Here’s more on AT&T’s continued efforts to bludgeon those communities in Illinois for daring to resist them. This is important information for any and all citizens concerned about local governance rights, preservation of their rights-of-ways and resistance to the use of eminent domain by private corporations. Readers in Ohio, take notice. This is Ohio Senate Bill SB 117 in another guise.

Promising increased competition and consumer advocacy, AT&T is investing $4.6 billion in a national move into the cable industry, yet many area municipalities have accused the telecommunications giant of pursuing anything but fair competition.

————-

…While AT&T blames the system, many municipalities state that it was not the system itself that caused negotiations to stall, but rather AT&T’s insistence in not considering itself bound by the rules of cable franchise agreements.

“They say that they are not a ‘cable’ franchise,” said Terry Miller, senior assistant attorney for the city of Naperville. “We have not been able to agree with them because they want to follow a different set of rules.”

————-

However, during the negotiations, city officials found too many discrepancies that they could not come to terms with, primarily that AT&T would not guarantee universal coverage of its services, said Terry, placing it on a scale different from already competing entities in the municipality.

“You can’t cherry pick customers,” said Miller. “How do you compete fairly when someone who says they will service everybody goes up against someone who doesn’t have to?

“It is not a small issue if you say that you aren’t going to service everyone. And if we were going to be a blueprint for other areas we could not let that pass with a clear conscience.”

————-

Comcast released a statement saying that “If AT&T wanted to provide video to all customers today, there is nothing preventing them from doing so. Instead, they are seeking special rules that will apply only to them since they don’t want to be held accountable for problems with their proposed cable service.”

Another problem that arose during negotiations with numerous municipalities was public right-of-way laws. AT&T’s new service would require that a cable box be established for every 300 users. The boxes are 63 inches high, 48 wide, and 25 deep and must be stationed on concrete.

————-

“The current bill says that we can control permits, but it does not state that we can tell AT&T ‘no,’” said Miller. “If they want to put one of their boxes in the middle of someone’s lawn, there is no way for us to say ‘no.’”

Read The Full Article