 
anonone
@af.mil | Technically... Technically they started u-verse deployment in CT with a favorable ruling from the DPUC. | |
|
Acere
Premium
join:2002-07-28
Miami | ... So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. | |
|
 | 
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Re: ... Funny, sounds like ATT back to being GOD of the telco world.
Stop crying ATT and apply for your license, why should you be any different than the cable companies. TV is TV no matter how you pipe it to the house. | |
|
| | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ... said by Sr Tech  : TV is TV no matter how you pipe it to the house. Satellite? | |
|
| | | 
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state | Re: ... Satellite doesnt impede upon the city right of way or use any extra services of the city. | |
|
| | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ... said by dispatcher21 :Satellite doesnt impede upon the city right of way or use any extra services of the city. Neither does U-Vers or FIOS. They bring telephone and internet. With U-Vers the wires are already in place.
In New Jersey we have a state wide TV franchise. Capping has stopped and prices are steady. | |
|
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Sr Tech :Funny, sounds like ATT back to being GOD of the telco world. Stop crying ATT and apply for your license, why should you be any different than the cable companies. TV is TV no matter how you pipe it to the house. Except cable doesn't have to follow build out rules anywys. | |
|
| |
The truth hurts
@sbc.com
| Cable monopolies recieved exclusive franchise areas in exchange for buildout commitments over 30 years ago
A second provider into a market does not get an exclusive franchise area and needs to win customers from the incumbemnt cable companies.
The Connecticut legislature and Governor established the new Video law to encourage additional entrants into the competitive video market. There are less regulatory requirements becsause the new entrants do not get exclusive franchise areas
The Attorney General and DPUC have it all wrong
CT needs to encourage business expansion and competitive alternatives / not kill them
It is apparent from this thread that most people here do not think logically | |
|
| | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | Re: ... said by The truth hurts :
It is apparent from this thread that most people here do not think logically
Some do not think some are like you and have a financial interest. | |
|
| |
know your facts
@snet.net | look at federal cabel law 1984, even electric companies are exempt from being cable company. | |
|
| 
supernac
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO | You honestly think the state cares about "customer protection"? They want more money out of ATT, thats the real issue. How does limiting competition protect consumers?? | |
|
| | |
| | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: ... yes, what a loss to those consumers. half assed technology and the added benefit of being spying on by AT&T and the NSA. such a loss. | |
|
| skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by Acere :So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses.
Yup, and the so called "CUSTOMER PROTECTION" Comcrap customers get now provides what? Oh yeah, Comcrap STILL raises rates, on average, twice a year AND they STILL get crappy customer service. So yes, you are correct, they need the protection. | |
|
| plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs:
| said by Acere :So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. as if this hs anything to do with customer protection, this is all about money. uncle sam needs his cut  | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | you think the state cares about customers? they just want the money from Franchise Fees.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Acere :So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. Even better idea, pissing a company off so NO customers get the service. | |
|
|
| sm2016a
join:2004-03-02
Belleville, IL
 ·VoipYourLife
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: pfftttt... It is always about the money. They don't want to spend more than they think they have to. If they would have to build out to everyone it would cost a good amount more than them just cherry picking where they want to deploy their service. This is just AT&T thinking they own the world and can play by their own rules but that is nothing unusual from them. I hope they do have to apply for a license just like the judge said. | |
|
| | 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
edit:
October 18th, @02:08PM
| Re: pfftttt... Why? So consumers can have less choice for that much longer? I know the cool kids like to hate on AT&T and the incumbents, but think about it. How do those "consumer protections" really help people with, say, Comcast?
You talk about "cherry picking," but did you think that through either? Deployment has to start somewhere, and Economics 101 says to put it in the areas most likely to buy the service. Common sense, right?
And why would AT&T want to exclude people? Those are potential customers out there and they'll get to everyone eventually. But they have to start somewhere, and it should be up to them because they're a private company. Do you actually think that cable magically appeared to everyone at the same time years ago when it was being built out? Uhhh, no.
As for me, AT&T just finished my neighborhood's Uverse build out a couple of weeks ago in north Atlanta. I live in a nice area, but certainly not a million dollar home area. Since you say they're cherry-picking, where should they have built instead of my area?
Let me guess - your area...
Adam | |
|
| | | 
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
·TDS
| Re: pfftttt... said by Alpine :And why would AT&T want to exclude people? Those are potential customers out there and they'll get to everyone eventually. But they have to start somewhere, and it should be up to them because they're a private company. Do you actually think that cable magically appeared to everyone at the same time years ago when it was being built out? Uhhh, no. Because it will cost money. AT&T has begun building in my area, but has excluded my neighborhood. Their lead engineer has told me directly that I shouldn't expect U-Verse to be deployed at all because it would cost too much, and they don't see the area as profitable.
AT&T response... Want the service, move to a $300,000+ house! | |
|
| | | | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: pfftttt... AT&T response... Want the service, move to a $300,000+ house!
Not bragging, but my house is worth 750-800 k and I guess my neighborhood doesn't qualify, as I can't get it here. 
--
BlooMe | |
|
| | | | |
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Re: pfftttt... I'm talking in Michigan money, not California money :P A $300,000 house here is the equivelent to a $1.5 million house there. | |
|
| | | | | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: pfftttt... That's my point, the median price in "Torrance" is -+ 500k and it isn't an option. There are even 1,000,000+ homes and they have no choice. It just isn't about the affluency of the neighborhood, it is also the competition. If there is competition of any kind they just don't want to build, they want exclusivity. Peace
--
BlooMe | |
|
| | | |
| viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| The FCC doesn't see it that way, as they have already ruled that VOIP is an 'information service', not telephony. | |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Folks.. this company is beyond belief in the way they operate.
The AG is right in what he's doing. The Federal court has spoken..and they're right as well.
This company simply does not know how to comply with the law.
Or doesn't want to.
The cable TV franchise laws say this.
If you operate a one way video service..you need to be licensed. This has never been about HOW the video is delivered..but what the service is in that regard.
There is no way..no how..AT&T and it's lawyers didn't know that was the law. And that they needed to comply.
Instead..they set out on a course of just doing it anyway..MEANWHILE..they pushed this statewide video law through..and AFTER they got shot down by the Federal court..turned to that instead.
Now that the DPUC has ruled that that dog just won't hunt..
they're crying out with all their might. We're LEAVING!
Call the COPS! round up the customers!
Well..guess what folks? We're surrounded by Verizon fios..OOL..and the 30Mb powerboost enabled Comcast service I currently received.
Can anyone say..who cares about your Uverse CRAP AT&T?
Your service is CRAP...with a capital C.
CRAP ...CRAP...CRAP.
In the face of what is happening here in New England.
You have been told by MANY here at BBR that you'd better get with the verizon program if you want to survive.
And that meant get licensed..and start the fiber rollout.
But no..you just don't listen to that advice either.
Well...now..the courts have spoken. And the AG is speaking.
And the DPUC has spoken.
Get back on the horse you rode in on..and get the he** out of here.
We just don't need you.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
supernac
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO | Re: Folks.. Do you work for comcrap? | |
|
| | 
meskinct
This space for rent
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Re: Folks.. No. But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
supernac
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO
| Re: Folks.. Why is that? You do understand that this is about money for the state right? Right now the state is in bed with comcrap, do you honestly think they didn't have a say in this. The only people that are losing here are customers, and the idea of CAPITALISIM. | |
|
| | notwrth10
join:2007-03-03
1001EB
| said by supernac :Do you work for comcrap? Look at his posting history, that will tell you enough. he eve n had the guts to rub it in the Snet forum's faces too.
As if he isn't collecting a big paycheck now that this failed.
Hey rick, why don't you post what you just got paid with the failure?
What?!?!? can't publish 6 digits? | |
|
| skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by Rick :Instead..they set out on a course of just doing it anyway..MEANWHILE..they pushed this statewide video law through..and AFTER they got shot down by the Federal court..turned to that instead. Can anyone say..who cares about your Uverse CRAP AT&T? Your service is CRAP...with a capital C. CRAP ...CRAP...CRAP.
First of all, the new law was written SPECIFICALLY with companies like AT&T in mind and the DPUC has chosen to ignore that. In fact, a letter has been written to the DPUC from the authors of the law (State Senator John Fonfara and State Representative Steve Fontana) saying just that.
Second, HOW is the service CRAP? The picture quality is fantastic, so far the reliability has been 100% (for me, I can't speak for everyone), HD quality is great and internet is extremely reliable and consistent. Oh that's right, it's CRAP because it comes in on that nasty copper stuff. SO WHAT? It still works just fine. And I suppose it's still CRAP because it only offers 6Mb service. When will you understand that except for the very few BBR users the VAST MAJORITY of internet users don't need nor care about 6Mb internet? Even hard core gamers don't need 30Mb, all they need is low latency.
And I've read your ravings on DOCSIS 3.0 a thousand times and all that's going to do is offer higher speeds to people that don't need it nor care about it. All it will do is provide Comcast with one more way to justify yet ANOTHER rate increase.
| |
|
| |
See 7 replies to this post |
|
|
john9
@bellsouth.net | hey rick, every time I read a post from you your powerboost grows logarithmically. Hahahaha, I know you hate at&t and love comcast, but KEEP IT REAL. | |
|
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA | ATT. Your Monopoly. Delivered. Ma Bell is back with a vengeance!
"We don't like the rules, we'll just walk all over them like we've been doing for 100+ years. We'd still have those fools renting telephones if those damn kids didn't foil us!" | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR | Clerity Please What are these rules that suppose to protect consumers. All I know is Connecticut licensing requirement is a leagalized protection racket. | |
|
u475700
Premium
join:2004-02-16
·VoicePulse
·Comcast
| Why should AT&T have to abide by state regulations? Why should any utility abide by the rules if AT&T doesn't? Yet, when local municipalities in Connecticut complained about the size and placement of the new boxes, AT&T claimed the company was exempt from local zoning under state utility regulations. I applaud the DUPC and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal for taking prompt action against AT&T for failing to comply. | |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| As much as I hate to say it... It's time for the government to get involved and straiten these companies out.
The delivery method or technology does not matter.
If you are delivering TV programming then you are a "cable" TV company.
If you are delivering phone service then you are a phone company.
If you are delivering internet service, then you are an Internet Service Provider.
This means the same laws (like build out requirements) that apply to Comcast apply to AT&T for for their TV service.
This means the same laws that apply to AT&T phone service (like uptime and 911) apply to Comcast VOIP. | |
|
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
edit:
October 18th, @06:30PM
| Re: As much as I hate to say it... What if you're delivering video to a monitor? IS that a cable company? I don't think so.
What if you're delivering voice over IP? Is that a phone company? Nope.
What if you deliver data that happens to turn into voice or video? Is that an ISP? Well, it's an ISP and MORE.
The lines are very blurry.
I however think that AT&T UVerse is crap too. 1 HD stream sucks. Also, many of us have multiple devices in uses at the home which required higher than 6MBPS down speeds. Xbox360 and two computers at the same time running will bog that down. | |
|
| | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
edit:
October 19th, @10:45AM
| Re: As much as I hate to say it... said by jjeffeory :What if you're delivering video to a monitor? IS that a cable company? I don't think so. No the lines are not blurry. The point here is the delivery method or technology is meaningless in this context.
If you are delivering television programming, no matter if its by coaxial, fiber optics, or carrier pigeon, you are a "cable TV" provider.
Granted "cable TV" is an antiquated term and a new more broad name or classification like Video Service Provider (VSP) is needed.
said by jjeffeory :What if you're delivering voice over IP? Is that a phone company? Nope. Yes it is, again it's not the delivery media or technology that matters only the end service or product.
said by jjeffeory :What if you deliver data that happens to turn into voice or video? Is that an ISP? Well, it's an ISP and MORE. If it is voice or video that can only be accessed on your computer then you are an ISP, but if it can be watched on a TV (or video monitor) using a dedicated stand alone box (not a computer) then it is a Video Service and you are a VSP. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| even if you invent some new term like Video Service Provider, people will call TV that comes over a wire cable and they will think it should be regulated just the same as comcast.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: As much as I hate to say it... said by Kearnstd :even if you invent some new term like Video Service Provider, people will call TV that comes over a wire cable and they will think it should be regulated just the same as comcast. That's exactly my point, but AT&T is basically saying "Even if we do deliver the exact same service. We don't use coaxial cable, so we are not a "cable TV" company, so the laws that apply to cable TV companies do not apply to us.   | |
|
phatness
join:2002-07-02
Old Greenwich, CT
clubs: | Well stay out of Connecticut How can I be elite with a 6 Mbps downstream?
...what are they talking about, they don't even count as competition.
Verizon FIOS might be worth considering, but no thanks AT&T. | |
|
| 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: Well stay out of Connecticut Growing up in Stamford I noticed that Greenwich was served by Nynex (now Verizon).. is that not the case anymore? Can't you get FIOS?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL | Lol! Lol @ Mom!.jpg | |
|
jaa
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
New Canaan, CT | Uverse is an excellent offering for 1997. By 2007 standards, it is a joke. | |
|
|
robct
rob
join:2004-04-09
Waterbury, CT
| ATT is a joke. ATT is horrible. Where I live, they've been walking door to door with flyers trying to get all of us to switch to them. Sadly, most of my neighbors switched to them saying they got a "great deal". Too bad they weren't mentioned on how you can only watch one HD channel at a time.
And don't get me started on the speed: 5.5Mbps in 2007 is an absolute joke. | |
|
Trumbull CT
@snet.net
| Cable Francise Fees are Stupid waste of My money Hopefully AT&T will not pay the stupid franchise fees. The fee is just pasted along to the customer, the corporations don't take it out of there pockets, but yours. The public access channels are silly and I never watch them. YouTube provides better and more entertaining public access! I don't care if AT&T cherry picks as some like to say, because any completion is welcomed against monopoly cable TV companies. | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T Aims Its PR Guns At Connecticut
Re: ...
