  S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL |
What proof do they have?Why let the facts get in the way of a good story! | |
|
 |  NY Tel
Premium Member
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY |
NY Tel
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 11:30 am
Re: What proof do they have?said by S_engineer:Why let the facts get in the way of a good story! | |
|
|  Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA |
to S_engineer
The story is about the lawsuit. Why let fanboyism get in the way of common sense? | |
|
| | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 12:17 pm
Re: What proof do they have?well there is some fact here, if AT&T dug up coax trunks or damaged nodes then they are fully liable. | |
|
| | |  ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA |
ropeguru
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 12:37 pm
Re: What proof do they have?said by Kearnstd:well there is some fact here, if AT&T dug up coax trunks or damaged nodes then they are fully liable. But the question is, was it really vandalism, or was it like with most other utilities, they were either digging and had not had the area marked, or were the markings in the wrong place. Utilities get dug up all the time. But that doesn't mean it is vandalism. | |
|
| | | | Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA |
Dogfather
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 12:44 pm
Re: What proof do they have?That is what the court will decide, if it's not settled ahead of time. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: What proof do they have?An issue I noticed when my in-laws switched to UVerse....the AT&T installers, for some reason, cut the incoming coax line down to the ground, rather than just unplugging it from the box. My in-laws were unhappy enough with TW that they'd never go back, so it isn't an issue for them, but if theirs was the common "install", I could see TW being a little upset. They do technically own that line all the way up to the box, and you MIGHT be able to make an argument for vandalism.
Then again that was in Austin, no telling what is going on in San Antonio. | |
|
| | | | | | Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits |
Re: What proof do they have?You could say the same about Verizon, pulling copper when it's not necessary, just to insure you can't go back to copper competitors. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: What proof do they have?said by Dogfather:You could say the same about Verizon, pulling copper when it's not necessary, just to insure you can't go back to copper competitors. The difference is that Verizon owns the copper. Sure they are pulling it to avoid line sharing, but it is still their property, bought and paid for by our USF fees.  | |
|
| | | |  David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL |
to ropeguru
said by ropeguru:said by Kearnstd:well there is some fact here, if AT&T dug up coax trunks or damaged nodes then they are fully liable. But the question is, was it really vandalism, or was it like with most other utilities, they were either digging and had not had the area marked, or were the markings in the wrong place. Utilities get dug up all the time. But that doesn't mean it is vandalism. That's very true, and the bad part is even utility locators can be off by as much as 6-10ft. Ironically my dad at the time was in charge of the water department down in my hometown. For years galati's (italian place down there) always had water problems but never knew why. It only affected one toilet in one restroom, and ironically they (galati's owners) had sealed it off. One day they opened that secondary pipe and some water came through. Dad ordered the street dug up and they found SBC went through the sewer pipe well over 15 years ago. Since most of the lines were attached to a new main and new lift station, in the middle of the street this old main was retired in like 1970. They dug the street up in 2002. Even further in the irony that one toilet pipe was the last pipe left that was attached to that old main and actually drained into the new lift station for the sewer. My dad was like "Just fix it and bury it guys.. "  | |
|
| | | | | | |
dirtyboi
Anon
2008-Nov-29 9:25 am
Re: What proof do they have?I've heard of plumbers connecting new residential sewer mains to phone company underground cable conduits. | |
|
| | | | | | David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2008-Nov-30 4:48 pm
Re: What proof do they have?said by dirtyboi :
I've heard of plumbers connecting new residential sewer mains to phone company underground cable conduits.
I have heard of that happening before too. Well ya know it looks all the same in dirt!!  | |
|
47717768 (banned)
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
1 edit |
47717768 (banned)
Member
2008-Nov-28 11:42 am
Cut cableAbout 3 years a go someone has cut cable under ground so we were out of cable TV service for 3 days and did not get a credit. | |
|
|  Tel
join:2001-10-12
Mauldin, SC |
Tel
Member
2008-Nov-28 1:20 pm
Re: Cut cablesaid by 47717768:About 3 years a go someone has cut cable under ground so we were out of cable TV service for 3 days and did not get a credit. Nothing at all to do at all with this story, but if you haven't bothered to call in 3 years, then it's too late now. | |
|
| | 47717768 (banned)
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL |
47717768 (banned)
Member
2008-Nov-28 1:51 pm
Re: Cut cablesaid by Tel:said by 47717768:About 3 years a go someone has cut cable under ground so we were out of cable TV service for 3 days and did not get a credit. Nothing at all to do at all with this story, but if you haven't bothered to call in 3 years, then it's too late now. I did call. | |
|
| | | ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB |
ErikRP
Member
2008-Nov-28 2:43 pm
Re: Cut cablesaid by 47717768:said by Tel:said by 47717768:About 3 years a go someone has cut cable under ground so we were out of cable TV service for 3 days and did not get a credit. Nothing at all to do at all with this story, but if you haven't bothered to call in 3 years, then it's too late now. I did call. Regardless of who you're with, I am 99.99% sure your ToS says something about service not being guaranteed and/or that they are not liable for outages beyond their control. Or words to that effect. | |
|
|  rcdaileyDragoonfly
Premium Member
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA |
to 47717768
You should be glad it wasn't the gas line they cut.
Last week I was out at a local community college for a day. There is a lot of construction going on there now, and where I was located, they were adding a gas line to the existing service. The contractor had a map showing the location of the current gas line, but apparently the map was wrong by a few feet. They were very careful about the trenching and one guy hand dug at the end to find the actual line. Of course, those who break gas lines can be severely injured in an explosion. That's a good incentive to be careful.
| |
|
| | |
The Vigilante to 47717768
Anon
2008-Nov-28 4:29 pm
to 47717768
If they don't provide the service, irrespective of whose fault it is, then don't pay. If you're without service for three days, calculate how much that three days costs and deduct that from your payment. Make sure to advise TW in writing that you've done this. I'd be very interested to see them try to demand payment for service not provided. | |
|
 Duramax08To The Moon
Premium Member
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX |
Duramax08
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 12:42 pm
LOLlol who wrote this? | |
|
| |
oh my.....well sounds kinda drawn out to me. I personally have services from both DSL from ATT and RR from TWC and when we had the line originally removed a year ago when we got digital phone all they did was cut the line coming from the NID re-splice it and hook it into their own box. 2 months later they came back out and ran a new line for my dry dsl and i was up and running so i have a more stable line for VPN.
and well since i live in SATX this will be a fun one to watch and see whats really going on. | |
|
 BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL |
BK3
Member
2008-Nov-28 1:04 pm
'Tis the new American WayDon't offer a better price .....
Don't offer a better product ...
Don't offer a better service ....
Just sue your competition so the consumer gets no choice and has to use your product/service at your price or do without. | |
|
| | |
Re: 'Tis the new American WayAhhh Time Warner is just finally realizing their screwing of customers for years has finally put them close to out of business.
We have all heard the ads from TWC where they say "try are all the best package with internet speeds 10X faster than DSL." Now TWC offers their all the best package that comes with 768 internet, thats 4X faster than DSL! DSL's slowest speed is 768.
Only one more month that we are stuck with TWC | |
|
|  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX |
to BK3
said by BK3:Just sue your competition so the consumer gets no choice and has to use your product/service at your price or do without. And then impose ridiculously low (40GB) usage caps when the consumer has no other choice. Though AT&T is also going to implement caps - theirs are much more generous. | |
|
| | |
to BK3
said by BK3:Don't offer a better price ..... Don't offer a better product ... Don't offer a better service .... Just sue your competition so the consumer gets no choice and has to use your product/service at your price or do without. Wait, I can do this? Anyone got the number of a good lawyer? | |
|
 Metatron2008You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state |
It's funny to watch people stand up for At&t..Err, excuse me, the Exaflood myth bringers who made the FCC destroy competition for 8 years. | |
|
| EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA |
EPS4
Member
2008-Nov-28 6:15 pm
Re: It's funny to watch people stand up for At&t..As opposed to the biggest advocate for low caps, Time Warner Cable? No company (not even Verizon) is immune here, might as well go for the side of the carrier that's at least providing some competition rather than the one who is trying to block it. (Though vandalizing cable equipment is bad and if they're doing it deliberately they do deserve punishment) | |
|
 sabersaw
Premium Member
join:2001-08-21
Dayton, OH |
sabersaw
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 1:51 pm
NID accessNot directly related to the suit but... I have wondered about the legality of ATT going into TW NIDs to use pre-existing coax. Sure the coax going into the house is probably now the home owners. But those NIDs are still property of TW right? | |
|
|  cfm117
join:2004-02-13
Winnetka, CA |
cfm117
Member
2008-Nov-28 2:13 pm
Re: NID accessNo difference as Time Warner goes into ATT NIDS to reuse inside wiring ATT installed. | |
|
| | sabersaw
Premium Member
join:2001-08-21
Dayton, OH |
sabersaw
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 2:18 pm
Re: NID accessDidn't know that. Thought they just plugged the VoIP ATAs into an inside RJ-11 jack. But I have never noticed before. | |
|
| | |  NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
Re: NID accesssaid by sabersaw:Didn't know that. Thought they just plugged the VoIP ATAs into an inside RJ-11 jack. But I have never noticed before. Don't they have to disconnect the premises from the telco loop when they do that? Doesn't disconnection of the premises from the telco loop mean physically accessing the telco MPOE (whether station protector, or NID) to cut the connection? | |
|
| | | | sabersaw
Premium Member
join:2001-08-21
Dayton, OH |
sabersaw
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 2:59 pm
Re: NID accessI suppose that would be good practice even if not required. But couldn't just disconnecting the customer side solve that problem. I am not that familiar with this stuff. Have more experience with smartjacks and business copper demarcation rules. But to me there is a difference between opening up the customer side of ATT's NID and cutting a tag off and opening TW's NID. | |
|
| | | | | | |
TWCtech
Anon
2008-Nov-28 10:57 pm
Re: NID accessWhen installing digital phone at a customer's residence, and when customer wants all phone lines active in the house, we have the authorization to access the Customers side of the Telco NID, to get to the customers phone lines. We do not have the authorization to access the Phone company's side of the NID, nor can we touch the RJ-11 plugs in the NID. IF we do so, and it's found...we can incur fines and/or lawsuits from the TELCO.
When do go into the NID, we then move the phone lines over to our own Telco NID that we install. The only times that we do not need to access the NID, is if a customer wants to have a "base station" install....which usually occurs when a customer only has one phone (cordless) or a main phone base with other satellite phones that just need to be plugged into an electrical outlet. Or if in some instances where a residence does not have its on NID, and all phone lines run to a main phone pedestal near the building.....we have to do "base station" installs since by law, we cannot access their pedestals, which is grounds for a hefty fine and termination. | |
|
| | | | | |
to NormanS
When my company switches a subscriber from Verizon to Atlantic Broadband phone service, we:
Unplug the RJ connector in the NID and put a piece of tape over the connector to "remind" nosy folks not to plug it back in. This isolates the telco loop from the house wiring.
Plug in a phone cord from the MTA to an internal phone jack in the home. This activates all the phone outlets existing in the home.
You DO own the interior wiring in your home & are responsible for it. Just call the phone company to fix an interior wiring issue; if you're not paying "insurance" or "wire maintenance" monthly fees, you'll get a stiff bill. Doesn't matter if it's telephone wire or cable coax, if it is on your side of the network interface, it is yours.
Note that I cannot attest to the behavior of the employees and contractors for other cable & phone companies.
NetLarry | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |
to sabersaw
Here, Cox installed their own NID and left AT&T's on the wall. So I have both on the outside of my home. No biggie to me. | |
|
| |
italia
Anon
2008-Nov-28 2:33 pm
TW CoaxI've worked at Uverse's tier 2 support and ATT does not use TWC's cable and neither does TWC. It's against the law for ATT to use TWC's lines and they don't have permission to. ATT has been known for doing these types of things on purpose. Trust me as they are by far the worst company I have ever worked for and they are very untrustworthly..... | |
|
| cfm117
join:2004-02-13
Winnetka, CA |
cfm117
Member
2008-Nov-28 6:33 pm
Re: TW Coaxsaid by italia :
I've worked at Uverse's tier 2 support and ATT does not use TWC's cable and neither does TWC. It's against the law for ATT to use TWC's lines and they don't have permission to. ATT has been known for doing these types of things on purpose. Trust me as they are by far the worst company I have ever worked for and they are very untrustworthly.....
Says the troll with the rr.com address | |
|
| | | |
Re: TW Coaxsaid by cfm117:said by italia :
I've worked at Uverse's tier 2 support and ATT does not use TWC's cable and neither does TWC. It's against the law for ATT to use TWC's lines and they don't have permission to. ATT has been known for doing these types of things on purpose. Trust me as they are by far the worst company I have ever worked for and they are very untrustworthly.....
Says the troll with the rr.com address I second that. But, to be realistic any company has the right to to use the phone lines that are run to a person's house/business. It's just a matter of time before our circus of a government realizes that cable companies really do run monopolies and are forced to share the coax also...but of course this hasn't happened due to stability issues of the different companies because natural law of economics says that prices will keep dropping to get customers to sign up to a specific company. Prices could drop so low to the point where a company couldn't compete and go out of business.... Though, for some cable companies this wouldn't be such a bad thing  . | |
|
 CableGei
Premium Member
join:2004-05-27
Castle Rock, CO |
CableGei
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 2:46 pm
Pay Back.I believe this is mainly about damage incurred from U-Verse installations on the customer's premesis, such as house boxes broken into in order to access coax (debatable, as this becomes the customer's property), improper hookups resulting in noise being injected into TWC's plant, MDU lock boxes being broken into to access coax, TWC customers getting disconnected as a result of inexperienced U-Verse Premises Techs attempting to tone out and locate outlets within MDU lock boxes, "stealing" the bond/ground equipment, improper hookup resulting in TWC services not working within the home (for homes that have both at&t and TWC services).
It basically the same things that the phone companies whined about when cable companies entered the phone business... it's just the other way around now. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 7:00 pm
The facts:the technicians don't care about the competitionSo if they inadvertently damage the competitions equipment, (or not so inadvertently) they simply don't care. | |
|
ctggzg
Premium Member
join:2005-02-11
USA |
ctggzg
Premium Member
2008-Nov-28 10:08 pm
Aren't vandalism and trespassing criminal charges?What is this doing in civil court? | |
|
| |
Hmmn.I'm in a Charter area but TWC is on the other side of the river, Usually the cable companies bond as one. I wonder in this situation who Charter respects more, The Competitor or the coop. I.E. ATT=Verizon, TWC=Charter. | |
|
| |
tida
Anon
2008-Dec-1 10:44 am
my coax was removedwhen the att uverse guy came installed my uverse service he did rewire my house with cat5 nice bonus but later i found out he removed my coax that was installed under my house that was installed by the cable company many years ago. luckly I love my uverse service and would not switch back TWC because they are to expensive and the quality is no comparison. but I still believe they had no right to remove my coax. but the question is it my coax cable or TWC coax I did have to pay for the install many years ago so I believe I on it or if they do give you a free install they make you sign a contract for 2 years. so i believe I still on it I pay for it over 2 years of service. so the lawsuit should be the homeowner verses TWC and the companies they contract to install. sounds like a class action that more lawyers will get rich on and us consumers will get or $2.50 check for | |
|
|
|
.
