Arkansas Blog

That's right.

A-LA-Cart...A-LA-Cart....A-LA-Cart......which one will offer this will get my business.

A-la-cart is a great idea, but neither AT&T nor Comcast will ever be able to deliver it. The content providers dictate it. Disney won't let you buy ESPN unless you are willing to broadcast their useless networks as well.

I'm all for it, but I'm not holding my breath.

why can't LR have competition among cable TV? I lived in OH for a time and could chose between several diffrent Cable companies.

Because the Comcast agreement operated to keep other cable companies out. And, of course, now that the LR BOD is allowing AT&T to sell its IPTV product, Comcast wants to re-do its contract.

It was a great contract if it kept competitors out. Not so much so if competition is allowed.

Comcast is a bunch of weasels.

Mayor Hays, this notice that Comcast has demanded renegotiation with Little Rock was for your benefit. Take heed.

I gave my TV to a Habitat family almost five years ago and I still have not missed it. The Comcasts of the world can suck it as far as I'm concerned. I can't tell that I've missed out on a thing, and I've read a lot of things I should have been reading all along. I can recommend life sans TV. Most of the programming is mind rot anyway, best I can tell. I don't need to watch "reality" on TV. My life is all the reality I need, and it's been enhanced without all the TV fancies telling me how life is supposed to be. Screw a bunch of Comcasts. Let them eat cake!

Comcast wants to get out of paying to fix problems in outlying areas.

Comcast also wants to stop providing sevice without charge to public schools and libraries which they've done for years.

That's what Lonnie said last week...

Comcast didn't seek any of that, but that's what the AT&T contracts allows them to do. Don't blame Comcast.

I think I saw Lonnie in a Fedora smoking a Dunhill with a cigarette holder at the COLR board meetin'.

What's a Dunhill?

"The AT&T gloating is to be expected, but the vote wasn't all bad for Comcast.

Sure, the primary goal was to keep AT&T out of the market, and that failed.

But the consolation prize itsn't bad. Because of the deal the Board gave AT&T, Comcast no longer has to provide free services to schools, libraries and city offices across the city. It can certainly cut the amount of money it spends on PEG, maybe even cut out some of the channels (and make them money-making commercial channels). Comcast can probably close its PEG studio. It doesn't have to pay a franchise fee on advertising revenues anymore. If repairs to remote portions of the network are too costly, Comcast doesn't have to make them. Those are just a few of the things, but they will add up to save Comcast money and make them more competitive to AT&T.

It's not all bad.

I'll miss your little toot toot, Suzy.

Posted by: Lonnie | July 19, 2006 12:17 PM"

Um, why'd you say it then Lonnie?

One problem Comcast...

You still have an exclusive cable franchise agreement. AT&T is not utilizing cable to provide video services. It is using a different technology as defined by the FCC.

Besides, Comcats is disingenuous at best. In the June 29 issue of the WSJ, Comcast lays out its plans to sell IPTV all across the country WITHOUT a franchise agreement with anybody anywhere.

Comcast simply needs to suck it up, compete and let the market decide.

"Comcast didn't seek any of that, but that's what the AT&T contracts allows them to do. Don't blame Comcast."

Ummm Comcast is seeking that out right now.

City of LR I say stand up to Comcast and refuse to renegotaite, they lost becasue IPTV is not cable, it is not run on cable lines. Comcast is scared it is losing it's monopoly and wants to take it's toys and go home.

Althought our spineless board will no doubt give in to Comcast.

"Mayor Hays, this notice that Comcast has demanded renegotiation with Little Rock was for your benefit. Take heed."

Posted by: Lonnie | July 21, 2006 01:20 PM

How many public officials is this Comcast hack gonna threaten? According to the last thread, he will have the jobs of the entire board, save his lone supporter.

DON'T BOW DOWN TO BIG CABLE, CITY BOARD MEMBERS! Consumers/voters are behind you, you don't need "Lonnie"s $.....

My suggestion for cheap cable (and Comcast doesn't like to sell it to you): basic stripped-to-the-bone cable at about $14 a month, a $15 a month subscription to Netflix (2 out at a time, unlimited--I get about 8 a month) AND! visits to your public library to check out as many DVD's FOR FREE as you can handle.

I refuse to upgrade my service unless I can choose a la carte.

It's been a long week and I'm tired. But to address Looney, Anon, and Why? (who most likely are Paschal, Wagnon & Moe) before I head to the local bar, none of the Comcast takebacks and renegotiation would be necessary if Little Rock had just required a cable franchise agreement from AT&T.

Once a city grants a monopoly via a franchise agreement, it can't take it away. Little Rock will learn that. Others should take notice. You don't mess with such things.

" Others should take notice. You don't mess with such things"

I just realized something. And its bad. This friggin' deal the city just gave AT&T means Comcast is going to get to stop serving us folks in the boonies. They're gonna cut us off and we're not gonna have NUTHIN!

Did LR BOD renegotiate the cable contract when sat TV entered the market? No. Should the LR BOD renegotiate when IPTV hits the market? No. Has the LR BOD imposed a fee on Comcast for selling phone? No. Comcast can threaten, Comcast can sue but my guess is that a judge will tell them to piss off. My suggestion to LR BOD is to refuse to renegotiate. Congress will soon pass federal legislation which will make all this squabbling moot. Tell Comcast to endure the pain just as they have made their customers. Director Keck it is time for you to take a stand.

Max, you say "politics done in AT&T's favor." Are you saying Comcast didn't politic?

I think the Board got a strong dose (and probably a huge load) from both sides. They had to make a decision and they did.

"Politics done in Comcast's favor" would have been better somehow?

ARK. BLOGNo. I'm saying AT&T won.

It is real interesting how Lonnie can take such a stand about the city being required to re-negotiate. No such language exist in the franchise agreement forthe city to renegotiate a contract unless another cable operater enters the market. AT&T provides video content via IPTV. Comcast knows this is different technology than cable and that it is better technology than cable. That is why they have spent millions formulating their own IPTV division to provide video content anywhere throughout the US and without any type of agreement to any municipality.

Mouthinfreely, don't worry about Keck. He is ready for Comcast.

And of course you are correct about that. I doubt there would have been any less legal squabbles had Comcast won.

AT&T's favor... Comcast's favor... Nobody did anything in the consumer's favor.

For the sake of a few days of Comcast bashing, the city board sold out the consumers, right down the proverbial river.

I admit to supporting AT&T in this (because I hate the monopoly that is Comcast and its crappy service), but I think the Board did a pretty good job weighing the pros and cons. Both sides dumped huge amounts of information on them. They read, they listened and ultimately they voted.

Did they make the right choice? I think so because competition is always good for consumers. But regardless whether you agree, the Board did its job. That's all citizens can ask.

If Comcast retaliates, that's Comcast's decision. The Board shouldn't have cowed down just because Comcast threatened a lawsuit.

Yeah, but that river leads to competition. Comcast had it dammed up.

Best line of the week. I'm calling it a day.

Like Catmondo, I gave away my TV a long time ago. Don't miss it a bit. Too many other things to do nowadays.

How do you keep up with baseball and the Tour De France if you don't have a TV? Gotta have me some Cards baseball.

Why do I care what pipe is used - cable or telephone line? If the two companies are going to compete, let them play with the same rules. Why should comcast have to offer services in places where AT&T does not?

But, knowing AT&T, I bet you employee posters on here are getting some of those referral points for posting messages. Or an entry into a contest or something.

Thanks to Lance Turner at ArkansasBusiness.com for pointing out this article -

BusinessWeek - July 31, 2006 -

The Phone Companies Still Don't Get It

They block competition and charge too much. You call this a communications revolution?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_31/b3995070.htm

Nice article in the Dem-Gaz this morning. I hope other cities are realizing what can happen to them.

Director Adcock, er um I mean Lonnie, Comcast has only hurt themselves by demanding to renegoiate. I predict it will not be pretty for Mike Wilson and company. Comcast has been the only game in town for too long. Sic em Director Keck.

We'll see if AT&T ever gets into the game.

Oh Lonnie, I mean director Adcock, it will happen. Lest you forget, the vote was 9-1. Competition is on the way whether you or Comcast like it. Consumers of LR rejoice! Lower prices, better service, new technology are just months away.

AT&T did a great job of blurring the lines in this debate. Based on their own their own definition, I don't see how the City can keep from re-negotiating.

This definition of IPTV being a "two-way" service is smoke and mirrors. Hell, cable's "two-way"... they're using broadband (the same technology AT&T is) to send Internet service, phone service and video on demand back and fourth to customers.

Us poor folks in BF Egypt are fu*ked now. We'll be back to rabbit ears. Thanks a lot, LR BOD.

Sounds like Comcast is threatening to pull out of some areas of LR. I doubt it, as long as people keep paying their extortionist rates.

are u kidding me? Comcast isn't pulling out of any neighborhood. They've already installed the fiber, do you think they will go pull it out? No way. They will continue to offer cable to all neighborhoods. Comcast may have to offer it at a lower price, but they will offer. Ike, I am not sure that the Comcast contract is as clear cut as Lonnie would have you believe. Renegotiation will not come easy and it won't be a great experience for Comcast. The LR BODs, with the exception of Adcock, are fed up with Comcast and the games they play.

Tellitlikeitis,
You are misguided. The BOD may not be thrilled about renegotiating, and they will probably throw up some roadblocks, but they have to do it. And, if they don't, it just makes Comcast's position better.

In retrospect, AT&T should be congratulated for its victory on IPTV. It did a good job focusing on everybody's apparent dislike of Comcast, the public's desire for choice, and consumers' hopes that more competition will mean lower prices.

All of that is well and good, but a deal is a deal. A monopoly created is a monopoly granted. This particular clause in the Comcast agreement wasn't put there by accident. It was placed to assure Comcast would have NO COMPETITION during the life of the agreement. And, if the City changes its mind, which it apparently did, Comcast gets renumeration.

Frankly, it doesn't matter a bit if the public hates Comcast, or loves AT&T, or wants competition, or wants choice, etc. The public doesn't get a say. And, actually, after the franchise was granted, the BOD doesn't get a say until the contract expires.

I've heard it said you don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. The same can be said about going against a company that is the sole provider of cable TV in most significant cities in this country, and basically, prints their own money.

The big boy wins this one.

For those interested, the comments made by "Lonnie" were not authorized by Comcast. There will be no further posts on this blog from Lonnie.

Lonnie,

Since you are so learned in the details of the Comcast contract would you please provide the language for the blog readers. My bet is that they will not read the language as you do. Please kiss Director Adcock and tell her good night.

I doubt that Comcast would discontinue service to exisiting areas of the city.

But I'll speculate that Comcast may seek a change in their franchise agreement that would release them from the requirement to extend service to areas that are annexed in the future.

Eventually, the legal requirements for the telco and cable companies will be "harmonized". The current trend, as exemplified by the AT&T deal, will be for utilities to offer service only in selected "high-value" neighborhoods. The social contract between utilities and the cities they serve will be a thing of the past.

A visitor,

I've asked you twice now to define "high-value" but just seem to go mute. What is a "high-value" neighborhood? Twin Lakes? Hillcrest? Leawood? You make it all sound so sinister but do you have any basis?

SBC/AT&T defines their customers as -

Low Value customers - 35%
Medium Value customers - 40%
High Value customers - 25%

source: http://www.comsoc.org/oeb/Past_Presentations/SBC_Nov04.pdf

In SBC's "Conference Call to Discuss Project Lightspeed" on Nov. 11, 2004 - SBC provided these additional definitions -

Low-value customers spend $110 or less per month.

Medium value customers spend $110-to-$160 per month.

High-value customers spend $160-to-$200 per month.