 
soup du jour
I'm so bad... I should be in detention
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Danbury, CT | finally a good decision! YEA!!! no comcast for me in danbury YEA!!!
*cheering up and down* | |
|  | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI | Re: finally a good decision! Be careful what you ask for... You're only getting a different name to the same problems... or worse, since they have almost ZERO oversight and penalties for their mistakes. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Good Another asinine blockade to progress removed. Everyone wins in this one.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | 
meskinct
This space for rent
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Re: Good Agreed. | |
| | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
| said by pnh102  :Another asinine blockade to progress removed. Everyone wins in this one. The PUC decided to ignore state law and the judge slapped them down as a result. As he should have. Now Ct. gets some competition, which was the laws intent all along. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Good said by LiamJunket :Now Ct. gets some competition, which was the laws intent all along. I am just against any law that restricts information service delivery for any reason. People here always whine about how the USA is supposedly "so far behind" in broadband. I assert that the primary reason is that government at all levels goes after the companies which actually want to provide service.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
 ·ViaTalk
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Re: Good This is a moronic argument. AT&T, Verizon, and all the other big telecomms impede progress, so they can make more money. It has nothing to do with government. I almost all areas, the new provider simply has to meet the standards of the curent providers- A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. This is simply a ploy to get out of responsibilities to there customers and have carte blanch to do what they want when they want to who they want.
Gotta love these anti-American people that would love to divide our country into "haves" and "have nots"... | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Good said by boober321 :This is a moronic argument. AT&T, Verizon, and all the other big telecomms impede progress, so they can make more money. Really? Then why are AT&T and Verizon implementing U-Verse and FIOS, respectively? Are these not next generation technologies?
The costs of these deployments are huge and the only hope for any recovery of that investment is that people purchase these services.
said by boober321 : It has nothing to do with government. The government is the one telling these companies that they cannot do business.
said by boober321 : I almost all areas, the new provider simply has to meet the standards of the curent providers- A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. So AT&T, or any other company, shouldn't try to see if it can get a more favorable deal with the government? Just because other companies were too lazy to bother doing that, doesn't mean AT&T should be faulted for doing it.
said by boober321 : This is simply a ploy to get out of responsibilities to there customers and have carte blanch to do what they want when they want to who they want. What responsibilities? If customers do not find U-Verse service favorable, they will not buy it.
said by boober321 :Gotta love these anti-American people that would love to divide our country into "haves" and "have nots"... So how would you solve this? If the judge had not ruled the way he had, no one in CT would have any hope of getting U-Verse. Is that what you want?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Re: Good said by pnh102 :The costs of these deployments are huge and the only hope for any recovery of that investment is that people purchase these services. They stifle other enterprises that would offer cheaper and more efficient services. Why is it that other countries like South Korea have vastly superior networks? It's because big telecomm in America drag their feet and stop other others from using innovative technologies. Much like Verizon's lawsuit against Vonage. Extremely over broad patents that should never have been issued, used to stop cheaper solutions from being offered.
And BTW- U-Verse is ANYTHING but cutting edge. They're using the same crap as always except now they have to limit internet speeds to also provide a crappy same as everyone else television product...
said by pnh102 :The government is the one telling these companies that they cannot do business. No, the government is telling then they have to FOLLOW RULES to operate, instead of being given the ability to run rough shot over the customers and local communities.
said by pnh102 :So AT&T, or any other company, shouldn't try to see if it can get a more favorable deal with the government? Just because other companies were too lazy to bother doing that, doesn't mean AT&T should be faulted for doing it. No they shouldn't. They undermine the wishes of the communities they service. The requirements for these companies is often minimal and require they perform at a specified level... I see absolutely no harm in that.
said by pnh102 :What responsibilities? If customers do not find U-Verse service favorable, they will not buy it. What of the people that DO buy it and get the shaft? There is little to no recourse or oversight.
said by pnh102 :So how would you solve this? If the judge had not ruled the way he had, no one in CT would have any hope of getting U-Verse. Is that what you want? Please. They are simply using a scare tactic to get what they want. If there is profits to be made they will be there. Only now, they can cherry pick so only a select few can get a choice. So nice that you so easily abandon your fellow citizens for a half-rate internet/cable selection. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: Good The answer would likely depend on which side of that choice the person you are asking is standing on. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI | It is better to get a company in that will roll out the service FOR ALL customers. Great that you are one of those anti-Americans that want to develop a two tiered system for the rich and the poor. | |
| | | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Good said by boober321 :It is better to get a company in that will roll out the service FOR ALL customers. Great that you are one of those anti-Americans that want to develop a two tiered system for the rich and the poor. So are you saying products/services shouldnt be released if everyone in the country cant afford them?? I am not in any way advocating a two tiered system here, but sometimes its not economically feasible to roll something out to 100% of a geographic area. Furthermore, your argument is fundamentally flawed. People said the same thing about FIOS (that they cherry pick wealthy areas), however that has been shown over and over not to be the case. There are plenty of lower income areas that have FIOS these days. Look at the NYC and DC metro areas and suburbs if you dont believe me. Sure, a lower income area might not be the first to get a particular service, but does that even matter?
People on this website seem to forget that companies exist for one purpose; and this is to make money. As for your "Anti American" comments, you honestly make me laugh. So if I understand YOU correctly, you think being "Pro American" means believing "if I cant get something then neither can Johnny accross the street". I have news for you bud, thats not called being "Pro American", thats called being a selfish prick.
--
я люблю Денди! | |
| | | | | | | 
greendragon
Premium
join:2003-09-20
Stewartville, MN | Re: Good Although I may have worded it a little differently, I agree with you 100%. | |
| | | | | | | 
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
 from:
ross
| quote:
So let me ask you this. Which is better, choices for some customers OR no choices for all customers?
Choices for some is better. But are you really acting in good faith when you suggest that the stark option is either deregulated broadband duopoly or none of us has anything. We have, in the past, attained universal coverage of services by a combination of for profit behavior in markets, government regulation, and socializing some of the costs of infrastructure development.
quote:
So are you saying products/services shouldnt be released if everyone in the country cant afford them?? I am not in any way advocating a two tiered system here, but sometimes its not economically feasible to roll something out to 100% of a geographic area.
So which are we talking about? Whether everyone can afford them or whether the company even provides the opportunity for people to buy them?
I don't think anyone is arguing that, if everyone can't afford something, no one should have the chance to get it but how long should we expect those who don't have the opportunity to buy to continue tolerating the trickle down argument. In most of the country there is a duopoly without the previous longstanding tradition that market dominating companies, that build and maintain basic infrastructure, should have a requirement to attain coverage for everyone in exchange for society tolerating their market dominance.
No on denies that businesses exist to make money, nor would I argue that it is wrong for them to exist to make money. There is a long record of bad consequences, though, when the profit motive combines with the power to control a market. The problem is when, for ideological reasons, we allow a small number of these for profits to control the country's communication infrastructure, tell people who are denied access to this infrastructure that they should go f themselves, and simultaneously deny society the ability to use other mechanisms to get infrastructure built, such as government action. If it isn't feasible for these companies to build infrastructure so be it, but they should get the hell out of the way when society tries to get it built by other means. If they won't get out of the way then society should move them out of the way without any remorse.
Corporations seeking profit is fine. Allowing corporations to dominate the infrastructure that a society depends on and then cutting the legs out from under all attempts(whether antitrust, regulation, public infrastructure build) to find a way around that domination is NOT fine. Expecting society to sacrifice all other interests to the moloch of corporate profits is NOT fine. Corporate profit is not the only value in human civilization. | |
| | | | | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| said by wifi4milez :So are you saying products/services shouldnt be released if everyone in the country cant afford them?? I am not in any way advocating a two tiered system here, but sometimes its not economically feasible to roll something out to 100% of a geographic area. Furthermore, your argument is fundamentally flawed. People said the same thing about FIOS (that they cherry pick wealthy areas), however that has been shown over and over not to be the case. There are plenty of lower income areas that have FIOS these days. Look at the NYC and DC metro areas and suburbs if you dont believe me. Sure, a lower income area might not be the first to get a particular service, but does that even matter? People on this website seem to forget that companies exist for one purpose; and this is to make money. As for your "Anti American" comments, you honestly make me laugh. So if I understand YOU correctly, you think being "Pro American" means believing "if I cant get something then neither can Johnny accross the street". I have news for you bud, thats not called being "Pro American", thats called being a selfish prick. Being Pro-American means we stick up for each other, instead of the "I get mine screw my neighbor" attitude you have. AT&T can make a profit by serving all communities. No one ever said the roll out had to be completely done before it can be offered, but they shouldn't be able to pick here and there and leave it at that. And don't be stupid, big telecomm has been leaving communities out of the loop since they started rolling out the service. And when the communities band together to start their own services, AT&T and Verizon are there to do everything in their power to squash that possibility.
And let's not forget that AT&T is using the PUBLICLY subsidized lines that we all paid for. They have a duty as a utility to serve the community and they are trying to get out of that. If they want to cherry pick, let them put up their own private lines on property that isn't the government's (ie. the easement on private property for utilities.) | |
| | | | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Good said by boober321 :Being Pro-American means we stick up for each other, instead of the "I get mine screw my neighbor" attitude you have. That sounds a lot like you are saying "I didnt get mine so screw my neighbor they cant have theirs!" Just a pinch selfish, dont you think?
said by boober321 :AT&T can make a profit by serving all communities. Really? Are you sure, have you checked the numbers yourself? I can assure you that if they could make a profit (get ready for this) they would do it! Keep in mind that ATT, like other companies, is looking to turn a profit. People like you truly believe this is some huge conspiracy, dont you? Pure entertainment, let me tell you!
--
я люблю Денди! | |
| | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| said by wifi4milez :...I have news for you bud, thats not called being "Pro American", thats called being a selfish prick. Definitively your area of expertise... | |
| | | | | | skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by boober321 :It is better to get a company in that will roll out the service FOR ALL customers. Great that you are one of those anti-Americans that want to develop a two tiered system for the rich and the poor.
You are correct, it IS better to have a service rolled out to ALL customers but that is economically not feasible. The payback on a system that only feeds a handful of customers (such as in the less populated areas of the state) would be far too long, if at all.
Given that, it makes sense that the company will invest in areas that will make money - what company wouldn't? But, to say that this is being delivered to the rich only and not the poor is WAY off target. Uverse is already installed in the downtown areas of Waterbury, New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport, etc. If you want to call those areas rich feel free, but I would hate to see your definition of poor.
Uverse is being deployed in areas that have the highest density first to enable AT&T to make the most bang for the buck. I suppose you can say that is wrong, especially if you live in the rural areas, but it is business. | |
| | | | | | 
MrFixitCT
Premium,VIP,ExMod 2001-06
join:2000-12-01
Guilford, CT | as a matter of absolute fact Uverse is available in more lower income areas than higher income, simply a metter of economics and population density, most bang for their buck. Logical business sense it is.. | |
| | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| said by sm2016a :Thats my main problem with AT&T they cherry pick and so do many other corporations but it all comes down to how can i make the most money with spending the least. Business 101. | |
| majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | Thats not right So verizon and att can do what ever they want and cable companies cant? That seems a little unfair dont you think? | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Thats not right Cable companies will be getting the same perks shortly. | |
| | | 
kpfx
join:2005-10-28
Kerrville, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Thats not right Actually the "perks" only come with the state franchises and "shortly" is only relative to the city you're in.
Traditionally when negotiating for a city franchise the thinking of the lawyers was to get the longest term possible. Over here in Texas most cities signed franchises for 10 year terms. There are even a few cable systems running under a 99 year term with the cities.
The problem is that the companies running under these city-signed franchises cannot just drop them for the state franchises. What's unfair is that in many of these cities you'll now have one company running on a city franchise and another under the state franchise which tends to be more pro-business than pro-consumer.
But the point in this case is that AT&T is trying to pass their TV services off as competition to cable while telling lawmakers that its service isn't cable. Reality will eventually hit them too. Just because their delivery is IP based doesn't change a thing about their services. Cable and FiOS can already go switched digital over QAM and IP formats respectively, and they're classified as "cable". To the end user its the exact same thing. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | I see this as precedence to change cable's franchise agreements/requirements. | |
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by majortom1029 :So verizon and att can do what ever they want and cable companies cant? There is nothing stopping cable companies from pursuing the same legal offensive. Just because the cable companies chose not to do this doesn't mean that the phone companies should be chastised for choosing to do this.
In the end, it helps to bring about another choice for customers, and more jobs to CT, among other things. So it is good.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI | Re: Thats not right A short sighted statement if ever I heard one. | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Thats not right said by boober321 :A short sighted statement if ever I heard one. How is that?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Re: Thats not right said by pnh102 :How is that? It brings a choice to a select few, brings a hand full of low paying jobs to the community and in the end will cost the community in terms of service and selection. | |
| | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Thats not right said by boober321 :It brings a choice to a select few, brings a hand full of low paying jobs to the community and in the end will cost the community in terms of service and selection. Huh?
Let's see. If U-Verse doesn't exist in a place, then that is one less choice for service. If it does exist, then that is one more choice. Simple math at work.
How will more choice cost the community selection?
And as for jobs, what would you rather have, low paying jobs that people who would otherwise have no other form of employment could take, or no jobs?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | Claybraker
join:2002-04-13
none
| said by boober321 : brings a hand full of low paying jobs to the community I'll agree with you there. at&t should pay their people much better than they do now. | |
| |
soup du jour
I'm so bad... I should be in detention
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Danbury, CT
| said by majortom1029 :So verizon and att can do what ever they want and cable companies cant? That seems a little unfair dont you think? i cant honestly say i agree or disagee - my only thoughts are that comcrap CANNOT be the only option for tv service - that is unconstitutional
other than the dish that went out every time it sprinkled
i say again - YEA AT&T U-VERSE and BOO to COMCRAP - i will never have cable from them again... NEVER! | |
| | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL | then phone companies should not be forced to open their networks to competitors either. I don't see cable companies being forced to provide competitors the ability to move into their buildings and provide access to their voip network...... | |
| | | majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | Re: Thats not right Cable did not get PUBLIC money to build their network. | |
| | | |
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| Re: Thats not right Well, I'm a member of "the public", and Comcast has been getting my money over the years, so that's "public money" of a sort.  More importantly the cableco (and telco) infrastructure is built on public property (as in, property not owned by the cableco or telco). It's really just a problem of timing. The Cable TV build-out started decades ago, and the rules were different, and they made sense for the time. Now the rules are changing and not in a particularly "fair" way--fair to whom depends on whom you talk to.
Government regulation is bad--it means more taxes; or it's good--consumer protection is of paramount importance to all of us consumers (and I'll let you know when I think my interests are actually being protected over and above the interests of these large corporations... if that ever happens. ) For now, more competition is the best we can hope for expect. | |
| | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| Phone companies used to be forced to open up their networks. There was a lot more competition and differentation of price and service. My experience of course was in Southern California. PacBell/SBC/ATT would sell you one speed at a price, while other cariers would sell DIFFERENT, sometimes higher speeds, for less. It seemed pretty good to me. | |
| wareagletsf
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Hartford, CT
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| U-verse is good but I would like to see the state open to other competitors, right now ATT is the "only" POT phone service, and for the most part Comcast is the only cable service in most parts of the state, a few areas are cox and a few are charter, but comcast is the major provider, I would like to see several providers in the state where you can get any service anywhere in the state. Right now it is a monopolistic state. | |
| Diesel16
join:2003-10-05
New Fairfield, CT
| Uverse I am looking forward to new service at my house in Middltwon. Comcast was the only choice. I do not have a line of sight for Dish or Direct tv. I have gone with comcast from full digital package with internet to the bottom line 12 channel package and even that package is not reliable. ATT Dsl has been good so far for me.... | |
| 
booticon
join:2007-07-31
East Lyme, CT
| Ugh. The Attorney General is a coward.
He said this in response to AT&T's application for a video franchise:
Pursuant to the controlling ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, AT&T is an unfranchised cable company illegally providing cable service in Connecticut. AT&T is therefore not a lawfully operating video service provider nor is it a franchised cable company seeking to provide competitive service outside its franchise area. Instead, AT&T is a third category – a cable company that is unlawfully operating without a franchise. source And he said this in reponse to the court's decision:
"I welcome some finality to the legal battle so that a competitive service can be provided to cable consumers as soon as possible - as widely and broadly as possible.
"Our hope is that AT&T fulfills its promise and potential to enable real competition and consumer benefits - not just to a select few, but to as many consumers feasible, as I have said repeatedly.
"While we are reviewing the judge's ruling, our view at this point is that there should be no appeal. We may differ on legal issues, but we share the goal of providing cable consumers with this new service so they hopefully have the benefits of lower prices and better service. Continued legal combat ill serves that common objective.
"Even as new facilities are installed and new customers enlisted, there may be a need to refine the regulatory process through legislative action so as to assure a level playing field for all potential competitors. This question perhaps is for another day in the new year when the legislature reconvenes." source However, it's a moot point, trying to get AT&T to abide by more rules; they don't even abide by DPUC regulations as a telco. | |
| |
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net | Re: Ugh. Coward. Politician. "A rose by any other name..." | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
1 edit | This was the right thing to have happened.... While I've thought little to nothing of Uverse as a service itself..particularly compared to what Verizon is doing..
as I have expressed on numerous occasions I do support statewide franchises and have felt for all the services faults..and even AT&T's behavior as a company..that they should still be licensed under this new law.
And, that is now apparently going to happen.
There are several important points to remember about what happened here in Ct. AT&T denied they were a cable co.
And, as any 2 year old could have seen in reading the laws that regulate the cable industry..that simply was not the case. And, I believe AT&T knew it..and decided to proceed anyway. That speaks volumes about their corporate responsibility to abide by and follow the law.
How unsure of themselves were they? While they were doing it..they were pushing for a new statewide franchise. Of course they were doing that because of course they knew they were going to lose on the legal points...which they ultimately did.
A Federal court judge here in Ct. made that decision..and said definitively that yes..Uverse is a cable tv service.
Wow..what a big surprise there..huh AT&T?
Meanwhile..what they WERE successful at was in getting a statewide franchise law passed. And, they probably spent more than a few restless nights recently sweating it out when after ALL that..the DPUC said..guess what? We're not approving you under it. I don't think the dpuc did it for any other reason except to uphold the federal courts decision. The dpuc's decision was the wrong one though..because clearly it was the intent of the new law to address this type of service.
And so, here we are today. They'll get licensed as they should. But let it not be forgotten the way that this company proceeded. It was anything but good corporate citizen like IMHO.
None of this addresses the primary issue itself..which of course..is the service itself. At best..this companies showing has been weak in the number of customers they've signed on so far..after all this time..nationwide in their service areas.
It's not hard to see that verizon and THEIR strategy..which should be noted ALSO included recognizing the existing laws...is now blowing them away in terms of customers taking their FTTH services.
And, that is no wonder either..because it truly is the advanced..next generation service to compete with the cable industry.
There is also another reason I fully support this law. Who's really to NOW say that perhaps a Verizon won't at some point now decide to come into this state..and compete as well?
After all..we are surrounded by them. This law will make it much easier to do so.
The bottom line is..Uverse needs to really shape up it's act if they hope to compete here. And to truly attract the numbers of customers they'll need to make it a success.
And, even I think there is opportunity for them to do so. If they start to get creative about it.
Key to that would be the concept I call flexible bandwidth.
If there is a 25Mb pipe coming into peoples homes..WHY.does that have to be restricted to what AT&T wants people to use it for? Why can't a customer decide that for themselves?
In other words..if they want to use it all for the net..and leave the TV's off..let it flow to that.
And..vice versa.
This truly could make uverse be at least something creative and new.
And..could even help turn someone as negative as myself much more positive about the service itself.
I continue to believe however that the real future is for them to follow in verizons footsteps.
Look at their 20/20Mb service now.
That truly is revolutionary..and something that AT&T should be doing as well.
In any event..it's time to move past the regulatory rhetoric..and with this post..I will do just that myself.
The right thing has happened in that regard..whether someone likes the service or not. | |
| | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Re: This was the right thing to have happened.... said by Rick : I do support statewide franchises If the telecomms weren't writing these laws, I'd be for it too. But when they go to state laws, consumer protections are completely dropped and the bar set for service is substantially dropped. Enacting a reasonable law that compensates local communities (it is their property the telecomms are using) and provides for consumer complaints and levels of service is the only way to write a fair and just franchising law. | |
| | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: This was the right thing to have happened.... I do think that these statewide agreements for the most part cover the areas you mention.
I also think it's rather unfair to dictate to a company that they HAVE to service every area...especially initially when they're trying to get a foothold into an area or a state.
Personally, I've never really seen that as an issue anyway with this kind of service and I do suspect that it's AT&T's intention anyway to service many of the poorer communities.
Or..at least..the working class ones.
They might be the most ideal customers actually for a service that is competing the way that this one is on price.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Re: This was the right thing to have happened.... said by Rick :I do think that these statewide agreements for the most part cover the areas you mention. Have you actually read any of the state franchising laws? I can say for a fact that WI's (based on the Texas law) guts consumer protections and releases them from any monetary requirements for local communities.
As for then not having to service all areas... I disagree as well, as does our government. The USF is made to subsidize rural areas, but that money is a cash cow for telecomms and god forbid they have to use it to actually service rural areas... | |
| | | | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: This was the right thing to have happened.... Yes..I have read some. At least in summary form.
While I'm probably the last one on this website to defend AT&T, I do think that it's fair to consider that there should at least be somewhat of a level playing field. The cable co's, vonage..and others are having a field day taking their landline customers to the tune of 400,000k or so per quarter.
And, in the process, are subject to hardly any..if any..regulation at all.
In my mind that didn't excuse them from proceeding with uverse when clearly..there were the cable laws to contend with.
At the same time however, statewide laws are now there to foster competition and to not be too overly restrictive in doing so.
People should remember that just because a law exists in a certain form today..it can be changed and ammended..and often times is. At the onset of something however, it's unfair to place too much burden on a new entrant into a business, and expect them to operate their business in an unprofitable manner. That starts to smell like too much control over a company to me..and not the free enterprise system our democracy values.
Again, I really don't buy the argument that AT&T is out to bypass poorer areas either. In fact, I've seen vrads hanging off telephone poles just today in a city I was in here in Ct. that I certainly wouldn't call an upscale neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination. And, as far as consumer protections..I've seen nothing to suggest that they're trying to overprice the service. Quite the reverse..that's it's strongest point..that it is very reasonably priced overall.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | |
|
|
U-Verse Will Proceed in CT