 
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs: | If naperville... If naperville isnt getting the upgrade in infrastructure... the other portions of DuPage county wount be seeing it for a long time either...
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal | |
|  | op
join:2005-07-16
Smyrna, DE | Re: If naperville... Cause all they(AT&T) want to do is just cherry pick.  | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: If naperville... Naperville is one very juicy cherry. You might want to do some research before you parrot nonsense.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | 
worldwebpirate
@charter.com
1 edit | Re: If naperville... I've done the reseach, As of the census of 2000, there were 128,358 people, 43,751 households, and 33,644 families residing in the city with a per capita income for the city at $35,551. Not very cherry at all. | |
| | | | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | You clearly have no clue.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | 
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: If naperville... I think the point should be made very clear that Regional monopolies are no better then national ones. The problem with America Broadband is that the telcom industry is still living in the 70's and the technology is from 2010.
I've repeatably said that the whole industry needs to be broken apart and we should have a National Fiber network with full open access to anybody that wants to sell service to the end customer.
Local governments need to be taken out of the picture all together.
--
Look who's talking. You haven't even peeled potatoes for the Military..........REPLY: Neither have Dick Cheney or Karl Rove !!! | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by worldwebpirate :
I've done the reseach, As of the census of 2000, there were 128,358 people, 43,751 households, and 33,644 families residing in the city with a per capita income for the city at $35,551. Not very cherry at all.
That's 104.3k per household!
That's enormous, especially for Illinois
Problem is, rich households don't buy cable tv in strong numbers. I would be curious as to which areas AT&T did not want to build out too. I am guessing low density rather than anything that had to do with income. That's the big problem with high incomes; they have low household densities and hence are pretty unprofitable for buildouts.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: If naperville... lol, you're right. The operative term was "per capita". Good catch. | |
| | | 
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR | Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
| | | 
rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL | Deregulation at it's best. | |
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Naperville would be one of the picked cherries if cherry picking was the only thing driving SBC. | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: If naperville... said by Goober  :Naperville would be one of the picked cherries if cherry picking was the only thing driving SBC. As I mentioned above... probably not.
Density, not income, is the driving factor in where to build out, and Naperville is less than 1.2k households/sq mi. Minimum passable for cable is around 400 households/sq mi. I would not be surprised if Project Lightspeed required more like 2.5k households/sq mi.
With a density that low, large chunks of Naperville are going to be below the 400 threshold and hardly any of the city is going to pass the 2.5k threshold. (In contrast, Chicago is over 5k households/sq mi. for the whole city.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: If naperville... Very good point.
Naperville was really late to the whole broadband party even initially. Other than for DSL out of the downtown CO, there was no widely available cable internet or DSL until about 6 years ago if I remember correctly. Now, we have WOW, Comcast and SBC (with several RTs).
Density would explain the initial slowness as well. | |
| | | | | | 
djdanska
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Glen Ellyn, IL
clubs: | Re: If naperville... jones intercable did not help much. mediaone was the primary cable company who had hsi back then. (who was just a few miles east)
--
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. | |
| | | | | 
jimkyser
join:2000-10-13
Naperville, IL
| The problem with Naperville is that the central/older part of the city has really good density and would definitely be a cherry to be picked. With the headquarters for Tellabs and a major development facility for Lucent on the north side of town, there are plenty of early adopters in the mix. Where it gets interesting is that some of the more affluent neighborhoods are in the far southwest part of the city where it kept annexing land as developers moved in. It's like there is a long narrow growth to the SW if you look at a map of the city. The density in that area is lower, with larger homes on slightly larger lots. But there's also a lot of common land typical to newer developments and one very large forest preserve. It's almost like Naperville is two distinct towns.
Amazingly, almost the entire town is still served by a CO in the old downtown. This meant that Naperville was very late in getting DSL from SBC as they had to wait for SBC to build out RTs to get to most of the town. It was like one big broadband blackhole. Then AT&T (the old one) sold their cable network to WOW and suddenly about 1/2 the town could get broadband. Then Comcast rolled out broadband on their network and suddenly some people even had two choices. Finally, SBC installed their RTs and most of the town is now covered.
It's the requirement, by the city, that if any part of the city is served, all of the city must be served that has AT&T balking. I'm sure that if they could get away with serving the 60-70% of the people within 3-4 miles of downtown, they would be very happy. | |
| | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: If naperville... AT&T sold out (eventually) to Comcast. Ameritech (Americast) sold to WOW as part of their acquisition by SBC. Irony abounds.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | 
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | "I have not dealt with many companies that showed less integrity..."
he obviously hasnt dealt with verizon yet.
--
I am not herbert. | |
| | justmb
join:2005-08-19
Naperville, IL
| OK. Time for some facts, directly from the Naperville City Council's documents.
In short, there are more players involved than just AT&T and Naperville. Read the Council Notes from July, and you can see VP of Tellabs, NCTV, Comcast's Area VP, and the Cable TV and Comm. Association of IL (to stand up for WOW and Comcast) all had something to say on this subject.
Quote from the August 16, 2006 summary:
»www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_con···?id=2314
"Our City Council chose the most responsible option," Burchard said. "One that protected our current revenue stream, minimized potential liability and maximized adherence to the State of Illinois Level Playing Field Statute, which requires that video services be provided to the entire community in a fair and non-discriminatory manner."
The city does not expect AT&T to execute the agreement. "It appears that AT&T may use Naperville to bolster their argument supporting federal legislation that would strip local municipalities of long standing control over video services and rights-of-way in their communities."
In September, the Naperville City Council will consider a new ordinance amending its municipal code that allows more providers of this technology to build in Naperville, as long as the company agrees to comply with Illinois level playing field requirements.
------
And now for the July 18th Council Meeting Notes:
»www.naperville.il.us/emplibrary/071806m.pdf
Marc Blakeman represented AT&T and presented a video outlining the
programs available over telephone lines with Project Lightspeed. He stated
that they can provide 100% build out with one of their products. He stated
that AT&T is not a cable company.
..
Council discussed the fact that Federal or State legislation will take the
decision out of the control of local municipalities. Blakeman stated that
AT&T will commit to a five year contract regardless of the legislation.
Krause moved to select Option 3 – to direct that the Memorandum of
Understanding Agreement include a build out provision that requires the
parties to negotiate language within 30 days and schedule a public hearing
on August 15, 2006. Second, Miller.
------
You decide. Just use the facts next time.
I can't wait to read the notes from the August 16th meeting. (They don't appear to be available yet.) | |
| | | bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | Re: If naperville... Is this right ( for the feds to control this in each state ) spelled out in the Constitution-if so,can any one direct us to the clause in the Constitution that specifically grants this to the feds? Interstate trade? | |
| | | 
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I would be pissed if I lived there! Don't you mean shame on your local officials unless your neighborhood is one that would be skipped without the build-out requirement?
--
~Team Discovery~ It's what to do with your PC when you aren't doing anything with your PC. | |
| | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: I would be pissed if I lived there! said by Old_Grouch :Don't you mean shame on your local officials unless your neighborhood is one that would be skipped without the build-out requirement? I suspect there is more to the story. While AT&T is no doubt playing hardball to get what they want, they have maneged to local and state franchise agreements for lightspeed. | |
| | | | | | | 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Re: I would be pissed if I lived there! said by Old_Grouch :
said by wifi4milez :
If the option is some people can get it versus no people can get it I chose option 1. Anything else is just selfish.
I am sure if you were skipped and you had no other choice of advanced broadband, you would be screaming up a storm. | |
| | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by wifi4milez :If the option is some people can get it versus no people can get it I chose option 1. Anything else is just selfish. Unfortunately the side effect of "level playing field" laws is that the entire playing field is leveled to providing no service to anyone.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | | 
58483323
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL | Naperville isn't a small community. It's the fourth largest city in Illinois..
And I agree, AT&T shouldn't be cherry picking. | |
| |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
1 edit | said by wifi4milez :If I found out that my local municipality had effectively prevented a carrier from building (at no charge to me) an advanced network that would give me more options at a lower price I would be VERY angry. People on this site always bitch and moan about how the telco's and ISP's never build out to smaller communities, and yet in this case they (at&t) tried and was actually forbidden to do so! The irony is thick I tell you......... That's really not it at all. ASST&T was told that they would either have to provide service to everyone or none at all. AT&T, as they always have, wants to focus its build out on areas who will most likely get the service, as in, they will most likely serve the most affluent areas.
The city forced, via their franchise agreement, all cable providers to provide service, indiscriminately, to all. The municipality believes that since AT&T will be offering a competing service (a service that replaces cable), they should follow the same rules. I agree. If AT&T is allowed to roll out service only to whoever they believe will spend the most money, it was wholly unfair that the cable company was not allowed to do the same.
Basically, at the core of issue, we have a greedy corporation wanting to cherry pick, and we have a municipality who wants fairness of service to all of its citizens. Since fairness and big-business are like oil and water, it stands to reason that somewhere, somehow, someone will stand up to them and demand fairness. That's exactly what we have here. Leave no one behind so-to-speak.
Basically, the municipality says "OK, you can do this if you do it for everyone." AT&T says "Screw you guys! We will provide service to whoever we want, however we want, whenever we want. And if you don't like it, piss off! If you try to stand in our way, we'll sue your ass! We've got the money to do whatever the hell we damn well please and that's exactley what we are going to do!"
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I would be pissed if I lived there! Except that Naperville was perfectly willing to let AT&T 'cherry pick' (as you like to call it) as long as the city got the full amount of the franchise fee. In other words Naperville was perfectly willing to be just as greedy as the evil corporation, and offered to sell its citizens our for a buck.
POSTED AT 19:11 CDT
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| Re: I would be pissed if I lived there! And if I speed, I get a speeding ticket.
Now hold on before you think I'm crazy, hear me out.....
If AT&T, or whoever might end up in a similar situation, was to look at the way we do, they might see at as a more sensible proposition.
"We can either offer service to these sites, and pay the tax from the amount collected for the service....... or we will skip them under the guise of them not being ""profitable"" and still have to pay the tax just as though they were, in fact, a customer."
Personally, I see that as a way to financially compel them into providing service to all. "Either provide the service and make the money, or don't and pay the tax just as if you were providing service."
I see that much the same way as a traffic citation. The reason we all go the speed limit (ok, some of us LOL) is because if we don't, we have to pay. We pay a fine, money out of or pocket (key word coming up) for nothing. The municipality gets the money from our speeding. We can speed anywhere we want, anytime we want. All we have to do is be willing to pay the municipality to do so. Simply put, we are financially compelled to do the speed limit. We have much the same thing here too. They can skip anyone they want to but they are financially compelled not to do so. If they don't skip them, they get they get to profit from the service they provide and the customer pays the tax. If they do skip them, AT&T has to pay the municipality for doing so. It's a very similar idea.
AT&T, however, they don't see that as fair. They feel that they should be able to do whatever they please. And of course, as usually is the case, they please to deploy into areas where the likelihood of making a profit is highest. And possibly, over time, they might deploy to the rest of the citizens after the infrastructure is in place and the cost of the deployment goes down. When that happens, the financial risk goes down as well. I would call that cherry picking. It's not what I "like" to call it, as you put it, I simply see it as a fitting analogy. What's wrong with that?
It's not that AT&T is an "evil corporation" either. It's just that, like every other commercial and government entity in this great country, their decisions are primarily financially motivated. They are in the business to make money, period. This not some well-intended, golden-haloed, service-for-all company here. They will take the direction that provides the highest profits with the smallest investment, and the least risk. It's nothing personal, it's just business. But where that fails, where that ideology is flawed, is that when it comes to the product, the service, the service is for the people. It's there that the big-business, steamroller, get-out-of-the-way-or-get-run-the-F-over methodology fails. They use their lawyers, their pocketed law-makers, and every other thing they can buy, to keep on keeping on. All the while with the primary motivation to make cash. Sooner or later though, there will be a bigger dog. One that won't get out of the way or be run over.
And that, friend, is where we are now.
The municipality says "You may do business here, and provide your service. However, if you wish to provide this service, you will provide it to all. If you choose not to, this is what the consequences will be." There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I applaud their decision.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I would be pissed if I lived there! said by owenhome :The municipality says "You may do business here, and provide your service. However, if you wish to provide this service, you will provide it to all. Except that is not what Naperville said. They said "You may do business here and provide your service. However, if you wish to provide this service, you will pay us as if you were providing it to all even if you don't provide it to all, or any.
Huge difference.
Posted at 17:54 CDT. Aren't post holds great?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: I would be pissed if I lived there!
Ummm...Lets all forget the mention of the state fairness and "level playing field" statute, shall we? I'm sure the municipality and AT&T can just ignore that, right? | |
| | | 
Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
·AT&T Midwest
| Just to follow your argument, if the Cable Cos provide "digital voice" or any other named voice product, do you think they should be required to provide to all possible housholds within the entire telco boundaries for this community, even though this may cause them to build out several miles outside the city limits? At least this would put them on par with the rules that the telcos have to play by on voice service. Most Cable Cos do not venture very far outside the city limits. I would love to see the Cable Cos have to bring service to the few that are 9 to 12 miles out, in areas where the local telco is their only option. I don't have a problem with seeing the telcos play by the local cable rules, as long as any voice offerings from cable is delivered under the same rules applied to the telcos.
--
My posts are mindless ramblings, use at your own risk. | |
| | | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| Re: I would be pissed if I lived there! Your's would be a rather redundant argument. You see, when the cable company deployed in the first place, the municipality forced them to provide service to the entire city and all its residents. So if they were to offer voice services, those services, by their very nature, are of course available to all who wish to subscribe. Because of the original franchise agreements, the services would already be available to any resident who wished to sign up for them.
In a way, because of the requirements originally imposed, they can already provide service to every household by means of an infrastructure that's already in place. So, you see, it would be an argument without cause because they would have already provided cable service to all households within the area specified by the municipality.
Beyond that, I am unaware of any municipality that requires services from any provider outside of the municipality, much in the same way water sometimes isn't always provided outside city limits or how fire departments must be created by the residents and operated by volunteers. That would be "outside of their jurisdiction" and under that of the county. Not to mention the fact that the incumbents phone infrastructure was basically funded for them, for the good of the people. It's easy to impose service area requirements when someone else pays for it. I would say, if the government paid for the cable company to provide service to all outlying areas, in the same way they paid for the phone company to provide service, sure. Why not?
It's all about fairness and a level playing field. They feel that a competitor should have to play by the same rules as the incumbents. If they didn't, it would hardly be a fair and competitive area now would it? Would it not give the competitive advantage solely to AT&T if they played it the way AT&T wants them to? Of course! That's why, and the only reason why, AT&T wants it that way.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA
 ·ViaTalk
| AT&T SUCKS!! I'm not sure what happened in this particular case but in general AT&T is horrible. I'm so glad I got away from the Telcos 2 years ago & I never looked back. AT&T most likely told Naperville that if they built out then for at least the next 10 years NOBODY was allowed to compete with them & the city must see to it.....Just a guess. | |
| | 
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Aubrey, TX
| Re: AT&T SUCKS!! said by Techie714 :I'm not sure what happened in this particular case but in general AT&T is horrible. I'm so glad I got away from the Telcos 2 years ago & I never looked back. AT&T most likely told Naperville that if they built out then for at least the next 10 years NOBODY was allowed to compete with them & the city must see to it.....Just a guess. ROFL - keep guessing...
--
-IN COMMUNIST RUSSIA, INTERNET DOWNLOAD YOU!
| |
| |
caliwifi
@covad.net
| "The Naperville vote didn’t preclude the company from offering the service, it just requires AT&T to offer it to everyone in the city like the other cable companies do."
The pullout by att is not the citys fault, all the city wanted was the same service for ALL of the resident! | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Naperville is served by two cable companies (Comcast and WOW) along with AT&T and has wireless available in parts of the city. It is also one of the most demographically desirable municipalities in the country.
There is already quite the competitive environment there.
Where did you get your information?
POSTED AT 18:28 CDT. Post hold my ass.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: AT&T SUCKS!!
And I dont agree that AT&T is "horrible". I have allways gotten good service from them and my DSL problems, such as they were, were taken care of promptly | |
| mr_cool
join:2003-10-14
USA | cost And I doubt that cost had anything to do with it, Naperville has a lot of people with money. Also, It was like the #2 town in the US to live in. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| screw at&t I've said it before, and I'll say it again!
SCREW AT & T !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't like what they want to do with telcom infrastructure, BUILD IT YOURSELF or get another company to do the job RIGHT!!!!!!
PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If enough people would cancel service on par with AOL, we'd see some corporate firing of the white collar bastards that have created a NIGHTMERISH beohemuth that just doesn't get it last year, this year, and for years to come.
Does it take getting AT&T DELISTED from the stock exchange on par with RCN corporation, or better yet ENRON to get people to change their behavior???
You can't RUN a company that size like the RIAA/MPAA and say "take it or leave it" because like AOL, people WILL LEAVE IT and RECORD THE CALL FOR ALL TO SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Screw the people just show me the money.` The town was willing to let some residents go without as long as at&t paid the tax as if they were wired. I'm happy New Jersey now has a state wide TV franchise law. Local politicians are a a bunch of hacks.
quote:
Burchard said the city even offered one option where AT&T wouldn’t have to provide full coverage if it paid the $1.7 million the city receives annually in cable franchise fees. He said that was rejected by AT&T.
| |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Screw the people just show me the money.` It's always about the money, especially in Naperville.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| 
HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO
| Well if AT&T won't Heaven knows Naperville has enuff cash to build it themselves. I lived there for over 10 years, they are anything but cash strapped and I would venture a guess that just about every household in Naperville has the internet. I think AT&T may have just picked the wrong city to say no to.
--
All Things Art
»kkart.deviantart.com | |
| |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Well if AT&T won't said by HotRodFoto : I think AT&T may have just picked the wrong city to say no to. Why do you say that? The town said no to at&t. Well the town said yes if at&t would pay extortion money. | |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Coulld this have been the problem? Naperville is a city in DuPage County, Illinois and Will County, Illinois. Two different counties, how the heck can a town be in two different counties?
Does the county get involved in the hustle a buck negotiations? Will Microsoft have to pay a bribe to each town when they use the net-neutral pipe to provide HDTV? | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| The way that AT&T is handling the political aspect of their Uverse rollout, I'm starting to think that their rollout will look something like this.
Q3, 2006 ..San Antonio Tx.
Q4, 2006..Block party, San Antonio Tx.
Q1, 2007...hdtv introduced in San Antonio, Tx
Q2, 2007..hdtv withdrawn in San Antonio, Tx due to packet loss issues.
Q3, 2007...hdtv reinstated in San Antonio, Tx.
Q4, 2007....internet speeds raised to the point where customers REALLY get 6MB in, you guessed it, San Antonio Tx.
Q1, 2008...the San Antonio Tx. rollout continues
Q2, 2008...10% of the population of San Antonio now has Uverse
Q3, 2008....6% of the population of San Antonio now has Uverse. Their uverse is becoming a much smaller place indeed.
Q4, 2008...AT&T reclaims 10% of San Antonio
Q1, 2009, ...BBR poster CWH resigns his position as spokesman for Uverse, and joins Time Warners media relations dept. instead
Q2, 2009....San Antonio users get speed increase to 6.2MB
Q3, 2009...AT&T vs. Naperville IL..finally gets a court date
Q4, 2009....San Antonio
Q1, 2010.....San Antonio..
Q2..2010.....San Antonio
Q3..2010......Dallas Tx.
Q4...2010, press release issued correcting Q3 announcement.
Dallas should read..San Antonio.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post | |
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | cherry picking ... wasn't the reason for monopoly so that they could serve everyone? | |
| |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: cherry picking said by ftthz :... wasn't the reason for monopoly so that they could serve everyone? Yes, Ma Bell, universal service and a reasonable price. The people wanted Ma dead, Ma is dead and yet the people weep. | |
| ntwillie
join:2005-11-29
Oak Park, IL | Not fair! I know if At&t tried to pull this is my little suburb of Oak Park IL, the would get shut. In Chicago aldermen would have walked out of such a meeting. There is no reason they should build out in one part of a town or city and not do the other. | |
| |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Not fair! said by ntwillie :I know if At&t tried to pull this is my little suburb of Oak Park IL, the would get shut. In Chicago aldermen would have walked out of such a meeting. There is no reason they should build out in one part of a town or city and not do the other. Different Central Offices feeding different parts of a town would be one reason to only do a part of a town.
Verizon is placing FIOS in New Jersey, they are doing it by Central Office and don't need town permission if they don't do TV. Some parts of a town will get FIOS some won't. | |
|
anonatt
@mindspring.com | south burbs come to the south suburbs att. my neighborhood in orland park is already wired for lightspeed, along with another community in tinley park. | |
|
somuchmorecheap
@verizon.net
| done on the cheap att u-verse is SOOO DONE ON THE CHEAP, it might as well be a cable company with docsis 2.0 upgrading the area.
Who needs this P.O.S. company!!
There is no advantage of having TODAYS technology depoyed 5, 10, 15 years out... sorry, too little too late gets on my nerves! | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
fuckatt
@cox.net | fuck at&t phone companies should be banned from the internet business | |
| | | |
|
|
Naperville, Illinois Can't Make Jump to Lightspeed
·
·