AT&T Proposal. Do we win, or do we lose?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Council Approves ATT&T Lightspeed 6-1

Full story and photos on the front page!

Thanks to Bryan Wroten for turning this one around in 30 minutes.

Lakewood News Faster Than all Other Sources!



.

[DougHuntingdon]

The LO does it again! Good job, Bryan.

When will this Lightspeed be up and running? I already use fiber internet at work, but it is only available in certain buildings. Does this have any relation to the limited wifi corridors I heard will be going up in Lakewood?

I wonder what speeds they will be offering. Below are the speeds they are offering in Sparks, Nevada...kind of disappointing. At least the upload speed looks a lot faster than cable.

http://att.sbc.com/gen/press-room?pid=5 ... leid=22091

Elite â€â€￾ up to 6.0 Mbps downstream, up to 1 Mbps upstream
Pro â€â€￾ up to 3.0 Mbps downstream, up to 1 Mbps upstream
Express â€â€￾ up to 1.5 Mbps downstream, up to 1 Mbps upstream

Doug

[dl meckes]

Project Lightspeed doesn't appear to take the fiber optics to "the porch" (your house).

It has nothing to do with a potential wifi corridor.

[Joan Roberts]

What would really be interesting here is if AT&T took an approach to TV that's similar to its approach to broadband.

AT&T offers DSL service that's significantly slower than cable, but at a fraction of the price. The idea, which seems to have some popularity, is that many customers can't tell the difference between 1.5 and 4 megabits (?) or don't care,but they sure can tell the difference between $42.99 and $12.99.

What if AT&T offered you 25 channels for $20, or even $15? Who really watches some of those channels? Of the 70-some channels I have on basic cable, I probalby watch no more than 20 on any kind of regular basis.

Better yet, what if you could design your own pacakges? Cable companies don't want to do that, but I don't buy their arguments why.

The cable model violates common sense. If I go to Target to buy a blouse, they don't make me buy shoes and a watch, too. If I go to Borders to buy Newsweek, they don't make me buy Field and Stream and Sports Illustrated. I know it's apples and oranges, but I also know the cable companies are spinning on this one.

At the same time, I just don't see AT&T offering exactly the sameTV packages as Cox for significantly less. There ARE programming costs, equipment costs, etc.

No fan of AT&T, but they could make it interesting.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Joan

I was involved in discussion almost 10 years ago with a group that was working on developing technology and interface to take your idea one step farther.

You are charged by the time you watch TV. You have 300 channels but can only watch so many a day. So why not program your entertainment as you would a dinner?

I know they finished their interface but no idea where there are at now I will give them a call. The concept was fascinating in 1995.

6:00pm - CBS News
7:00pm - Wheel of Fortune
7:30pm - Leave It To Beaver - Episode 124
8:00pm - Saturday Night Live - 3.14.02
9:00pm - Local Access
9:30pm - Link TV
10:00pm - General Hospital from yesterday
etc

They turned all of TV into a menu that could be called up 24/7/365

The big problem was everyone would need T-1 Speed at the time that was $1,000 a month. Today it is as cheap as $100 depending on where you are.


FWIW



.

[Kenneth Warren]

Ms. Roberts:

Good points. It appears Project Lightspeed is a hybrid, using DSL. So perhaps there will be a Dollar Tree on the dirt road of video choices in Lakewood.

Here's a little critical background on the cost savings approach with Project Lightspeed:

“AT&T Project Lightspeed and the Jedi Mind Trickâ€Â￾ provides this context:
“AT&T (SBC originated the program) made a big gamble with Project Lightspeed when it decided not to build fiber directly to the home. Instead, AT&T brings fiber ‘almost’ to your home, then spans the last 1000 meters or less using conventional DSL technology to deliver next generation video and data services. The only major benefit to this approach, as opposed to using FTTH, is it eliminates the need to install new cabling to each and every home, saving install costs. AT&T’s approach is 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of putting fiber directly into the home.

The downsides could fill an entire page:
• Inconsistent performance of DSL makes it hard to predict actual bandwidth after installation
• DSL technology limited to 20-30Mbs
• Requires a set top box for each TV in the home. Cable ready TV’s can’t tune IPTV
• More expensive and complex IPTV head end hardware and software. Verizon FiOS and NTT’s approach copy Cable’s logical architecture exactly.
• Requires more electronics in the field, more operational expenses
• Requires use of MPEG-4 video compression, which doesn’t look as good as MPEG-2
• Limited number of video channels can be viewed in the home at one time. Only one HD signal can be viewed in household at any given pointâ€Â￾
Source: http://telecom.seekingalpha.com/article/8447

Kenneth Warren

[DougHuntingdon]

AT&T makes you get residential phone service if you want DSL, so they are just the same as Cox. AT&T doesn't offer naked dsl, unless maybe you live in 1% of the USA where they are conducting some kind of "test." If you get dsl from other sources around here, they are just reselling AT&T's dsl.

If you want a Verizon EDO (sp) thingy for your laptop computer, you must have a Verizon Wireless mobile phone contract first.

imo too many consumers lay down on the asphalt and let themselves get steamrolled by mandatory bundling. Even if there is a monopoly, the consumer still has power.

Doug

[Joan Roberts]

AT&T makes you get residential phone service if you want DSL, so they are just the same as Cox. AT&T doesn't offer naked dsl, unless maybe you live in 1% of the USA where they are conducting some kind of "test." If you get dsl from other sources around here, they are just reselling AT&T's dsl.

If you want a Verizon EDO (sp) thingy for your laptop computer, you must have a Verizon Wireless mobile phone contract first.

imo too many consumers lay down on the asphalt and let themselves get steamrolled by mandatory bundling. Even if there is a monopoly, the consumer still has power.

Doug

Excellent point.

A lot of people don't realize that, when they sign one-year contract for AT&T DSL, they're also agreeing to keep AT&T local phone service for that period.

Then again, it probably doesn't matter much to them. On balance the AT&T DSL package probably makes a lot of sense for many people. Certainly more sense than AOL dialup, which is where the customers are coming from at this point.

One thing I am hearing about from friends in the biz is that there's a fatigue setting in. Separate bills for cable, local phone, long distance phone, cell service, and internet are starting to create a backlash, particularly among people who aren't video junkies or internet power users.

Toss in additional subscription services like Netflix, satellite radio, WiFi, gaming, and you're paying a lot of different little bills.

Some customers, predictably, are saying "hell, I'd rather pay a few extra bucks a month to consolidate these bills."

Hmmmmm...."Leave it To Beaver" Pay per view? I donnnnnnt know.

[Kenneth Warren]

Issue 13 of the Lakewood Observer contained a note on AT&T’s privacy policy, much to the publisher's credit.

Were any symbolic or substantive considerations in support of civil liberties made during recent negotiations with AT&T?

AP’s Scott Lindlaw reports San Francisco’s Mayor is trying to flex civil liberties muscle in response to allegations of data mining cooperation with the National Security Agency by AT&T.

Thus Lindlaw:

“City officials are investigating AT&T's alleged cooperation with the National Security Agency and considering possible "consequences" the company could face in its extensive municipal contracts here if it is violating civil liberties, Mayor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday.

"If what I'm reading is true, I've got some serious problems as a San Franciscan, as a taxpayer and as mayor," Newsom said in interview with The Associated Press. "And I don't like it."

A federal lawsuit filed by Internet privacy advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation accuses the telecommunications giant of illegally cooperating with the NSA to make communications on AT&T networks available to the spy agency without warrants. According to the lawsuit, AT&T allowed the NSA to install data.m.ining equipment in secret rooms at AT&T offices in San Francisco and a handful of other cities…..â€Â￾

For more:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 225D55.DTL

Kenneth Warren

[Bill Grulich]

There is an article in the Plain Dealer on the AT&T packages. AT&T moves forward in offering their U-verse service in Lakewood. I wonder how long it will take before we see the upgrades.

http://tinyurl.com/epv9m

[stephen davis]

Here's a little follow-up tidbit from http://www.multichannel.com/info/CA6356031.html

Little Rock Opens Door to AT&T TV Service

The Little Rock, Ark., government took the first step toward allowing AT&T into town with infrastructure improvements that will enable its Internet-delivered video service.

On July 11, Little Rock’s board of directors approved, on first reading, an ordinance that does not require the telephone company to obtain a franchise as a condition for placing its equipment in the municipality’s rights of way. The ordinance needs two more official readings in order to become effective, according to city officials.

The measure would take effect Aug. 8 unless a supermajority of the board votes to skip a reading, in which case it could take effect as soon as July 27.

The ordinance stated that the applicant, AT&T Arkansas, does not believe it is required to obtain a separate franchise for IP-delivered services. The telco believes the city only has the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which AT&T occupies the municipal rights of way.

The city is “willing and able to provide an appropriate franchise to AT&T Arkansas that would not adversely impact the terms and conditions of the city’s current franchise agreement with Comcast,â€Â￾ according to the ordinance.

AT&T Arkansas does not wish to accept this offer. But instead of engaging in litigation, the ordinance said, and to promote the introduction of new technology, the city and AT&T agreed to the ordinance.

The stance is similar to the thinking behind the operating agreement made with Anaheim, Calif., where city officials reserved their right to seek a franchise should a court or federal regulators mandate that one is needed.

In many communities around the country, regulators are raising questions about whether AT&T’s planned video service is subject to regulation. AT&T has argued that the service -- delivered in packets of information at the demand of a consumer -- does not meet the federal definition of a cable service and is not subject to franchising.

Disputes over city regulatory authority have sparked lawsuits in California and Illinois.

In addition to Anaheim, AT&T came to rights-of-way-use terms with North Chicago, Ill., last month. Like Little Rock, the North Chicago deal will allow AT&T to compete with Comcast.

The pending ordinance in Little Rock is for a three-year term. AT&T would pay 5% of gross revenue as a franchise fee, among other terms.

Meanwhile, the town of Lakewood, Ohio, population 53,971, approved a similar video-provision agreement, for five years, July 17 by a 6-1 vote.

"The pending ordinance in Little Rock is for a three-year term. AT&T would pay 5% of gross revenue as a franchise fee, among other terms."

Did Lakewood manage to get a franchise fee out of its agreement with AT&T? I'd hate to think that Little Rock is a little more savvy at deal making than Lakewood. Maybe they weren't in such a big hurry.

[Jim O'Bryan]

AT&T did agree to the 5%.


.

[stephen davis]

Excellent!

Our guys ARE as savvy as the Little Rock guys.

Lakewood proud.

[Suzanne Metelko]

I'm watching the ATT hearings in Rocky River on Channel 45. Did anyone in Lakewood see these boxes? There is a mock one on tv and they're huge!

When can we find out the exact dimensions and locations of the Lakewood boxes?

[Jim O'Bryan]

I'm watching the ATT hearings in Rocky River on Channel 45. Did anyone in Lakewood see these boxes? There is a mock one on tv and they're huge!

When can we find out the exact dimensions and locations of the Lakewood boxes?

Suzanne

Cox Communications brought a cardboard mock up of the box to the council meeting. But we know how many residents go to council meetings.

Many "facts" were thrown out during this a couple that bear to revisit are Michael Dever was able to convince AT&T to place some boxes underground. I would hope the city would continue to push for this. Councilman Dever brought up many interesting points including "at what point do we end the clutter on tree lawns." While it is easy to say only 40 boxes, that would be in the next couple years, we have no idea what is down the road. Had anyone heard of COX COMMUNICATIONS 20/30 years ago? Who knows where the future takes us.

Another thing that was glossed over was the possible dangers. As a AT&T representative said "It is only 110 volts most home air conditioners use 220 volts." I am thinking it was merely slip as most things in homes are 110, and that some full house air conditioners use 220. But the real thing is it is the AMPs that kill not the volts. I never saw a a figure on the AMPs. Still the big boxes will also carry warnings of DANGER on them.

Rocky River said no, because of aesthetics, Lakewood said yes for among other reasons, $15,000 in legal fees being paid, Lower Prices, and the technology jump. The interesting thing in both COX and AT&T publicly stated their would be no price war and no reduction in prices, and that Lightspeed on takes fiber to the boxes, from there it is copper wire. A good example would be the sewers on Baxterly that go from 30" to 12", as the residents how it is working for them and their basements.

It is my hope in the 4-5 years it will take AT&T to get this program up and running that the city could get them to place all boxes in the ground, and run fiber to each house.

Lakewood Observer receives ads and support from both AT&T and COX COMMUNICATIONS.



.