  grcore New and Improved
join:2003-12-06 usa 1 edit | ATT will eventually get what they want... They will buy whoever necessarry.
Too bad the folks in the tri-cities area fell for their marketing in the first place....
Let that be a lesson to all.. | |
|
 |  jammmin
join:2000-12-14 Upper Marlboro, MD | Re: ATT will eventually get what they want... Why doesn't AT & T play by the rules. Verizon is playing by the rules, getting franchise agreement, has service in 7 states while AT & T bullies their way and getting nowhere. | |
|
 |  |  UofMiamiGrad Premium join:2001-02-03 Great Neck, NY
| Re: ATT will eventually get what they want... said by jammmin :Why doesn't AT & T play by the rules. Verizon is playing by the rules, getting franchise agreement, has service in 7 states while AT & T bullies their way and getting nowhere. VZ didn't play by the rules either. My local town was PO'ed that VZ did work without notifying the local muni that they were doing the FIOS work and putting the FDHs on the poles, as required. Luckily none of the towns filed an injunction on VZ, so construction was allowed to proceed. Now I think the local towns are getting back at VZ by not moving their feet on a franchise agreement for TV. It's all about lining the pockets of the politicians in the end, leaving us, the consumer, hostage.  | |
|
 |  |  |   en102 Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: ATT will eventually get what they want... I agree... From reading on this (as well as Geneva), AT&T wants to deploy fiber and/or IPTV w/o TV franchise agreements, and be able to use city Rights of Way, not be held accountable for deployment coverage or programming. AT&T is suing based on their claim that they are upgrading their service (i.e. phone line service). If thats the case, they're trying loopholes to push TV service. If I was a competing service, I'd be sueing AT&T if they did put IPTV on the line, and claimed it as an 'upgrade' to their phone service. | |
|
 |  |   rahlquist Redeye
join:2001-10-30 Villa Rica, GA
| Why doesn't AT & T play by the rules. Verizon is playing by the rules, getting franchise agreement, has service in 7 states while AT & T bullies their way and getting nowhere. Because AT&T is bigger, has more money to thro around and has the NSA watching their back and the freedom of our country hinges on AT&T being as big as humanly possible in order to feed Uncle Sam as much information about you as possible. After all, Lightspeed brings video capability to the home and lord know who may be watching DIY to figure out how to usurp the US government by building cheaper toilet seats! | |
|
 |   packetscan Premium join:2004-10-19 Bridgeport, CT clubs:
·Optimum Online
| said by grcore :They will buy whoever necessarry. Too bad the folks in the tri-cities area fell for their marketing in the first place.... Let that be a lesson to all.. The Sad thing is you are right.
If you want something from the senate / house it can be purchased. -- Who do you want to pay off today? | |
|
 qworster
join:2001-11-25 Los Angeles, CA | Shoot all the lawyers... The lawyers are all our problems. Shoot them all and we'll be better off for it. | |
|
 |  jammmin
join:2000-12-14 Upper Marlboro, MD | Re: Shoot all the lawyers... I think the bigger problem is that AT & T says it will not seek a franchise agreement to offer video service because it regards its IPTV service as "informational".
AT & T will not get too far by doing this. | |
|
 |  |
 |  soccerguy
join:2004-06-28 Seattle, WA | Ah yes. Blame the lawyers for all of "our problems." And to advocate killing them. Wow. | |
|
 |   Rogue Wolf Ate The Last Of The Pumpkin Pie
join:2003-08-12 Troy, NY | Lawyers wouldn't be such a problem if so many people didn't run to them at the first sign of difficulty. -- Non impediti ratione cogitationis.  | |
|
 |
 |   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: What if... said by meskinct :What if AT&T pulled out of this area completely? No POTS, no DSL, no service at all. Play hardball with 'em. Don't know if that's possible or not. State PUC and the FCC would prevent that. AT&T/SBC local voice access is still regulated. I am sure they could pull out over many years by selling to someone else, but it would all have to be approved by regulators. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL | Re: What if... I believe AT&T made agreements with the State of Illinois (one which guaranteed no competition on POTS) that would prevent them from pulling all service to these areas as well. | |
|
 |  |  |   meskinct Mad Scientist at Work Premium join:2002-01-07 Danbury, CT clubs: | Re: What if... I tried  | |
|
  yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH
| Who exactly wins here? What good is retribution when it still denies residents access to the communication services they desire? This reads more like the vindictive act of a selfish city council rather than something designed to benefit residents. -- Wiki Wiki First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
 |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by yock :What good is retribution when it still denies residents access to the communication services they desire? This reads more like the vindictive act of a selfish city council rather than something designed to benefit residents. I think you are right on the city council being a little vindictive, but I also think they might be doing this to open some eyes of the residents of these communities as well. Remember, these cities voted the muni-broadband project down with help from negative ads run by Comcast/SBC talking about using tax dollars to support porn surfing. This might be just the wake up call they need. | |
|
 |  |  averagedude
join:2002-01-30 Mesa, AZ | Re: Who exactly wins here? I agree (trying to think in a positive way) that the city council is trying to give its residents a wake up call. | |
|
 |  |   yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH
| said by cbrigante2 :said by yock :What good is retribution when it still denies residents access to the communication services they desire? This reads more like the vindictive act of a selfish city council rather than something designed to benefit residents. I think you are right on the city council being a little vindictive, but I also think they might be doing this to open some eyes of the residents of these communities as well. Remember, these cities voted the muni-broadband project down with help from negative ads run by Comcast/SBC talking about using tax dollars to support porn surfing. This might be just the wake up call they need. It isn't City Council's responsibility to usurp the voter's decision. However skewed those poll results were, the voters supported the Telco and it is the City's responsibility to follow through on that referendum.
The city missed their chance to battle this by not campaigning against the skewed poll when it occurred. -- Wiki Wiki First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
 |  |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL
| Re: Who exactly wins here? How have they usurped anything yet? If anything, they are upholding what the voters asked for. The voters asked for fair service from a private vendor (in this case Comcast and SBC). The council is asking that AT&T enter into an agreement that would hold them accountable to this (just like Comcast did for tv service). | |
|
 |  |  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by cbrigante2 :How have they usurped anything yet? If anything, they are upholding what the voters asked for. The voters rejected municipal broadband when it was put on the ballot.
I think this city should drop the pissing contest with AT&T and let them implement their service. Today its the citizens that are losing out on a great new technology. Tomorrow it will be the town itself when more people decide to leave or not move in because this service isn't available there. -- Tancredo 2008! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by KoolMoe :Better to have 100% of residents have the service available to them in a year as opposed to 30% having it available immediately and the remaining folks getting it...maybe never. That's a true statement, but currently 0% of residents in Batavia have this service, and with the city council's continued BS-ing, 0% will continue to have this service. -- Tancredo 2008! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by pnh102 :said by KoolMoe :Better to have 100% of residents have the service available to them in a year as opposed to 30% having it available immediately and the remaining folks getting it...maybe never. That's a true statement, but currently 0% of residents in Batavia have this service, and with the city council's continued BS-ing, 0% will continue to have this service. Sort of true. The reason they don't have this service (up until this point) was AT&T failing to deliver, and the citizens failing to approve the Muni feasibility study a few years back. All this "Bs-ing" has done is push it back 180 days. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by cbrigante2 :All this "Bs-ing" has done is push it back 180 days. But its still unnecessary. AT&T could have begun the buildout in that time. The town gains nothing by waiting. -- Tancredo 2008! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by pnh102 :said by cbrigante2 :All this "Bs-ing" has done is push it back 180 days. But its still unnecessary. AT&T could have begun the buildout in that time. The town gains nothing by waiting. Not true. The town gains what Yock is saying Mr. Collins should be gunning for; Ensuring that all citizens get the same level of service. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by cbrigante2 :Not true. The town gains what Yock is saying Mr. Collins should be gunning for; Ensuring that all citizens get the same level of service. I guess everyone having 0% access to this service is the same. -- Tancredo 2008! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by KoolMoe :So better that they just drop the whole agument and let AT&T do what they will NOW, so a few areas can get service...with no guarantee that all areas will get service? Yes, absolutely. Why should AT&T be restricted from building out the service to wherever they feel they can make money off of it? Is it fair to everyone that no one be allowed to get this service in the meantime?
Say I want to build an upscale store in the rich part of town. Would it be fair to me if the town denies my building permit because I won't build a 2nd store in a poor part of town? Is it a good thing for the town if its richer residents spend their money elsewhere? Of course not.
As long as the town stonewalls, no one will get any service and the town loses the benefit of having any sort of competition between broadband ISPs. Is this fair to the town? -- Tancredo 2008! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL | Re: Who exactly wins here? They should be restricted only because that is what they require of the competition. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by pnh102 :Yes, absolutely. Why should AT&T be restricted from building out the service to wherever they feel they can make money off of it? Is it fair to everyone that no one be allowed to get this service in the meantime? Fine BUT ATT should not be telling ANYONE that they can or cannot build anywhere. ATT wants to takes it time until someone else wants to come in and provide the service they refuse to provide.
said by pnh102 :Say I want to build an upscale store in the rich part of town. Would it be fair to me if the town denies my building permit because I won't build a 2nd store in a poor part of town? Is it a good thing for the town if its richer residents spend their money elsewhere? Of course not. Not a problem until you cry about someone else putting another store in a place you MIGHT service later. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| said by pnh102 :Yes, absolutely. Why should AT&T be restricted from building out the service to wherever they feel they can make money off of it? Because the town they want to service is setting restrictions and guarantees on providing that service. Community rights should certainly trump corporate rights.
Is it fair to everyone that no one be allowed to get this service in the meantime? Yes, if the town leaders so decide. If the townfolk don't like it, the go to town meetings, protest, and vote the bums out next election.
Say I want to build an upscale store in the rich part of town. Would it be fair to me if the town denies my building permit because I won't build a 2nd store in a poor part of town? Not even a somewhat similar analogy.
As long as the town stonewalls, no one will get any service and the town loses the benefit of having any sort of competition between broadband ISPs. Is this fair to the town? Yes, because the potential implemention without assurances the town requires could result in even more...unfairness. Your argument is that of a spoiled child who wants his toys NOW! Whaaa! No sense of what's good for the community as a whole, screw 'em. KM -- War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO
| said by pnh102 :Why should AT&T be restricted from building on public property to wherever they feel they can make money off of it? Is it fair to everyone that no one be allowed to get this service from AT&T using public property in the meantime? Say I want to build an upscale store in the rich part of town on city property. Would it be fair to me if the town let me build on public property without a lease or deed because I won't build a 2nd store in a poor part of town? Is it a good thing for the town if its richer residents spend their money elsewhere at a store willing to open at both locations? Of course not ?Is this fair to the town? You left out a critical element. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL
| said by pnh102 :said by cbrigante2 :Not true. The town gains what Yock is saying Mr. Collins should be gunning for; Ensuring that all citizens get the same level of service. I guess everyone having 0% access to this service is the same. So let me see if I have your point. Why is it ok to REQUIRE Comcast to enter into this sort of agreement for tv services, but not AT&T when they want to offer the same thing? How is this protecting the citizens?
A big part of this whole issue is AT&T really does not know how to operate it's business when it is required to play on a level field. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   JakCrow
join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA | The idea that letting at&t start build out before concessions are made on the "chance" that maybe everyone in town will get service, is foolish. at&t has set the tone, poor at&t. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH
| said by cbrigante2 :said by pnh102 :said by cbrigante2 :All this "Bs-ing" has done is push it back 180 days. But its still unnecessary. AT&T could have begun the buildout in that time. The town gains nothing by waiting. Not true. The town gains what Yock is saying Mr. Collins should be gunning for; Ensuring that all citizens get the same level of service. And reading his site more closely it appears as if they are at least trying to secure a promise from AT&T to service 100% of the municipality. I still think there's more at work here, but I'm willing to be wrong. =)
Those steel junction boxes are a damned eyesore though. Geez... -- Wiki Wiki First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by yock :Those steel junction boxes are a damned eyesore though. Geez... LOL! I'll give you that one! That was a pretty weak debate.  | |
|
 |  |  |  Desdinova
join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD
| "It isn't City Council's responsibility to usurp the voter's decision."
No, but it IS the council's responsibility to see that the voters are properly informed of all angles on all issues. Since the voter's seem to have made their previous decisions based on erroneous or fraudulent data, the council seems to be in a position to address that. I also get the feeling that they're sending AT&T a reality check: "you're here to serve us on our terms or you walk away. We made it very clear before that we don't need you to provide these services to our residents and if you don't get your head out of your coffers and see the world around you then it's time for us to knock it out for you." | |
|
 |  |  |  |   yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by Desdinova :No, but it IS the council's responsibility to see that the voters are properly informed of all angles on all issues. Which they failed to do when the time is right. Now they're hurting their residents because they're pissed at AT&T. -- Wiki Wiki First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23 Geneva, IL
| Re: Who exactly wins here? Yock:
Actually, the reality is a little different.
The cities, most importantly:
1.want to stay on the right side of the law
2.ensure all citizens within their city limits have access to the same level of service.
Rather than rehashing it all, go to »www.geneva.il.us/att/lightspeed.htm for a detailed rundown on Geneva's take - it's very similar to that of Batavia.
Regards,
Pete Collins Information Technologies Manager City of Geneva, IL pcollins@geneva.il.us | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH
| Re: Who exactly wins here? said by PeterCollins :Yock: Actually, the reality is a little different. The cities, most importantly: 1.want to stay on the right side of the law 2.ensure all citizens within their city limits have access to the same level of service. Rather than rehashing it all, go to » www.geneva.il.us/att/lightspeed.htm for a detailed rundown on Geneva's take - it's very similar to that of Batavia. Regards, Pete Collins Information Technologies Manager City of Geneva, IL pcollins@geneva.il.us Peter,
Thanks for your response in this thread. I read your response to AT&T on the Geneva, IL website. Nearly everyone on this message board agrees with your assessment of the situation, as AT&T's actions with regard to this issue have really been deplorable. My opinion is simply that this is the wrong battle to wage. Voters decided against your municipal project, albeit with bad information, and I believe your next steps should be to ensure uniform coverage throughout your municipality by AT&T. Somewhat like holding them to promises they made in their war of misinformation.
Still, good luck in your legal battle. It is encouraging at least to see local government defend what they believe is best for their residents, even if I do disagree.
-Mike -- Wiki Wiki First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   jslik That just happened Premium join:2006-03-17 clubs:
| said by PeterCollins :Yock: Actually, the reality is a little different. The cities, most importantly: 1.want to stay on the right side of the law 2.ensure all citizens within their city limits have access to the same level of service. Excellent points. AT&T doesn't have the right to define what kind of service they're providing (video/information). Unfortunately, this points out the glaring holes in current telecom law and these (what I call) 'gray' services. I'm not sure why AT&T is playing hardball with these cities, as they could get a franchise in a short amount of time if they wanted to.
The whole issue, however, will probably be moot soon with passage of some type of national franchising law. | |
|
 |   Octopussy2 Premium join:2003-03-30 Batavia, IL
| Who said the residents desired access to any video services AT&T might provide? I haven't heard residents complaining. Letters are being sent in by employees of AT&T complaining that cities are "banning" them from digging in city-owned ROWs....
First off, cities aren't "banning" AT&T from anything. They might be slowing them down a bit with moratoriums for 180 days, but a moratorium is not the same as saying it will never happen for AT&T. It is a more sensational word, however, that the Telco likes to throw around to get people all riled up.
The cities are protecting their turf (ROWs), and they have every right to do that. Have you seen the size of those Light Speed boxes? My goodness! I wouldn't want that ugly thing in front of, or next to, my house! -- It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
|
  dadkins Can you do Blu? Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| How about... ...flipping the coin on AT&T?
"In Batavia, Alderman Alan Wolff is criticizing AT&T for supporting fiber now that they're doing it, when execs called it an "unproven technology" before local leaders when Batavia was proposing it (see video). "Now when its their plan, they decide that they dont have to follow the rules on a level playing field with every other competitor on the market," says Adlerman."
Ok, so now Fiber is OK, Batavia should go ahead and roll out their own lines now that it's viable. -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
 kjl1977
join:2003-02-20 Bolingbrook, IL | All this is... ...is just a win for Comcast - who continue to fool people into thinking they need speeds faster than DSL - which is tons cheaper.  | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  Desdinova
join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: All this is... I gotta agree with dadkins on this one! DSL is WAAAAY too slow for some of the data transfers I need to do from my studio here at home. Even 4 Mbs down is slower than I'd like (and it's hell when I have to upload to a client) and I can't wait for FIOS to show up around here. | |
|
 |  |   cbrigante2 Cubs 20?? Premium join:2002-11-22 North Aurora, IL | Comcast has a little to do with this in that they had to sign a franchise agreement with the city of Batavia to provide tv service over coax. AT&T thinks they should not have to. | |
|
 |  |  |   dadkins Can you do Blu? Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA | Re: All this is... kjl1977 posted about Comcast speeds vs DSL, not TV. OT to the subject of this news item. -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
 |
 Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26 Spring Valley, CA
| this is all amusing... considering that we are all talking about distribution from corporations on how you get to communicate with one another and how you wish to receive entertainment... the irony here is quite astounding... while you the consumer are left dangling on the hook, you get to watch how muni's and the corps. hash it out as to who gets to parse whatever material to you, the consumer on the hook...
the vast gobs of money aside, don't any of you think this is just a tad strange... | |
|
 LiberalWacko
join:2006-05-02 Schenectady, NY
| Nobody Wins AT&T waged public relations war on three Illinois cities when they attempted to deploy fiber to local residents. This war has no winners and the biggest losers will be the citizens.
-- Terror, child pornography and drugs are the ultimate evils. In order to destroy them, we must give up our free speech and privacy. | |
|
  birdfeedr Premium,MVM join:2001-08-11 Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
| Watch the video... He licks his lips too many times. I think he's on cocaine. Although I may be mistaken. He's certainly lying through his teeth.
1. Batavia (and Geneva) is not insisting it all be done at once before it's turned on. They are insisting that all areas be serviced. AT&T doesn't want to be held to any such agreement.
2. AT&T thinks it doesn't have to pay for rights-of-way. "We're upgrading our existing system."
3. AT&T does not want to be held to Illinois law ILPF Act which sets up the ground rules for video distribution. "We are distributing data/services."
Call it what you will. It's undeniable that AT&T wants to run roughshod over these communities. The politicians are fighting to keep things fair for all their community.
It's not a pissing contest. It's a question of who blinks first loses the most. Too bad SBC/AT&T fired all their corporate negotiators during their downsizing/acquisition. What ever happened to "Let's Make A Deal"? Surely there's some middle ground.
I'm with the towns. | |
|
 |  See 7 replies to this post |
|
 |
|
 |