwaukee (my hometown) is looking out their own. I wish the WI would do more like this and hold corporations accountable. | |
|
| | | squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02 | Re: Don't they know? Held accoutable for what? That is what the case is about; whether or not IPTV is the same as CATV (requiring a franchise agreement). | |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | Bet the city leaders were smiling while deployment happened Good to see another city working against what is good for its people. this will just continue to raise costs for everyone. | |
|
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Bet the city leaders were smiling while deployment happened Anarchy is good for the people?
So, what you are really saying is that as long as you can save a buck or two and have a fourth choice in video service, it's ok for the corporate machine to simply break the law and find out if it's ok later?
I'm not ok with this logic.
You haven't stated, either, how this will "continue to riase costs for everyone"...
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH |  Like I said before...
| |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Milwaukee Clean Your Own Mess Up First »www.themilwaukeechannel.com/educ···ail.html
This city cannot even keep its own tax system up to date nor can it fund its schools correctly. How dare it wastes even more money that it does not have on a frivolous lawsuit.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
Anonuser
join:2003-01-03
Milwaukee, WI
| Att Is running the new fiber everywhere around here. I'l take some pictures down the street from me morrow morning.
I'm all for just letting ATT build this thing out, they've been promising it for a long time, and let us have it!!!
However, I am still dis-pleased that att is only giving 6mbit for internet access. I can have that now with their current DSL!
I want faster internet access, not more TV. Milwaukee's already got Digital Broadcast, with some 20 odd channels, more then enough :P
--
»www.WiiNetCommunity.com FREE RELIABLE WEB HOSTING! | |
|
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Att Maybe the Comcast system in South Holland should just run porn on their VOD service. Their is a potential dispute over the legality of that franchise agreement, but what the hell.
I think, with your line of thinking, that Comcast should pipe out the porn OnDemand to South Holland and then fight it all out in court.
I mean, the system is there and built.. they've been promising it for a long time.
Is this how you want to set presidence? Just "do it" and then fight it in court? Usually what happens, in this "just do it and submit an invoice" kinda actions is that even if it was wrong, the money was spent so they will compromise on something that wasn't done properly. In the end, there are many people who get a half-ass'd deal.
If they want to run their video service (if you call it that) they have to play by the rules.
Also, another example and it was LONGLY termed anarchy.. Maryor Newsome in San Francisco said the supposed gay marriage ban wasn't legal either so he just allowed them and let the courts deal with it. Was that good either?
How many more examples should I bring up?
The laws are there and when there are questions, the proper thing to do is clarify the laws, not simply do first and challenge later.
In this case, I SURE hope that AT&T looses both on law and presidence and it costs them and their supporters a butt load of money.
AT&T is a HORRIBLE company (even though they are really SBC, the horrid name AT&T they attached to has grown roots) and they really need to be betch-slapped back into reality.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Cities These cities are just trying to get more out of ATT than is required, necessary, or (justifiable). Att knows what the profit mar genes are, so because ATT does not want to loose money wiring NOWHERE, Kansas or any other non profitable build out. Business 101, don't do anything that is not profitable now and/or in the future. These municipalities must understand that for ATT to compete like a "Publicly Traded BUSINESS", it must be profitable. I honestly dont know what the exact answer to this problem is (national Franchise, maybe) but I do know that the city governments should and cant be asking for unreasonable requests. First of all, cities dont have enough money to be fighting corporations like att. Every city (tax payer) that fights the company looses. | |
|
| TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | Re: Cities But the issue is, even though they are a business, they are competing using public property (rights of way), hence there are requirements. | |
|
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by JamesPC :These cities are just trying to get more out of ATT than is required, necessary, or (justifiable). Att knows what the profit mar genes are, so because ATT does not want to loose money wiring NOWHERE, Kansas or any other non profitable build out. Business 101, don't do anything that is not profitable now and/or in the future. Buildout rules only apply to areas with a density of 20 households passed per fiber mile. It is not like these are unprofitable areas, they are just lower profit areas.
There is a simple solution to AT&T's problems though:
If they don't want to follow franchise rules, then all they have to do is stay out of the public right of ways.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Maybe people need to look at areas outside the major cities I can't believe all the people in these threads that are taking AT&T's side.
Plain and simple. AT&T who think they are king shit is not obeying the rules put forth and ignoring them. If we ignore a law we get our asses thrown in jail. Maybe they need to throw the Exec's in jail then!
Right or wrong the rules are there to help protect the city or community against monopolistic tryants. Milwaukee wants a cut of the pie. Let them sue!
--
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -Marie Curie | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| Depends on if it pure IPTV or not I'm not totally familiar with how U-Verse works but it's it's really IPTV they shouldn't pay otherwise it opens the door for gov't to regulate and charge for all kinds of crap running over IP. If IPTV is subject to this how long before VOIP or other services are. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA | Does Google/uTUbe needs franchise license? I wonder if all the cities in the US are going after Google/UTube for streaming video, would streaming video provider needs franchise agreement? | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| So...THIS is the COMPANY that would like regulators to now approve them growing even LARGER by approving their Bell South merger?
This is the kind of RESPONSIBLE corporate citizen that should now be allowed to expand their territory even more?
Let's be clear about one thing.
The LAW that is in question is the Cable Act.
And what that law apparently says is this.
If you deliver a ONE way video service...meaning there is no interaction back from you...then you ARE subject to the cable Act..and you ARE subject to franchise agreements.
Period. End of topic.
UVERSE..is a ONE WAY video service. The law does NOT say that just because it doesn't come to you via coax that it isn't cable tv. That "cable" that it comes to you on is irrelevant for the purposes of this law.
Ladies and Gentlemen, what you and I would like isn't the issue here. What AT&T would like isn't the issue here.
What the LAW currently states IS the issue here.
And in this country, if you don't like the laws, you don't get to run around breaking them until such time they get changed. You follow them, and, if it be your desire, you seek to have them changed to something more workable and to your liking.
This is why cities like Geneva are suing them.
And they are RIGHT to do so. Don't you think that AT&T knows what they are doing? If I was able to read what amounted to several pages of the legal argument as it pertains to what's going on in Geneva and to come away VERY clearly understanding the VERY simple concept of what this law states..don't you think that AT&T has as well?
Instead, you should understand what their method has apparently involved. It was initially to notify them about putting new cabinets in..never once saying anything about this being for video. Don't you think that omission ALONE was the first sign of what they were up to?
Don't you think that the PHONE company now trying to become your CABLE company would have managed to let that fact be known if they initially had any intention of doing so?
They were just damned to get it all done apparently, come hell or high water.
It should be clearly noted that this is NOT about communities that take too long to approve these agreements..it's about AT&T deciding that these laws just don't apply to them. All on their own. Something as simple and clear cut as that which I described above.
There is a real danger in allowing a company to just walk on in and do that. And never..in a million years..should that company now be allowed to grow even larger.
The Bell South Deal must be rejected.
I am not pro cable co's. I am pro companies following the laws as they exist. I am not against AT&T being able to compete in the video market..I'm against their doing so illegally. I am not against uverse and their ultimately being able to deliver tv and HSI all in one.
I just think that by not carrying the fiber that last mile, they're making a very big mistake and ultimately will have a huge flop on their hands..because it's way too little..too late versus what the cable co's have and will be doing.
We should also be clear about this. This does NOT involve VOIP. VOIP is NOT subject to the cable act. I understand, perhaps that playing field is a difficult one for AT&T and the other telco's today. But also, such has been the nature of the telco industry for a decade now..with other competition. But just because you're having problems with one thing, doesn't mean you just get to walk into something else and not follow the laws governing entry into that business.
If you're a CPA who's having problems rounding up clients..you don't get to be a Doctor instead tomorrow without going to med school and being licensed.
That IS what this is all about.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T U-Verse
| People seem to forget that AT&T is following the rules. AT&T is subject to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, not the Cable Act of 1986.
Just as the cable companies successfully argued that VOIP service is IP based, and as such not subject to either act listed above, AT&T is following the legal precedent that IP based services are not subject to cable franchise laws.
Also, the reason this lawsuit has occurred now, even though AT&T has been deploying here in Milwaukee for 3 month's, is the Milwaukee Public Schools announced a couple of days ago they are running a $9 million deficit.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
|
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: People seem to forget said by Alakar :that AT&T is following the rules. AT&T is subject to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, not the Cable Act of 1986. Just as the cable companies successfully argued that VOIP service is IP based, and as such not subject to either act listed above, AT&T is following the legal precedent that IP based services are not subject to cable franchise laws. That is not the argument. The argument was that the FCC specifically classified VOIP as an information service when they created the rules that led to the Brand X case.
Hence, a different component of Title 47 (both the telecom act and the cable act apply to all of these situations) applied to cable broadband services. IPTV has not been classified by the FCC as an information service. In order for IPTV to be classified in such a manner, the common carrier requirements on DSL would have to be dropped first (with all the nasty consumer issues that would create).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
mxyztplk
join:2003-07-24
San Jose, CA
| Good solution, AT&T AT&T's solution is an excellent one.
They probably would have spent much more on lawyers, lobbyists, etc. begging the local poobahs for permission. Instead, they use the money to install service, and fight them in court if challenged.
Of course, the local agency could ask the court for a restraining order preventing AT&T from proceeding. But perhaps that would incur the wrath of their own constituents who want the service. | |
|
| jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI
| Re: Good solution, AT&T The article makes it sound as though ATT's rollout has been stopped pending an interim agreement.
What can Milwaukee do except fine ATT for proceeding? I would imagine its a civil code we are talking about here.
I can't see the Milwaukee PD stopping ATT from working, that would lead to a ridiculous situation. Maybe they could confiscate stb's from ATT trucks! LOL | |
|
| 
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| said by mxyztplk : They probably would have spent much more on lawyers, lobbyists, etc. begging the local poobahs for permission. Instead, they use the money to install service, and fight them in court if challenged. Baloney. Trial lawyers are cheaper than negotiating with the city using the incumbent cable provider(s) franchise as a template? Hardly. | |
|
| | mxyztplk
join:2003-07-24
San Jose, CA
| Re: Good solution, AT&T Cost of (Negotiators + Negotiating Lawyers + Lobbyists + Bribes [err, campaign contibutions] + Lost Business) > Cost of (Trial Lawyers)
Added plus: putting the other side on the defensive (a better bargaining position in any negotiation)
Who says you can't beat City Hall? | |
|
| | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs: | Re: Good solution, AT&T Bargaining in good faith w/ same franchise as the incumbent > BS PR about "local government barriers" and/or lawsuits. | |
|
BrotherJPW
join:2003-11-27
Glen Ellyn, IL
| NO RULES VOIP not the same as POTS
POTS not the same as VOIP
IPTV not the same as CABLE
CABLE not the same as POT
DBS not the same as CABLE
CABLE not the same as DBS
IPTV not the same as DBS
DBS not the same as IPTV
POTS not the same as CABLE
CABLE not the same as POTS
CELLULAR not the same as POTS
POTS not the same as CELLULAR
Each has its own laws and pays differnet taxes to the government because they are different. They are regulated differently.
IPTV has no rules to follow. | |
|
| BrotherJPW
join:2003-11-27
Glen Ellyn, IL | Re: NO RULES The city is too lazy to create laws for new services, so cities end up suing companies to make them follow laws that do not apply to them. | |
|
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by BrotherJPW :IPTV not the same as CABLE IPTV has no rules to follow. At this point, under current FCC rules, IPTV does have the same rules as cable until it gets classified as an information service instead of a video service.
The very simple solution for AT&T is to stop using the public right of ways.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
TheGimp
@sbcglobal.net
| Franchise agreements After working in a small city and dealing with cable franchise agreements firsthand I can tell you that you as the consumer WANT WANT WANT the telcos to sign franchise agreements. The agreement holds their feet to the fire and doesn't allow them to pick and choose who they will give service to or not, it makes them offer service to everyone equally and they must repair service in a timely manor. If not for the franchise agreements the cable co's and Telco's will screw everyone | |
|
| mxyztplk
join:2003-07-24
San Jose, CA
| Re: Franchise agreements Is that like the one that goes, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you?"
Let's see what's in it for you guys:
> Franchise fee = a hidden tax
> Universal service requirement = a hidden tax
> Artificial performance requirements = a hidden tax
> Utility tax = an overt tax
> Franchise negotiation = another thing to justify increasing the number of government employees [more of you]
> more of you = more hidden retirement costs = a deferred hidden tax | |
|
| |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Franchise agreements All those "hidden taxes" are paid one way or the other...either to your local city or corporate HQ. Take your pick.
Don't believe me? Where did you think the increases on cable HSI went to after the franchise fees were lifted, which were, amazingly enough, about the same amount as the franchise fee.
Sure didn't stay in town. | |
|
| | | mxyztplk
join:2003-07-24
San Jose, CA | Re: Franchise agreements "If the government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert, within five years we'd have a shortage of sand."
- Milton Friedman | |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | Got to hand it to AT&T They are basically forcing the franchise system into a situation will it will hurt their deployments by completely ignoring it, then they turn around and will use it as the evidence that franchise agreements harm deployment.
What is sad is anyone who will fall for it. | |
|
|
The Gimp
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: Got to hand it to AT&T IF the Telcos are not held to the franchise agreements then they will red-line like a big dog. I know that franchise agreements do have taxes ETC but I would rather pay a couple of bucks in tax and go to sleep at night knowing my city is going to make sure that the telco will roll out all the new cool services equally and not just the high money areas and leave me SOL with dial up. | |
|
ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| Good analysis or creative accounting? If Whitacre didn't have cost accountants and actuaries weigh in on this strategy, he's an idiot. I may not agree with the man, but he's no idiot. AT&T chose this course because of all the options considered, it was the most likely to result in a better profit margin.
The issue is whether he has yes-men working for him.
--
USNG:16TDN2870 Find your Lat-Long: Geocoder | |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | AT&T is above the law. Especially when they've been able to do what everyone else cannot (bribe successfully). | |
|
| jober
join:2001-12-13
| Re: AT&T is above the law. Hmmm, Maybe they should approach this in another way. You don't see YouTube or any other video service getting the hammer dropped on them. So why doesn't AT&T change the IPTV format to something that wont brake the law.
Instead of a cable box you would have a TVPC Box. The IPTV could be setup like CBS has with Inner Tube.
Never mind!
I'm just going to get flamed for skirting the law or some smart ass is going to give me 2000 reasons why it wont work.
Here's an idea! Lets see how many ways AT&T could do this with out braking the law. | |
|
| | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | Re: AT&T is above the law. I think that you have to look at the legal history of Ma Bell. The first law suit against them was more than 100 years ago. They started early and never changed the way they did business. Kind of hard to sympathize. | |
|
|
|
|
Milwaukee Sues AT&T For Ignoring Franchising Process
