Ahead at Lightspeed

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:53 pm

Why did we not get that deal in Lakewood? Oh that's right... No one would put that crap in there yard if they had the choice. Ma Bell is back and she wants you tree lawn!!!(You can click on this rant)

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:11 pm

Jim DeVito wrote:Why did we not get that deal in Lakewood? Oh that's right... No one would put that crap in there yard if they had the choice. Ma Bell is back and she wants you tree lawn!!!(You can click on this rant)

Jim

I am pretty sure it was a mixture of greed on AT&T's part and grease skids on Lakewood's part.

Who could every forget the night we heard, "It feels so odd standing down here instead of sitting up there with you." to paraphrase.

owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

.

Bryan Schwegler · Post by **Bryan Schwegler** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:04 am

http://snipurl.com/2u2ir
Suburbs learning to live with refrigerator-size AT&T service boxes

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:08 am

Bryan Schwegler wrote:http://snipurl.com/2u2ir
Suburbs learning to live with refrigerator-size AT&T service boxes

Bryan

Total spin, for an advertiser.

From where I sit, I know of 4 cities that are so PO'ed they are fixing to sue AT&T, and seek damages caused to city and private property.

In an effort of full disclosure, the LO had a deal with AT&T for advertising that was pulled when we started this thread, and openly talking about with our neighbors what other cities had found out.

Possibly, the "real paper" could not afford that decision.

FWIW

John Guscott · Post by **John Guscott** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:01 pm

apologies for the epic thread bump, but whatever happened to the Lightspeed box concept-art contest???? Was there a winner? Can we still vote?

also, more seriously, one has to wonder what ATT has planned with these boxes, long-term.

I mean, why the huge political hoop-jumping and massive financial investment, and, for what? To basically get fiber to the box and copper to the home?

This massive upgrade and outlay has to be a stepping stone for something larger? I've seen their work crews out in the tents for the last 9 months and it can't all be for Lightspeed/uverse?

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:06 pm

Are they bringing copper to the home? I thought it was just regular phone connection to get the DSL to the house.

I saw an SBC truck across the street from our Publisher's house and all I could think was, "uh oh..."

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:15 pm

John Guscott wrote:apologies for the epic thread bump, but whatever happened to the Lightspeed box concept-art contest???? Was there a winner? Can we still vote?

also, more seriously, one has to wonder what ATT has planned with these boxes, long-term.

I mean, why the huge political hoop-jumping and massive financial investment, and, for what? To basically get fiber to the box and copper to the home?

This massive upgrade and outlay has to be a stepping stone for something larger? I've seen their work crews out in the tents for the last 9 months and it can't all be for Lightspeed/uverse?

John

Dustin won and could not make the parade.

He and his wife Linda will be taken out for a wonderful dinner in the place of their choice in Lakewood.

.

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:16 am

I broke down last week and canceled Cox. The latest increase in rates put me over the top. I had ATT install their new U-Verse product.

The installer was very professional, ran new line within my house and worked for almost 4 hours to get it all set up. The cable is lightning fast switching from channel to channel and the picture in picture preview for other channels is genius.

The phone is great, had a power outage due to the storm yesterday and the phone and internet kept working.

The internet is supposedly slower but to me and my wife it is faster.

Over all I am very impressed with the product and it was over $40 less then what I was paying Cox.

The boxes are ugly but well worth it in my opinion...

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:39 am

Ryan Salo wrote:
The boxes are ugly but well worth it in my opinion...

While you save $40.00, there is no doubt the boxes are not safe and do detract from the neighborhood.

While it seems faster as more sign on it will get slower and slower, as does COX, but at a far faster rate then COX.

While the contract with the city also has the potential to cost the city an additional $330,000 + in lost services.

Then, there is the pending possible litigation, which could see disruption in service down the road.

In full disclosure I use COX, AT&T, Direct TV, and Earthlink.

FWIW

.

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:00 pm

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
While you save $40.00, there is no doubt the boxes are not safe and do detract from the neighborhood.

While it seems faster as more sign on it will get slower and slower, as does COX, but at a far faster rate then COX.

.

Both technically true statements.

I think they are just pulling fiber to the node (the craptastic boxes we have all come to love

) So I believe it is still just a regular phone line to the home. With a different phase (?) to carry the DSL signal to the VRAD. I will go on record that I am quite happy with COX service and support. I will not be using any att product. I will point out that we do not use cable TV or a home phone. That said the price for our cable internet is a bit high and would be nice if it was lower.

I hope and will fully support the city in any effort made to sue att or the parties involved with the box debacle. att should be ashamed to think so little of there own markets to put up those god awful tinder boxes.

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:25 pm

Jim O'Bryan wrote:While you save $40.00, there is no doubt the boxes are not safe and do detract from the neighborhood.

So are all the telephone and electric lines that hang above our heads. We should start burying everything.

Until that point, I recommend people at least try this new service, the installation process is free for now and there are no contracts so you can cancel at any time (if service is going to stop due to a city lawsuit)

I understand the frustration, but the boxes are here, the technology is faster and less expensive, so lets take advantage of it and force cox to sharpen their pencil so to say.

In regards to the internet slowing with more users, I was told by technicians at ATT that that is not true. Their internet apparently functions differently then cox's which does get noticeably slower at peak times...

Tim Liston · Post by **Tim Liston** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:47 pm

The AT&T tech was correct. With cable you share a single line with others and your speed declines as others subscribe, especially at peak times. With AT&T DSL (technically ADSL) you get a dedicated line and your data rate stays the same regardless of who else subscribes. The speed you get today, you are pretty much assured of in the future, no matter how may others subscribe. Though with AT&T DSL your speed does depend on how far you are from the nearest central office.

I just want the facts out there....

The 50 or so AT&T installations pale in comparison to the poles, wires (including Cox's), trash receptacles, bus stops, mail boxes, newspaper boxes, signs, fire hydrants and traffic control devices that already litter our tree lawns and other public spaces.

I am and have been very happy with DSL for years. As I no longer subscribe to cable TV I don't need Uverse or Cox.

John Guscott · Post by **John Guscott** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:51 pm

Ryan, thank you for describing your Cox HSI to Uverse experience. I had not really heard details of anyone who has converted.

I've been with Cox since the week they rolled out HSI in Lakewood, and currently have the 15mpbs package. I haven't considered Uverse because we use mobiles and am not really interested in the tv channels (all of which you can watch online for free, if you really wanted to, anyway!). I like the Cox HSI service, never had any problem with it, but $47.00 a month for Internet at this speed is ridiculous! Why do so many other parts of the country and world enjoy much higher speeds, at lower costs? Still, it's the only game in town for those speeds, so...

Tim, you make a great point about the ugliness of the underpinning infrastructures... it reminded me of the classic Robert Crumb cartoon, "A Short History of America": http://www.zubeworld.com/crumbmuseum/history2.html

Seriously, if it werent for all these corporations (telco and cable alike) protecting their physical capital investments (and cash cows), this country would be totally wireless already! We could get rid of so much technological detritus, it would be great! But unfortunately, innovation is America is hamstrung by various corporate influences on government and long-range planners.

Oh, well, we can only hope for such a better future!

Bryan Schwegler · Post by **Bryan Schwegler** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:37 pm

I too am annoyed by Cox's constant increases. I mean really, they seem to happen every 3 months.

Dave Mechenbier · Post by **Dave Mechenbier** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:08 pm

I thought all these large boxes housed the AT&T sales gnomes that keep popping up on our porch. I've received more Uverse pitches, than I care to count. Want to get a great blank stare? Just ask one of the sales crew why digital phone is better. Bet they can't tell you.

I've looked at Uverse very recently and I can't find a compelling reason to switch. We don't want hundreds of TV channels, we are satisfied with our analog phone and AT&T DSL connection. I've priced our present services (Cox cable, AT&T voice & Internet) and tried to get a comparable all AT&T Uverse package. All it saves is $5/month. Big deal. If the Uverse package with digital phone is such a great technology advance (tongue in cheek) and technology is supposed to lower the cost, what's in it for me?