What's the deal with AT&T anyways?

The cable company doesn't want the competition.
That is it in a nutshell.

Personally, I want some option in case the cable geeks get out of hand.

The argument about "only serving the rich" is bogus, because the poor are not (or shouldn't be) spending $200 a month on digital video subscriptions and broadband Internet.

In neighborhoods that ATT would serve, it means that the cable provider no longer holds those customers hostage.

 

I wish we had a choice of cable companies in Nashville. In Nashville we have Comcast but another county has Charter...are they connected or competitors? If competitors then Charter needs to hit Nashville with some rates...come on in AT&T for cheaper cable bills

 

It's a grey area apparently. I thought they were competitors.
We have Charter (and only Charter), no choices.
However, if you want to advertise locally on TV.... you call the Comcast people to by air time, NOT Charter. (WTF?)

Like I said, we have no choices, no "On Demand" service, no NFL Network.... and rates continually increase.
I got the DVR box (TiVo type deal) and they raised the monthly charge for it by 15% or 20% within 3 months.)

For all the advertisements you see with reasons to keep AT&T out, there are just as many reasons to let them in, I'm sure.
I love how the ads say "keep it local". LOCAL? Charter is not local! It's a huge *** company. Regional maybe, but definately not local.

If it wasn't for the internet service (which would mean changing my email address that I have used for business for 4+ years) and the fact that we have a crap load of TVs in our house....I would have booted Charter for Direct TV long ago.

 

The cable companies are regulated differently.

ATT wants the state (rather than municipalities) to govern its ability to lease right-of-ways to serve a subscriber base, starting with people who they know can afford to pay the bill.

The local municipal government franchise commissions determine which cable company gets the exclusive monopoly in its jurisdiction. The "franchise fee" on your cable bill is essentially the local tax bribe money that you pay on behalf of your cable provider.
The local government has no incentive to keep service high and prices low. Quite the opposite, they want high bills to collect more taxes.

So local governments don't want that tax/bribe money to get shifted to the state government.

But at the consumer level, ATT wants what is best for the consumer.
The cable providers treat the customer like dirt unless there is a competing option for similar service.

 

I'm not for the legislation that is being pushed through the way it is worded now. If it succeeds, PEG channels could be eliminated, which might include MTSU's MTTV channel 10, which would take away extremely valuable experience from students in the Mass Comm college like me.

 

seems anymore you have got to have at least a basic cable package to even pickup the local channels. I have thought about dropping cable all together but if I do my cable internet goes up. I do get a small price break having cable TV and internet..nothing to brag about though

 

How does a law about rights-of-way cause channels to be dropped?
Where do you get that idea?

 

If the current legislation were to pass today, with no revisions, then public, education, and government access channels (or PEG Channels) would have to put on air eight hours of non-repeating content a day, seven days a week, or the cable company could shut down those channels and take back the channel space. Look it up.