The Observation Deck

I've noticed a good number of utility boxes around town that have nothing to do with the new cabinets that are going in for lightspeed. What is the ratio of existing boxes vs new boxes being installed by AT&T?
Figure if there's going to be a photo in the paper to draw attention to the "problem" we might as well discuss it.

Shawn Juris wrote:I've noticed a good number of utility boxes around town that have nothing to do with the new cabinets that are going in for lightspeed. What is the ratio of existing boxes vs new boxes being installed by AT&T?
Figure if there's going to be a photo in the paper to draw attention to the "problem" we might as well discuss it.

Shawn

I agree we should discuss. Of course it would have been better had you joined and discussed before the agreement.

The smallest part of the problem is the boxes, but the most visible. Most invisible is the contract, the soon to be filed lawsuit, the loss of between $75,000 - $500,000 in dollars and service to the city. Finally the problem with Lakewood ignoring a contract we had signed in good faith.

Please look at John Guscott's post on the boxes exploding, the electrical amps, and other problems maintaining them.

Then, there is the small problem that Lightspeed does not really exist yet, it would be called vaporware. So it is hard to discuss Lightspeed. Just imagine what COX does now, but slower.

Then we could discuss who brought it to the city and ramrodded it home.

Map, which we have online, shows 43 installations, the agreement says a minimum of 38(I believe) some of the large single cabinets have nothing to do with Lightspeed.

Two things I pondered is- COX a cable TV provider that sells internet and phone, can do it without "installation boxes" AT&T a phone company that sells internet and TV while needing massive boxes. COX brings fiber optics to the house, AT%T brings it to the box and much slower copper wire to the house.

All that COX asked for, and is in their contract, is a fair and equal playing field. Have you looked at both contracts? Was this unfair? Also online.

Just to bring you up to speed.

Thank you Denis Dunn.

Doug

DougHuntingdon wrote:Thank you Denis Dunn.

Doug

Doug

I want you to understand that Denis Dunn is one of the very few out of the box solid thinkers Lakewood has. The man is sharp. I like the man I really do. But this was not a good deal on a variety levels including what we stand to lose.

This started months of looking at how Lakewood always seems to sell it's self short. 20,000 homes in 5.5 square miles is like hitting the lottery if you need to run cables.

AT&T would have paid the same as COX, that is all anyone really cares about. But the boxes are nasty, real nasty. Councilman Mike Dever nailed it that fateful night, "When does it stop? At some point we have to draw a line in the sand and say enough."

For the record, COX TV, AT&T phone at home.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Then, there is the small problem that Lightspeed does not really exist yet, it would be called vaporware. So it is hard to discuss Lightspeed. Just imagine what COX does now, but slower.

That's not necessarily true. It's not available in Lakewood yet, but it is available in other places:

https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=5838

Lightspeed is more the codename, Uverse is the retail name.

Not that I'm defending the boxes or the contract with AT&T, I agree with you on that. Just wanted to point out that the product isn't vaporware.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:That's not necessarily true. It's not available in Lakewood yet, but it is available in other places:

https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=5838

Lightspeed is more the codename, Uverse is the retail name.

Not that I'm defending the boxes or the contract with AT&T, I agree with you on that. Just wanted to point out that the product isn't vaporware.

Bryan

Thanks for the correction. I had heard that AT&T was hoping for at least twelve channels by launch about a month ago. I thought different areas had different parts but no one with the excpetion of San Antonio had "the deal," without TV.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat a second!

"AT&T U-verseSM represents the future of communications and entertainment. The industry-leading Internet Protocol (IP)-based services distributed over AT&T’s fiber-rich network will bring a new level of service integration and features to customers across the AT&T footprint.

With AT&T U-verse, it’s all coming together. The AT&T U-verse portfolio integrates digital video, AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled, and in the future, voice over IP services. AT&T U-verse TV – AT&T’s premier, 100 percent IP video offering – features leading content, quality high-definition programming, and enhanced capabilities unlike anything on the market.

AT&T expects to reach nearly 19 million households as part of its initial deployment by the end of 2008. AT&T is adding about 40,000 miles of fiber to its already fiber-rich network, bringing fiber even closer to customers' homes using fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) technologies."

I see no locations where it is. Oh you can order it, but how long do you wait.

I have to be honest I do not see a huge problem with AT&T being in Lakewood. But another $250,000 a year in city coffers would have been sweet.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Bryan

Thanks for the correction. I had heard that AT&T was hoping for at least twelve channels by launch about a month ago. I thought different areas had different parts but no one with the excpetion of San Antonio had "the deal," without TV.

Thanks again.

.

I haven't necessarily heard good things about the reliability of the Uverse product (mainly bug issues with the Microsoft software that runs the set top boxes).

What I am looking forward to is Cox probably bringing faster speeds to Lakewood when AT&T brings their service here.

I realize Cox swore there wouldn't be a price war but when Verizon's FIOS or AT&T's Uverse entered a Cox market, they magically started offering internet speeds like 15/2 which is infinitely faster than we have now.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I haven't necessarily heard good things about the reliability of the Uverse product (mainly bug issues with the Microsoft software that runs the set top boxes).

What I am looking forward to is Cox probably bringing faster speeds to Lakewood when AT&T brings their service here.

I realize Cox swore there wouldn't be a price war but when Verizon's FIOS or AT&T's Uverse entered a Cox market, they magically started offering internet speeds like 15/2 which is infinitely faster than we have now.

COX is offering some pretty staggering speeds all ready. One question raised was, will the copper wire to the house, kill speeds. While we are offering help in setting up wireless zones for our advertisers, they will be limited to Detroit and Madison. The providers we are using vary, COX, AT&T, Earthlink, COVAD, and others.

I have Direct TV at home with COX and was thinking of trying their package.

.

If I could bring us back to the initial question though. I understand now that there are 40 some odd AT&T cabinets. That was the most discussed problem and the one that the paper decided to highlight with the photo. So, how many other cabinets and utility boxes are around Lakewood obstructing views and posing a threat to property value and personal well being? Shouldn't property values have already been effected if utility boxes can really be a cause of lower values?
Or is it maybe just a bunch of pontificating to advance an agenda?

Shawn Juris wrote:If I could bring us back to the initial question though. I understand now that there are 40 some odd AT&T cabinets. That was the most discussed problem and the one that the paper decided to highlight with the photo. So, how many other cabinets and utility boxes are around Lakewood obstructing views and posing a threat to property value and personal well being? Shouldn't property values have already been effected if utility boxes can really be a cause of lower values?
Or is it maybe just a bunch of pontificating to advance an agenda?

Shawn

Maybe we can get Steve Davis to jump in, as this new section of the Paper is his idea. The thought was to take items, people are not sure of and use them to drive traffic to the website.

How could property values be lowered because of boxes before they are put in? I find that to be a hard one to measure.

And the agenda you think we are putting forward?

John Guscott underlines that the boxes are exploding and catching fire in Houston. Steve Davis and I point out that they are big enough to block more than one car from view. Just because we were driving around and saw them. Others jump in, not connected with the paper in anyway shape and form. So the agenda is?

How about safety, property values, bad contracts, a possible $500,000 loss to the city or more, streamlined greased skids, what else?

The agenda?

You see the loss of a minimum of $75,000 a year to as much as a half million in the schools, library and city coffers as a good thing?

.

I know that it's hard Jim but try to get outside of your normal box and read closely. What about the utility boxes that are already in place. Not the lightspeed boxes. The ones that have been here for a long time already. How many of those are there? I see one or two each time I drive a different route around Lakewood but haven't taken the time to count them (primarily because I think that the Lightspeed issue is fabricated and Lakewood latest version of attention seeking). If there is such a great threat to property values than there should be some historical data to show that those that live near the existing non-lightspeed boxes have sold their homes for less than expected. If there is a danger from obstructed view then we should be able to see prior accident reports that cited these utility boxes (non-lightspeed) as a contributing factor. This may be different in dimensions but the idea is not new.
I know it's easy to just regurgitate your normal rhetoric but try to respond to the question asked. That creates a more open discussion to find solutions and prioritize issues rather than always coming back to the same old propaganda.

Shawn

I am not sure we(residents) have any say over city boxes.

I have a map of other AT&T boxes from before the program. Would it help for me to upload that?

.

That would help to get an idea. For the sake of argument I think that it's important to consider not just At&t boxes (before and after lightspeed) but any boxes that are relevant to these problems that are being suggested. I would certainly think that during the council discussions there was research and statistics available and not simply a "sky is falling" argument based on speculation.
The two problems in particular that jump out are;
Obstructed View: where are the traffic incident statistics?
Impact on Property Values: which houses sold for less because of similar utility cabinets or public utility equipment?

Shawn Juris wrote:That would help to get an idea. For the sake of argument I think that it's important to consider not just At&t boxes (before and after lightspeed) but any boxes that are relevant to these problems that are being suggested. I would certainly think that during the council discussions there was research and statistics available and not simply a "sky is falling" argument based on speculation.
The two problems in particular that jump out are;
Obstructed View: where are the traffic incident statistics?
Impact on Property Values: which houses sold for less because of similar utility cabinets or public utility equipment?

Shawn

In an effort to move this discussion forward I will speak with the various companies and the city on the boxes.

It was Councilman Mike Dever that to my knowledge was the first to raise the issue about, "At what point do we say enough?" in the last pre-council hearing on the subject. We have just finished digitizing the last 6 months of council meetings and they are being added and cataloged for the podcast section.

I would like to understand some of the questions you are asking though.

Especially the value of a house with a nice tree lawn, and one that has boxes on it. I remember my sister buying a house in Olmsted Township where the builder gave her a $6,000 reduction in price because of the box on her lawn(not tree lawn). Perhaps it was her dealings, who knows. I think we can agree it takes away from the beauty of the property.

As you missed the meetings, AT&T did mention they would try to keep them off of private property. I will look and see if other box builders have the same verbiage in their contracts.

While your thread looks at the larger picture, the other threads are looking at the one problem that can still be fixed before it becomes permanent.

But the look at the big picture you offer is appreciated.



.

Sounds good. So long as we are discussing real facts and figures and not anecdotes and assumptions. Again, the sky may well be falling because of Lightspeed boxes but I'd prefer to be pragmatic about the discussion of it so we can understand it and prevent it.