 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
 ·Comcast
edit:
June 2nd, @04:18PM
| Same Thing? "AT&T must get the approval of landowners and municipalities"
and
"...they claim they were already informing landowners before installing the boxes."
Since when is informing and approval the same thing?
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
 | 
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | Re: Same Thing? to them a public record is notice. | |
|
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Same song, 2nd verse Didn't we just have this as a discussion item last week? Oh, I forgot it is anti telco. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
edit:
June 2nd, @04:48PM
| Re: Same song, 2nd verse This is at&t's response to the events detailed in last week's article- I fail to see how this isn't relevant. | |
|
| 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Anti-telco, anti-cable, anti-big corp in general
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: Same song, 2nd verse pro-consumer, actually. | |
|
questionable
join:2005-10-18
Phoenix, AZ
edit:
June 2nd, @04:44PM
| WTH WOW people bitch that Karl does Anti Cable and now people bitch he is Anti Telco... Damn just shut up about the ANTI this and ANTI that... | |
|
| cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | Re: WTH haven't you realized that Karl typically takes a stance of anti everything (telco, cable, satelite, fcc, government, etc.). something similar can be said about the typical poster here too. | |
|
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL | I might ... I might grant approval in exchange for free service. (Free, top tier service of all services for life that is).
--
Atomic batteries to power - Turbines to speed - ready to move out. | |
|
| 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | Re: I might ... They might refuse you service unless you consent to the box. | |
|
| |
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL | Re: I might ... Would not be any loss to me. My current DSL+Comcast TV+AT&T landline is of lower cost than the equivalent U-Verse package.
--
Atomic batteries to power - Turbines to speed - ready to move out. | |
|
Hellrazor
join:2002-02-02
Abyss | Losers So you want high speed internet in your neighborhood? Tough crap and enjoy the dialup. | |
|
| hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: Losers Just because you have one in your neighborhood/street corner doesnt mean you'll have service. | |
|
treetop1000
join:2003-11-07
Lexington, KY | VRAD Remember the exploding vrad in Texas?
I have a hunch that that little "boom" was NOT the batteries...
After all, it was in Texas. | |
|
megatron266
Premium
join:2007-08-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Comcast
| How This can be Turned Around on CT. AT&T can use this issue in their favor and make many people look bad. All they would do is ask for permission from the landowner and if he/she declines and the company has no other option for the VRAD location then all they have to do is let the neighbors know who denied them of the service even if it is the municipality. Almost to say "You could have had the service but since the person who owns such land said no!"
I say give the landowner free top tier services in exchange for the permission to place the box on their land. That may sweeten up the deal. | |
|
| 
DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT | Re: How This can be Turned Around on CT. Sounds like a plan. Lifetime top-tier access in exchange for a perpetual easement for the VRAD. | |
|
| |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: How This can be Turned Around on CT. AT&T is too cheap for that. they are tightening their belts all around. no way they would gift free service for life. | |
|
| 
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| They can't name drop as a marketing ploy to get customers to pitch fits. They also can't "make people look bad" for using their right to refuse.
The state is not saying that AT&T can't install the service. It's saying that AT&T has to get permission before installing on a customer's lawn/property. The argument that "well we can't give you service because of Joe Schmoe at 1132" doesn't fly, because they COULD give the service if they just installed their VRADs in a location not owned, in part or in full, by an individual. That's the whole reason for the ruling in the first place, matter of fact - AT&T's refusal to be considerate to the homeowner's property (easements be damned, sorry).
There are other options. This just forces them to pony up the cash for said options and work with the munis to get it.
Oh, and for those who'll say "AT&T will jack up prices then!!!" guess what? All it will take is one class action lawsuit and the price will be balanced - if they try to price ramp a community that didn't allow VRADs in the lawn versus a community that did.
Bottom line - AT&T needs to come out of the pocket and do it right, and they'll have the customers they want. | |
|
krom
@hubspan.com
| Obsession? Do homeowners in other countries (e.g. those with much faster and cheaper broadband) bitch and moan about property values like this?
And do they consider things like infrastructure improvements as devaluing?
(Am I crazy/alone in considering a DSLAM or cell tower in a neighborhood to be a plus?)
Did people living near the Eisenhower Interstates in the 50s bitch and moan about how the government was ruining their property values by putting up massive concrete behemoths in their neighborhoods? | |
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| Re: Obsession? said by krom :
Did people living near the Eisenhower Interstates in the 50s bitch and moan about how the government was ruining their property values by putting up massive concrete behemoths in their neighborhoods?
Where I grew up when they were putting in an Interstate in the 70s, people were happy about it. They were either getting their house bought for a fair price and moving to a better neighborhood or they were suddenly on a cul de sac. Either way they generally considered it an improvement.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
|
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by krom :
Did people living near the Eisenhower Interstates in the 50s bitch and moan about how the government was ruining their property values by putting up massive concrete behemoths in their neighborhoods?
I am sure some did. However, there is a big difference between the Federal Gov't building an interstate highway system for the benefit of all, and AT&T building out an internet/TV system for the benefit of their bottom line and stockholders.
Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of corps building out and turning a profit, but not when it means running roughshod over the very people they want as customers. A little give-and-take on both sides could yield excellent results. However, it would appear as if AT&T wants all the take with no give.
--
Atomic batteries to power - Turbines to speed - ready to move out. | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: Obsession? If AT&T wasn't going with IPTV and instead wanted to beef up speeds to the end-user. They'd still need to place these cabinets. | |
|
| | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Obsession? Only because they're insistent on using VDSL as their next-generation system. | |
|
| | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: Obsession? Any form of DSL or active electronics would need it. Only PON doesn't need. it. It just needs gobs of fiber and smaller min-fridge sized boxes. | |
|
| |
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| said by krom :
And do they consider things like infrastructure improvements as devaluing? Maybe this points to where the average citizen in this country places their priorities....and it doesn't appear to be on broadband or IPTV.said by krom :
(Am I crazy/alone in considering a DSLAM or cell tower in a neighborhood to be a plus?) I'm all for a DSLAM in my neighborhood as longs as it's placed in an aesthetically manner and not within 3 lots to either side of my property. I most definitely do not want any tower within a couple of miles of my lot. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Obsession? said by openbox9  :said by krom :
And do they consider things like infrastructure improvements as devaluing? Maybe this points to where the average citizen in this country places their priorities....and it doesn't appear to be on broadband or IPTV. said by krom :
(Am I crazy/alone in considering a DSLAM or cell tower in a neighborhood to be a plus?) I'm all for a DSLAM in my neighborhood as longs as it's placed in an aesthetically manner and not within 3 lots to either side of my property. I most definitely do not want any tower within a couple of miles of my lot. Doesn't matter, the VAST majority of Fairfield county homes (not sure other counties) are served aerially. AT&T puts pole mounted VRADs, which never touch the ground. Sometimes AT&T will build a 2nd pole across the street, and put a VRAD on that and have a trunk cable go over the street aerially back to the other side of the street to the existing trunk line. Even in new developments, they will be fed by the pole, and at the entrance to the cul de sac where the pole services go underground, there will be a pole mounted VRAD. For developments too big/too long to reach by pole mounted VRAD, AT&T can easily skip them. Fairfield county is pretty old, so is very rare except for artery roads (which don't have houses anyways, AT&T does not build VRAD to businesses) to have underground delivery. This ruling means nothing for AT&T except in very large less 20 year old developments which don't exist in Fairfield county. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: Obsession? many AT$T areas lines are underground. Specially in Ameritech areas. Before the SBC merger/buyout Ameritech went around putting everything underground so it only leave AT$T one thing- put the boxes on the ground. | |
|
| | | | |
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | call me a nerd, geek, engineer, or whatever. but i think those VRAD boxes are sexy looking. | |
|
| 
dsldude08
Premium
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI | Re: call me a nerd, geek, engineer, or whatever. LOL  | |
|
| |
| |
dsldude08
Premium
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI | Re: call me a nerd, geek, engineer, or whatever. Hahahaha, whoa! 
lol | |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmm....... I live in an upscale neighborhood, (not bragging). I have a corner lot, if this was put on the side, I wouldn't have an issue, but someone living across the street might. I don't have a fix, but in some locales, in the south and mid west that don't have fences and such, I could see this as a problem. I am sure there are common areas that could be used, but from att/verizons point of view,just plop down anywhere.
I will bet that the bigwigs won't have one placed where they place them now....JMT
--
BlooMe | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: hmmm....... said by woody7 : I will bet that the bigwigs won't have one placed where they place them now....JMT They would live in gated communities which are practically de facto incorporated communities, where the streets and the ROW is owned by the HOA with private contract to the ILECs. Streets' pavement, sewers and water pipes, or even the waste treatement and water sources is provided by the HOA, not the town or county govt. | |
|
| hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | The Excs. wouldnt want DSL. They'd have fiber. Why use some slow service as your customers. The customers will pay for it. Raise rates and say WOOHOOOO i have FTTH tomorrow. | |
|
|
quibbly
Premium
join:2003-02-07
Sugar Land, TX
| I against VRAD on my property Those that actually are saying the telco's have a right and should put the box in your front yard are some kid who is living in his parents house or is someone who is renting an apartment.
If you own your house, you take pride in ownership and would not want one of the large boxes placed in front in which it will devalue your property and decrease the appeal of your house.
I'm all for improved internet access but I do agree that telco providers are not government agencies who are really looking out for the publics best interest, but in fact, are looking at their bottom line: PROFIT.
I do believe telco providers need to contact you via certified letter to provide proof they did contact you, not just state they did. As well, if you agree to having the box placed on your property, you should receive top of the line service for life. Reason? Well, you are providing a service to the telco provider, in which they will continue to make a profit. In turn, you should receive a benefit as well (either in lifetime top of the line service or monthly payment)
Bottom line, telco providers should not have a right to do what they want on your property.
As for me, I have a Comcast box in my back yard, and have since I purchased my house 8 years ago. I don't mind the box since it is in the back corner and covered by ferns. Now the VRAD boxes are really too big and would not be feasable and I would reject to have it on my property.
Well, this is just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure some low life will decide to bash me for actually making since, and thats ok. I'm looking at the point of view for an actual property owner. Those that don't own your house, if you did or when you do, you will change your view point. | |
|
| SmartJack
join:2003-07-14
Miami, FL
| Re: I against VRAD on my property The government is the worst kind of crooks on the planet!!! However i also agree that any Utility Co. should get permission from the landowner before adding any equipment to their property.... Now, the Government, they will just take it from under you @ss////
Peace
J | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T Will Get CT Customer Consent Before Deploying VRADs
