Page 1 of 4
AT&T Proposal. Do we win, or do we lose?
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:42 am
by stephen davis
I got this e-mail from Denis Dunn.
July 13, 2006
Dear Fellow Lakewood Residents and friends,
AT&T has embarked on an exciting endeavor to bring the next generation of telecommunications, broadband, and video technology to communities throughout our local exchange network in 13 states, including Ohio. AT&T plans to invest $4.7 billion in its Project Lightspeed initiative to deliver this new technology to nearly 19 million homes by the end of 2008.
Consumers and local businesses in Lakewood stand to benefit from upgraded communications technology and a new choice for video service. AT&T will provide “switched IP†or Internet Protocol-based video services called AT&T U-Verse TV, high speed Internet access and, in the future, Voice over IP services. The initiative will push fiber optics further into the neighborhood, providing an additional option for video and entertainment services and a new alternative to traditional cable TV.
We are working with city leaders to bring this new service to Lakewood. Mayor George and his administration have worked closely with AT&T Ohio on this initiative and have demonstrated a commitment to bringing Lakewood residents competition to cable TV that will result in more choices, competitive prices, better service, investment and economic development. As a Lakewood resident, I am enthused that our city has the opportunity to be a leader in attracting this significant investment and new technology.
We are in the late stages of finalizing a video services agreement with the City of Lakewood so that AT&T can move forward and begin providing Lakewood residents this exciting new service. Currently, Lakewood City Council is considering this agreement, but we need your support to finish the job.
The Lakewood Chamber of Commerce, Local CWA representatives, AT&T employees and retirees, and community leaders have been very helpful communicating with Lakewood officials the importance of this project to consumers and future jobs. But, we need you – as a resident of Lakewood - to reinforce with Lakewood City Council members how important Project Lightspeed is to the community.
Please support our efforts by contacting members of City Council to urge their support of the AT&T Competitive Video Agreement currently under consideration. Please visit
www.OhioTVChoice.com to contact Lakewood City Council via email. We expect City Council to vote on this agreement Monday, July 17, so, it’s important to contact them as soon as possible.
Additionally, it would be helpful for supporters of this initiative to attend Monday’s City Council Committee Meeting, where this crucial vote will occur. Please join us Monday, July 17 at Lakewood City Hall Auditorium, 12650 Detroit Avenue, at 5:00 PM.
Thank you for your assistance on this very important issue. And, please contact me if I can provide additional information.
Sincerely,
Denis Dunn
Director, External Affairs
AT&T Ohio
Sheesh! Phone companies in the cable TV business. Cable TV companies in the phone business. Everybody in the internet business. Very exciting, and somewhat confusing.
I have not followed this issue very closely. I have a few questions.
What do we get from Cox under the current franchise agreement?
Doesn't the city get a fee from Cox? How much money is that per year?
What services are provided to the City, Schools, and Library under the current agreement?
Does a deal with AT&T affect the current contract with Cox? Can Cox pull out of the current contract, or reduce their services?
What would be the cost to the City, Library, and Schools to replace the services that could be lost if Cox had the opportunity to renegotiate its contract?
Will AT&T replace any lost services?
I'm not opposed to these companies competing. I just want to know what I might be paying for in my phone bill, cable TV bill, and my tax bill.
Let the games begin. I hope everybody wins.
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:38 am
by dl meckes
Those are good questions.
I'm also wondering about the big green boxes and while I heard (at a council meeting) that the placement of those was going to be worked out in some satisfactory manner, I never heard any details of what the city or AT&T think that means.
One of the things my DH wondered about is whether or not those boxes could be put on rooftops (should building owners be able to come to some sort of deal). We'd negotiate space on our garage roof...
I'm reminded of the fights about cell phone towers and what we have now is fairly unobtrusive.
Will there be full coverage?
Who will maintain the boxes and what happens if there's some sort of shift in technology - will AT&T remove outdated equipment?
stephen davis wrote:I'm not opposed to these companies competing. I just want to know what I might be paying for in my phone bill, cable TV bill, and my tax bill.
Let the games begin. I hope everybody wins.
That pretty much sums up my feeling.
I'm not really interested in arguing the merits of the services that the companies offer, because I think that's a market choice that consumers make.
We have Cox as our cable and internet provider and Sage Telecom for our phones. I also received the email from Denis Dunn. (Disclosure...)
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:41 am
by Kenneth Warren
Steve:
I also received the e-mail and provided Dennis Dunn with the library director's perspective.
I would expect AT&T to provide Lakewood Public Library with a fiber optic high speed network solution just as Cox Cable is currently obligated to provide through the Institutional Fiber Loop under the current franchise agreement.
Lakewood Public Library uses the I-Net to connect Main Library and Madison Branch.
Previously the library paid $450 per month for a T-1 connection. The I-Net is now free. By using the I-Net the library has been able to add another layer of security for confidential patron data.
While I can only speak directly for Lakewood Public Library, I believe from my work on a previous cable advisory committee that the current I-Net provided by Cox is a critical piece in the IT strategies of schools.
I believe the Lakewood City Schools have invested substantially in the I-Net for various applications.
Bottom line, at least in my perspective as public library director, is that level playing field should mean that AT&T, like Cox, will provide the physical network and bandwidth necessary to continue this level of free and secure networking through the I-Net.
Let’s make certain no unintended consequences and costs accrue to public institutions resulting from the hasty decision-making regarding Project Light Speed.
Kenneth Warren
Director
Lakewood Public Library
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:36 pm
by Cox Communications
I would like to respond and give some perspective from Cox Communications. It is encouraging to see Lakewood residents taking an active role in educating themselves on the issues before City Council votes on the proposed AT&T Video Competition Agreement.
This is not about blocking competition. As I am sure Lakewood residents know, Cox is a pioneer of local competition. Cox urges Lakewood residents to encourage City Council to make sure AT&T can only enter the video arena on a “fair and level playing field.â€Â
With the current proposed agreement, AT&T believes it is exempt from local franchising obligations when it begins to offer video services. Without a franchise, the City of Lakewood relinquishes its right to demand any sort of FCC standards on the cable service being provided to its residents.
Mr. Warren mentions the I-Net and that is a very important difference between the two contracts. Cox is urging Council to consider the differences in the contracts in regards to the I-Net as well as that of Public Access, both of which Cox provides to the City of Lakewood.
As for the pricing question, AT&T hasn’t announced pricing for this area. But AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre was quoted recently (in Broadcasting and Cable
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6340661.html?display=Search+Results&text=Whitacre) saying he does not believe that the entry of the telcos into the video market would lead to a decrease in price. “I don’t think there’s going to be a price war.†Residents can also look to the pricing in San Antonio to see what AT&T is offering there for video service.
Cox has been very forward with Council and we are aware these are not equal contracts and we are not comparing apples to apples. However, there are important differences that council needs to seriously consider, as mentioned in other posts on this board. Our current franchise agreement with the City of Lakewood took nearly five years to negotiate –and that is with our rich history with the City. After only six months of negotiations, AT&T is encouraging council to expedite their entry into the area.
Cox is proud of our 26-year commitment to the City of Lakewood and we continue to be an important member of the community. We look forward to competing for business and know we will be successful. However,
competition only works when it occurs with fair standards and on a level playing field. We ask only that our competitors be held to the same standards, bear the same obligations and comply equally with legal obligations. It’s great to see residents asking these important questions!
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:00 pm
by Jeff Endress
I'd like to talk to Mr. Cox.....just exactly WHO posted the prior message?
Jeff
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:17 pm
by Kevin Butler
City Council will take up this issue at a committee meeting on Monday at 6 p.m. (not 5 p.m. as the original post indicated) at city hall. Your concerns are valid. I encourage everyone to attend.
Kevin Butler
Councilman, Ward 1
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:23 pm
by Jim O'Bryan
Jeff Endress wrote:I'd like to talk to Mr. Cox.....just exactly WHO posted the prior message?
Jeff
Jeff
This would be a mistake from DL Meckes I believe. Cox Communications like many of our advertisers have signed on the board to take part in some FREE benefits. COX Xommunications should only be able to post in Mainstreet. Three other employees have signed on, and this post should have been through them.
DL will have this straightened out I am sure soon enough.
Denis Dunn is also a member of this Deck and I am sure he will be posting soon.
.
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:33 pm
by stephen davis
I hope a Cox representative steps up to take ownership of that post. It is relevant to the discussion and should stay in the thread.
I welcome comments from Denis Dunn.
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:24 pm
by dl meckes
Jim O'Bryan wrote:Jeff Endress wrote:I'd like to talk to Mr. Cox.....just exactly WHO posted the prior message?
Jeff
Jeff
This would be a mistake from DL Meckes I believe. Cox Communications like many of our advertisers have signed on the board to take part in some FREE benefits. COX Xommunications should only be able to post in Mainstreet. Three other employees have signed on, and this post should have been through them.
DL will have this straightened out I am sure soon enough.
Denis Dunn is also a member of this Deck and I am sure he will be posting soon.
.
The way that the Deck works is that any registered user may post in the General Discussion & other areas.
Lakewood Observer advertisers, such as Cox Communications or AT&T, are asked to post using their business names in the Main Street area only.
Otherwise, we request that an individual representative from our advertisers post in discussion areas.
While I could move the Cox Communications post, it makes more sense to leave it here.
To totally prevent this from happening in the future, I will have to shut the board down and put our individual and business users into different posting groups.
This is an unintended consequence of the growth of the Lakewood Observer and the Observation Deck.
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:30 pm
by Mike Deneen
Like most Observers, I love the fact that we use real names.
However, I have absolutely no objections to businesses posting under their legitimate names.
I actually prefer that the post be registered under "cox communications".
The post reflects the views and opinions of that organization, which is a legitimate local business.
I actually think it would be much more disingenuous for the post to have gone under "Joe Smth" or some other actual Cox employee.
By allowing the post to be under "cox", people understand that the poster has an agenda.
For the record, I love Cox cable and internet service!
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:52 pm
by Suzanne Metelko
Mike,
I'm with you. Not only does Cox have great cable and internet but when something isn't working they have excellent customer service and technical support.
I also appreciate their committment to the community. They have been with Lakewood's not for profits from the beginning. In fact they're one of the few large utilities that joined the Chamber of Commerce and still participates. They show up at events in the community, they contribute to the events and they support groups and initiatives. It's been my experience that it's not just lip service with Cox. And all they're asking for is an even playing field. How can you argue with that?
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:31 pm
by DougHuntingdon
I think we should have an online chat debate between Mr. Dunn and Mr. Cox.
Does the city's agreement with Cox have an expiration date?
Why doesn't the AT&T plan include some kind of internet? If it does, I didn't see it mentioned.
Doug
Logging in from north of Clifton
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:34 pm
by Jim O'Bryan
DougHuntingdon wrote:I think we should have an online chat debate between Mr. Dunn and Mr. Cox.
Doug
Both are members, Denis for a long time. Both have been to the board today many times to read what is posted.
They may post anything of relevance to this board. It is open for .pdf, .mp3, hotlinks, and anything else either company would need to make their point.
I am sure both will be happy to answer any questions needed to be answered.
.
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:51 pm
by Jeff Endress
I actually prefer that the post be registered under "cox communications".
Yeah...I understand, its nice to know that the poster is a paid infomercial....but since there is no Mr. Cox, I'd still like to know who
's the talking head...
Walt....
Maybe it's digital Max!
eff
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:16 pm
by Mike Deneen
Suzanne, don't misunderstand.
Just because I am happy with my Cox service doesn't mean that I am against AT&T. In fact, this proposal seems like a good thing.
For the reasons you mentioned, I think Cox will hold up well against the competetion. Plus, I believe (and market forces demand) that prices will likely come down. Friends that move here from Adelphia communities are shocked by the high prices at Cox.
My only concern is that we have the Big Ten Channel in place by August 2007.