 
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
| Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? Of greater concern to many citizens in the state is the fear that U-Verse won’t serve poorer areas even in major cities like Milwaukee. A report on the issue found that only 15 out of 240 planned U-Verse locations in the area serve families living below the poverty line. Why is this such a major issue? Can people living below the poverty line even afford U-verse or cable?! Why is it so desirable to offer pay-TV services to people who probably can't afford it in the first place? I can understand why politicians want to make sure all of their constituents are served, but who is really driving this need for service to people below the poverty line?
Sure, I'd love to see fiber and VDSL deployed everywhere eventually, but does it make sense to provide it to a neighborhood that will either 1) never buy the service or 2) will get the service and default on payments? | |
|  | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| Re: Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? Of course people below poverty line can afford it, even some kid with a paper rout could afford it.
"Broadband penetration" is now treated as a key economic indicator.
That means banks, creditors, insurance companys, etc will all be considering that before investing in an area.
We are in the "Global Economy" now, which we need upgrading infrastructure and penetrating even the darkest reaches of our country.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_···t_access
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
| | | Neosum
Premium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA
| Re: Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? said by gaforces  :Of course people below poverty line can afford it, even some kid with a paper rout could afford it. Let's see.. Below poverty line... Food, or uverse... food or uverse... Hard decision | |
| | | | | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? One benefit of broadband penetration is to help people get off the dole ... | |
| | | | | 
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA | Re: Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? and being able to use bittorrent faster to download music will help people get jobs how? | |
| | | | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| Re: Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? said by bentman78 :and being able to use bittorrent faster to download music will help people get jobs how? Just because you use it that way doesnt mean everyone does. | |
| | | | | 
YEAHRITE
@sbcglobal.net
| Really? how exactly is that? oh that's right---sock it to the rest of us in the form of WELFARE one way or another. You don't need the internet to get off the dole. YOU need to get off the free loading mentality . Get a job, feed your family then and only then think about broadband or any other. Or, move to china or cuba. | |
| | | | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
edit:
December 16th, @05:23PM
| Re: Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. | |
| |
Tony_in_indy
@ameritech.net
| IT isnt just about "poor people" I live in a very nice apartment complex in Indianapolis Indiana, make a great living and, like many of my neighbors, can easily afford cable, but I dropped comcast a month after they hooked it up for lots of reasons that are not relivent here, in addition th the BigTen net fiasco...
I read on a site like this in Sept. that the complex across the street, same kind of buildings, just had a fancy fountain out front and a $300/Mo bigger price tag could get Uverse and I, 200 feet from the fiber, could not because att had determined that our complex wasnt worthy...well, 100 calls to various levels of ATT people later, I get it installed soon.
There really needs to be an investigation about this, there is nothing wrong with maximizing ROI, but they are getting public funds for these build-outs, so crap like this is simply not acceptable. | |
| | | shapiro44
join:2004-03-01
Highland, NY | Re: Poorer areas not getting U-verse is a problem? Nicely said Tony_in_indy!
and congradulations getting fiber. I'm surprised you were
able to find 100 phone numbers inside ATT, usually
the higher ups are unreachable. | |
| |
ArnoldZiffel
@comcast.net | Exactly, justbits. Farmers don't deserve broadband nor do their children. In fact, America really doesn't even need farmers, we can just buy our food from China. A little bit of lead or melamine won't hurt anyone. | |
| | MaroonGuru
join:2003-09-03
Oconomowoc, WI
| said by justbits :Of greater concern to many citizens in the state is the fear that U-Verse won’t serve poorer areas even in major cities like Milwaukee. A report on the issue found that only 15 out of 240 planned U-Verse locations in the area serve families living below the poverty line. Why is this such a major issue? Can people living below the poverty line even afford U-verse or cable?! Why is it so desirable to offer pay-TV services to people who probably can't afford it in the first place? I can understand why politicians want to make sure all of their constituents are served, but who is really driving this need for service to people below the poverty line? Sure, I'd love to see fiber and VDSL deployed everywhere eventually, but does it make sense to provide it to a neighborhood that will either 1) never buy the service or 2) will get the service and default on payments? This is a major issue, and a very real issue. I live in the town of Summit, WI. SBC/AT&T rolled out fiber to the home in Pabst Farms, and touted it greatly. Then, when I wanted even plain old DSL in the same town, less than 3 miles away, they said no. They would not even send out a tech to remove the load lines which is what prevents me from getting DSL. Once this gets signed, they will no longer have to deal with my town board, and the franchise agreement for Time Warner will also get thrown out. Our town does not require kickbacks and public access channels, only that certain timelines were met, and that new runs were properly priced.
So, this universal one size fits all (Really a one size fits the needs of the large companies) type of franchise agreement will simply allow the companies to legally cherry pick for maximum profit and ignore the billions they have collected to roll out a more universal broadband coverage.
We need a legislature to look out for the public interest, not the private profit. | |
|
upidstay
@mchsi.com
| Dead Horse Beating...again This old chestnut again? Being concerned about being
in a deployment area is one thing, but having reservations
about a product because it will not be deployed in
a so called "disadvantaged area" is just plain bull.
Once again you have critism by people that wants the
USA to be a big giant welfare state. I mean AT&T probably
would sell your DOG internet access if your dog was
near a DSLAM and could afford it, and most likely
deploy it in low income areas if U-Verse deployment
was cost effective enough to return a profit in low
income areas. | |
| | 
SpyderCKE
We call that the Dennis Miller Ratio
Premium
join:2000-10-26
Milwaukee, WI
| Re: Dead Horse Beating...again Do we support the pres, or do we hate america?
Anyways.. more about UVerse - I've had it for a few months and it's pretty damned shoddy. HD streams are pretty crappy (all 12 of them..), internet is far less stable than 6 Meg ADSL connection before this, gateway and STB's running variants of WinCE, one of the most abused and tortured Windows OS' which was designed by an overworked engineer, and deeply discounted rates, only to explode to full proportions after your test year is over. People who say everything will be fixed in some new coming updates, are the same who think WM6 is better than 5, and that Office keeps getting more useful for making sweet presentations.
Only wiring to people with higher statistical spending proportions, or being forced to, only to rape them slightly more than Time Warner is now - no one wins here, really. We really should just let ATT do whatever they want. They think it's still Ma Bell era, but they'll eventually collapse under the weight of a ridiculous business plan.
--
See you on:
AA:SF - [69th SAG] SpyderCKE
XBL - H2 - eTard | |
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Use common sense people "However, many people in small cities throughout Wisconsin have expressed concerns that they aren’t going to be part of the deployment. Of greater concern to many citizens in the state is the fear that U-Verse won’t serve poorer areas even in major cities like Milwaukee."
Well let's see if your state doesn't change the franchise laws like mine didn't then guess what, you're not getting U-Verse anyways. At&t has already told my state "Oh well, tough shit we aint comming now" Thanks state for "caring" so much. If it wasn't for you standing up for me I might have gotten passed over for U-Verse. Oh wait.......damn it I did anyways!
Even if a area isn't served first if U-Verse is at least in the area then there's a possibilility it will eventually get serve. If U-Verse is NEVER in ANY area then I can say yur odds of getting it are about ZERO %.
Besides cherry picking is a myth. At&t has more potential customers in a poorer areas where there are many houses close together than they do in a rich area where houses have acres of land between them. Hmmm serve 10 rich people or 100 poor people, which one has more $$$ potential?
Besides "local" franchise athorities are scams. They have NEVER done anythng good in my area. All the do is collect money from my cable bill and put it in their pocket. How come they've let Charter raise rates 3 times in two years? How is that looking out for me? And as far as LFAs making cable companies build out? Hmm how come my friend still doesn't have access to cable? It's not like he lives 20 miles out in the woods in shack. | |
| | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Re: Use common sense people It's amazing that people complain about laws after they're passed. We should be telling our government what to do. Since we do not tell our government what to do the corporations have decided to step in and do it themselves. | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by BF69 :Besides cherry picking is a myth. At&t has more potential customers in a poorer areas where there are many houses close together than they do in a rich area where houses have acres of land between them. Hmmm serve 10 rich people or 100 poor people, which one has more $$$ potential? My personal jury is still out for this one. Where I live, we have Comcast TV, Dish Network TV, antenna TV, DVDs, and Internet for AV. You might say "aha! You're rich." No, um, we have more people than I can count in what the government considers a single family home (which it most definately is not) -- close to a dozen (minimum 9 maximum way above a dozen -- I have no idea). We can hardly afford it, too. | |
| | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| said by BF69 :Well let's see if your state doesn't change the franchise laws like mine didn't then guess what, you're not getting U-Verse anyways. At&t has already told my state "Oh well, tough shit we aint comming now" Thanks state for "caring" so much. If it wasn't for you standing up for me I might have gotten passed over for U-Verse. Oh wait.......damn it I did anyways! I think the TN statewide franchise will actually be reinserted for a vote again early next year, be sure to inform your senators and state reps your opinions on the matter if your for it.. They may want your input.. So all is not lost yet.. However this is TN our politicians tend to do odd things.. | |
|
JasonD
@comcast.net | No company should be told where they can or can't do business, period. | |
|
UUser53
@sbcglobal.net
| OTOH See...in poorer areas, people living close together or in apartments sometimes 'share' cable...
U-Verse cant be shared - at least as easily as buying a splitter and running coax around.
My 'friend' used to do that. 1 guy would pay for cable and 4 people would all share it nearby. HA.
Of course since I love TW so much, I felt so awful about this cable theft 
I like my u-verse NOW, but still have bad video pixel problems on local channels. | |
| 
ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
December 15th, @06:52PM
| Whatever The article would have been better if it included some other conceivable reason that AT&T might be building out in this manner, such as completion of fiber rings, distance from COs and ROW issues. We all know those things are factors, more so than for cable TV, but it might not be obvious to some of the general public, regardless of their income.
Even if only 15 are in low-income tracts, if there are 240 planned for deployment, all they have to do is add 15 more to get where they need to be.
Seems to me this might be an example of the fissure between engineering and politics, which is not always a bad thing.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
| Thespis
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Cherry picking? quote:
A report on the issue found that only 15 out of 240 planned U-Verse locations in the area serve families living below the poverty line.
"In 2004, about 9% of Wisconsin’s residents lived in households with annual incomes below the Federal Poverty Line."
»dhfs.wisconsin.gov/stats/pdf/fhs···heet.pdf
9% of 240 is 21.6
Not quite at the state average, but certainly not far enough behind to be cherry picking... | |
| | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: Great. OF course those a photos in that thread are of crossboxes that have been in place for a long time. | |
|
Questions
| AB 207 So if AT&T is going to serve everybody sooner or later , why did they spend all that money buying the WI Legislature? Why did AT&T word the law so they have to serve only a fraction of the homes their phone lines pass?
It's not just poorer areas they're going to pass up serving, it's a lot of middle class areas that won't get served by AT&T. | |
| | | |
|
|
Wisconsin Residents Have Concerns About U-Verse
