tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post116670859242954094..comments2024-03-18T18:30:39.000-05:00Comments on Dad29: Give Me The MONEY!! Says MilwaukeeDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-23369034537550984492019-11-14T07:01:28.575-06:002019-11-14T07:01:28.575-06:00Hello, Thanks for your article. you have got expou...Hello, Thanks for your article. you have got expounded alright on this, I even have thought that it had been valuable and it'll be very helpful. It will be a guide for people who are looking for the <a href="https://internetproviders.tv/providers/" rel="nofollow"> cable one internet plans </a> for Home and business internet.Edward Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021529222142928247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-1166895900001443502006-12-23T11:45:00.000-06:002006-12-23T11:45:00.000-06:00First off, Karen, have you SEEN these "line-of-sig...First off, Karen, have you SEEN these "line-of-sight" blocking boxes? I have--on 85th St., just north of North Avenue.<BR/><BR/>The alarmism in your comment reflects the political twist of certain Milwaukee aldermen, whose entire play is oriented towards obtaining campaign donations from AT&T in exchange for "permission" to install those boxes.<BR/><BR/>So it's not a safety issue; it's a money issue. <BR/><BR/>That's Number One.<BR/><BR/>Number Two: those boxes do NOT require additional "city-provided maintenance." Period. The mythology here is stunning.<BR/><BR/>But I'll be enlightened if you tell me exactly which New & Costly city services will be required due to these "line-of-sight" blocking boxes.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I drive. The boxes are no more a hazard than are postal storage-boxes, city sand/salt storage boxes, or Transit Company shelters.<BR/><BR/>Really, Karen, I expected a bit more from you than that...Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-1166894484805678922006-12-23T11:21:00.000-06:002006-12-23T11:21:00.000-06:00If AT&T isn't putting more stuff in the right-of-w...If AT&T isn't putting more stuff in the right-of-way for this new cable service of theirs, then what are those new, huge, line-of-sight-blocking, cable service boxes they are installing for?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-1166825313845884782006-12-22T16:08:00.000-06:002006-12-22T16:08:00.000-06:00Umnnnhhh..Karen, AT&T plans to have 50% of the Gre...Umnnnhhh..Karen, AT&T plans to have 50% of the Greater Milwaukee area 'wired' in the next year. They are not so certain about the remaining 50%.<BR/><BR/>You pay for maintenance of right-of-way for telephone services (which I suspect you use.) In point of fact there is NO need to pay more to add ATT's "cable" service.<BR/><BR/>That's the whole point of the post.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-1166824344988413062006-12-22T15:52:00.000-06:002006-12-22T15:52:00.000-06:00Not to mention that AT&T is using the public (that...Not to mention that AT&T is using the public (that means our) right-of-way for private profit while not even planning to make their private service available to all of us who pay to keep up the right-of-way for the common good? So some of us have to pay to subsidize AT&T's profits without even being able to buy the supposed service....... that's not worth even one extra penny on my tax bill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-1166795855626926372006-12-22T07:57:00.000-06:002006-12-22T07:57:00.000-06:00Au contraire--YOU miss a key point.AT&T is already...Au contraire--YOU miss a key point.<BR/><BR/>AT&T is <B>already paying</B> for that use of the property, as you mention. <BR/><BR/>I don't think they should pay twice for the same usage--regardless of the 'shape' of their 1s and 0s.<BR/><BR/>Cable does not seek a 'level' playing field. They have engaged their Pig Government allies to sue for the purpose of raising the cost of doing business.<BR/><BR/>No different from the way in which JP Morgan, AP Hill, and JD Rockefeller operated.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-1166761081758785732006-12-21T22:18:00.000-06:002006-12-21T22:18:00.000-06:00Dad, you're missing some key points. Reading the ...Dad, you're missing some key points. <BR/><BR/>Reading the actual suit (which you can find at <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/y5x2o4" REL="nofollow">this site</A>) it's clear that this is about a level playing field for the local citizens. <BR/><BR/>Please remember that when private entities use the right-of-way for services other than common carrier offerings, they're using your streets for private profit. <BR/><BR/>The purpose of requiring and collecting franchise fees (which most states collect from phone companies for regulated common carrier activities), is designed to act as a rent for the public property they use for private profit purposes.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that most people would like to be compensated when someone comes along and uses some of their property for private purposes.<BR/><BR/>As to AT&T's argument that their 1s and 0s are somehow different from a cable operator's 1s and 0s is difficult to believe (from an broadband engineering perspective, and from a legal standpoint...by the way, I'm a broadband engineer and an attorney, so I do have a broad perspective on this issue.)<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Jonathan KramerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com