Arkansas Blog

SOOOOO sick of the comcast monopoly. Let 'em in...

Public access channels are well & good, but my real interest is in the other 100 or so channels. Comcast charges too darned much and is not accountable to anyone. Which is typical when you don't have competition. I'm looking forward to having a choice for a change.

I say this is a WIN-WIN for the consumer.

A wolf is still a wolf, even if it hasn't eaten your sheep!

Some people in Fort Smith have been hollering for a public access channel for years. I believe we actually have a couple provided by our local Taliban, Cox Cable, but our esteemed city directors would rather pass blood out all orifices than have their director's meetings televised. David Harris's FOI lawsuit proves they, like Bush, enjoy secrecy.

One person who is now a city director, had her own website and tried televising such meetings, covering it herself with a video camera. Guess HBO has ruined me, it was like watching paint being stripped from a lava rock....oh lord it was terribly boring and tedious.

But....any time one can put the sunshine on an elected official, it's a good thing. Maybe Merk will develop a drug that will make watching city director's meetings less excruciating if and when Fort Smith directors allow their meetings to be televised in their entirety many years in the future.

Maybe if we'd had cameras a few years ago FS wouldn't be spending 190 million dollars on expanding Lake Fort Smith, 30 miles up in the mountains when we have the 6th largest river in the United States running around 3 sides of our city.

Beware the phone compnay turned ISP turned cable provider. ATT/SWB consistantly has some of the worst customer satisfaction numbers when compared to ANYONE. Some competition would be great for Comcast but when compared with a loser like ATT...we are NOT likely to end as winners when all is said and done.

That's why they call it C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N.

They're not trying to buy out the Comcast franchise, they just want in the damn market.

Having two providers instead of one lets you pick between them even if its the lesser of two evils. Having two devils in town will make prices lower and service better no matter which one you choose to give your hard-earned $ to.

Seems like I can already get streaming video, download movies and watch some channels through my DSL line and is on a franchise that AT&T already holds.
Do Dish Network & Direct TV pay franchise fees and have Public Access???

The cable guys are howling loudly, much like a pack of wolves. Comcast has had a monopoly way too long. They know competition will erode the big profits. I betcha that folks here in the Petite Roche will be excited about having an alternative to cable and that demand will push AT&T to put the new product in all neighborhoods sooner rather than later. How long did it take cable to reach all the neighborhoods in LR? It's time to end the cable monopoly. Give the people what they want -- more choices.

Anybody happy with the customer service the get from Comcast? Anybody happy with the price of cable? Anybody happy with the their choice of cable programming? Just checkin'.

"Beware the phone compnay turned ISP turned cable provider. ATT/SWB consistantly has some of the worst customer satisfaction numbers when compared to ANYONE." IT Professional

Well, since you are a professional I will defer to you...NOT! Are you claiming you get good service from Comcast??? Please tell me another bedtime story!

Will Comcast customers be able to access AT&T's public access channels, and vice-versa? Will AT&T's public access channel be accessible only to "high-value customers", to use their terminology?

Thanks to modern technology, the city doesn't have to be dependent on Comcast or AT&T for video distribution anyway. The best solution is Internet video streaming technology that is available over any broadband connection - anywhere. Comcast and AT&T could redistribute that signal on their respective video services.

AT&T's public access offer is an insignificant issue compared to AT&T's discrimination against "low-value customers" in "low-value neighborhoods".

AT&T's franchise proposal should be rejected unless it GUARANTEES that the service will be available to all ratepayers in the city limits within a reasonable time period.

One other point - Several year ago, SBC announced a project called "Project Pronto" to build out their DSL high-speed Internet service. Despite their initial promises of wide deployment, SBC changed their mind and cancelled Project Pronto when it was only halfway completed. SBC/AT&T has a history of promising things - and not delivering.

The currently proposed agreement should be rejected and renegotiated. AT&T will respond with threats and lawsuits. I hope the city board will resist those extortion attempts. Otherwise, large areas of the city will only receive substandard service for decades to come.

I am deeply troubled by Director Adcock's postition on this issue. Do you really think this would be bad for your constituents/the citizens of Little Rock? Or is this simply an issue of Len Pitcock offering you a little bit of candy for your vote?

I will be there sometime between 9 and 5. Maybe.

"Do Dish Network & Direct TV pay franchise fees and have Public Access???"

Not sure about public access, but i do not think they pay franchise fees. They do pay 1-s (maybe 100s) of millions of dollars to the Federal government for the use of spectrum.

I agree that ATT entering the market will force Comcast to improve their service and lower their prices, however, the real money saver out there that needs to be offered is A-la-carte pricing. That way you can pick the channels you want and not pay for channels you dont want. I'm sure the QVCs oppose that one.

You mind if I lay down on your couch while I'm on hold with the office?

The article by the ARTimes a while back said that a-la-carte was a distinct posability with IPTV; Comcast just keeps giving excuses why not

A-La-Cart has got to happen. I am paying for 9 channels I never watch to be able to get Speed Channel..rediculous

I am not a big fan of Comcast, and I would like to see AT$T have a shot at offering TV, BUT, I am not going to go out and spend my savings just yet. Competition is good, but with these two, I am not getting my hopes up for a big cost savings.

I would also love to pay for my 5-8 channels that I actually watch, but the 700 Club, QVC and the likes will all ban together and this will never happen.

"Otherwise, large areas of the city will only receive substandard service for decades to come."

Yeah, they will be left with Comcast substandard service. At least a substantial number of residents will benefit from an option to those Comcast thieves.

Now again, tell me how long it took for cable to reach all neighborhoods in LR? Does Comcast currently service all neighborhoods in NLR? Repeat after me... Comcast has a monopoly. Comcast does not want competition. The cable PR flaks are doing everything in their power to focus the debate away from the key here....competition. They have worked hard to turn the discussion to one of class and race. The tactics have been disheartening. While AT&T has not publiclicy presented a map of the areas they intend to serve that I have seen, I agree with tvgeek, given Comcast's pricing and level of service, it won't take long for demand to drive deployment to all LR neighborhoods. Any alternative is preferable. Again....Comcast is monopoly. Comcast does not want competition.

I'm not saying AT&T is any better than Comcast. If AT&T had the monopoly, they would probably be fighting to keep Comcast out.

But come on people. This is a pretty easy issue. We need competition for Comcast. Sure, competition in the entire city would be great, but competition anywhere will help.

Yep, Southwestern Bell got a whole lot better (and cheaper) when it got competition. Comcast needs competition too.

My understanding of everything I've read is that Comcast isn't against competition, just that they want the COLR to hold AT&T equally accountable to all citizens- have the same requirements set for AT&T that have been set for Comcast. Right?

In an oligarchy, as in our government in which a small group exercises control esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes it is not unlikely that we will have an oligopoly where we have a market situation in which each of a few producers affects but does not control the market.

They say they aren't opposed to competition, but that's the bottom line. They want to keep any competitor out of the market as long as possible. Today it's AT&T, but they will fight this fight against anybody. Because delay means more money in their pocket.

They are speaking out of both sides of their face. I bet Comcast doesn't want its phone service to be governed by the same rules as AT&T.

This is a new, great technology. We should have a choice of buying it instead of the Cable Guy.

Let's be clear: Comcast wants AT&T held to the same rules that have protected Comcast since Day 1... those cable franchise rules were created in the days of "exclusive franchise" 40 yrs ago. And they work! Even though the franchises are called "non-exclusive" today, they still serve that old purpose: Protectionism. If that's wrong, show me: Who can name 1 city where there are 2 cable companies, after 40 years??? Anyone? Isn't it about time we had a choice?

So, AT&T people, why not sign a franchise agreement? "...telephone companies such as Verizon and ArkWest are proving that the level playing field issue can be met. "

Of all the cheap shots, for Comcast and its pr guys to drag race & class into this. If we want to talk about assuring everyone can vote, get an education, be safe in their neighborhood... that's one thing. But this is about who's going to sell us tee-vee! "Have you no decency, Sir?"

Why no franchise agreement for Comcast's phone service? AT&T has one.

The answer is the same to both questions. The franchise rules are outdated -- the phone rules don't fit Comcast's phone service and the cable rules don't fit AT&T's TV service.

That's why.

Comcast is doling out big bucks to block competition. Think they would be spending it for the social issues they pretend to be standing on?

Not a chance. It's all about the money and Comcast wants to continue getting yours... at their prices... on their terms... with nothing you can do about it.

My father used to call unsavory typese who would say or do anything to get what they want "scallywags."

AT&T and Comcast are probably both guilty, but in this fight, Comcast appears to be the most scallywaggled.

In response to the people who are complaining about the amount of time it took Comcast to cover the entire city, please note that Comcast had to start from scratch, and it takes longer to attain 100% coverage in that situation. SBC/AT&T's situation is quite different. They don't have to run new wires to every house in Little Rock like Comcast did. They will use their existing copper network to offer IPTV, so the burden of deployment is much lower for AT&T that it was for Comcast.

In conjunction with their Project Lightspeed announcement last year, SBC/AT&T stated that they will deploy "fiber-to-the-home" (FTTH) connections to "greenfield" development areas. Some enterprising reporter should check to see if they're actually doing that here. So far, we haven't heard of any SBC FTTH installations in Arkansas. FTTH deployments to greenfield projects should be required in the franchise agreement - otherwise, AT&T may decide to break their promise and continue running copper to new neighborhoods.

I'm running some Google searches to see how other communities are dealing with Project Lightspeed. AT&T has filed lawsuits against some towns in Illinois (Geneva, North Aurora, Wood Dale, Carpentersville, Wheaton, and Roselle) for failing to approve their franchise proposals. It appears that those cities are objecting to the huge size of the outdoor terminal boxes in several neighborhoods. The issue in Little Rock is different - it's about discrimination in offering the service, based on the telephone utility's classification of neighborhoods as "high-value customers" and "low-value customers". I hope the city will show leadership, take a stand against discrimination and vote down the current franchise proposal.

Don't cave in to AT&T's bully tactics! Make them come back with a franchise proposal that will offer IPTV services to all Little Rock residents without discrimination.

"Don't cave in to AT&T's bully tactics! Make them come back with a franchise proposal that will offer IPTV services to all Little Rock residents without discrimination."

I might have a scratch of sympathy for Comcast if they really offered their phone service to every phone consumer in the city, and if they offered Lifeline phone rates to the low-income in this city. They don't, they won't and -- as the country singer says, "My give a damn is busted." Bring the competition.

"Don't cave in to AT&T's bully tactics! Make them come back with a franchise proposal that will offer IPTV services to all Little Rock residents without discrimination."

P.S. Please disregard cable's IP telephony activities, 'cause it really at phone service, if you know what I mean. It's really only for our affluent customers anyway.

Watch ole Len! I've seen him do some things. (Apologies to The Outlaw Josey Wales, who also probably was a hired gun for Comcast)

"Anybody happy with the customer service the get from Comcast? Anybody happy with the price of cable? Anybody happy with the their choice of cable programming? Just checkin'."

NO, NO, NO. That is the reason I switched to DISH. I only use Comcast High Speed Broadband, and would switch in a heartbeat if Wi-Fi became available.

I use dish too, but I'd probably give AT&T a shot if they were out here.

Screw Comcast. I once wasted three days off work in two weeks waiting for those assholes to get my cable fixed after they left the damn cabel laying across my neighboors driveway instead of burying like they were supposed to. I should have sent them a freakin' bill instead of the other way 'round...

Rumor is that AT&T will first deploy IPTV technology in its biggest exchange. Makes sense, go where you have the most customers. I understand that the exchange includes Twin Lakes and University Park. Now what is that Comcast is saying about ignoring black neighborhoods? Low income neighborhoods? Shame on you Comcast. It is obvious you will try to protect your monopoly at all costs.

If Comcast has engaged in discriminatory conduct like red-lining, as AT&T proposes to do, every legal means should be used to remedy the situation, including lawsuits, fines, revocation of their franchise, etc.

But the issue before the city board tomorrow is AT&T's franchise agreement, not Comcast's.

If AT&T deploys IPTV only in "high-value" neighborhoods, they will compete against Comcast mainly on quality of service, not pricing. If ratepayers want to see better service, better prices and more competition from both utilities, the AT&T franchise agreement must require them to offer IPTV service to all customers in the city.

The record says cable is cheaper when there's a "wireline" competitor. Time Warner cut its cable rates across the board in San Antonio when AT&T launched its IPTV service last month -- and AT&T is reaching just a few thousand homes so far. In any case, any competition on any level is competition we don't have today.

Nice post Comcast PR flak (A Visitor). Do you think Twin Lakes and University Park residents are "high value" customers? Fess up, you just don't want competition. And, aren't you trying to be just a wee bit tricky by labeling the agreement as a "franchise" agreement? And, one last note, press stories have indicated that AT&T does intend to offer service to all residents through a combo package of souped up satellite (movies on demand and all that other fancy stuff) and IPTV. AT&T has said they will pay LR for the right offer video services, is Comcast paying LR anything for the right to offer phone service? I don't think so. Comcast PR people your arguments are weak. LR city board, competition is a good thing. In the words of President W, bring it on!

eyeoncityhall - I'm not a Comcast flak, employee or customer. I don't know anyone who works at Comcast. I have absolutely no relationship to Comcast, period.

A visitor - keep telling yourself that you're not a Comcast flak or employee. Well, maybe you are a PR flak for the Cable Association. Just as your denials ring hollow so do Comcast's. Comcast keeps trying to convince us that they want competition, that they offer cable at fair prices and that they provide top notch service. hahahahahaahahaahahaaha.

tellitlikeitis - I have no association with the Cable Association. I have never met or spoken with anyone in that organization, or any other cable industry group. But I am concerned about utility regulation and our telecommunications infrastructure.

Arkansas is tied for last place with Mississippi in our telecom capabilities, thanks to SBC and Ed Whitacre. If the AT&T deal passes in it's current form, we will remain in last place for decades.

Someone said it Sunday: Visitors always seem to be so much smarter than we locals. But seriously -- IPTV is on the very front edge of technology. So LR & local TV viewers stand to be at the front of the pack. And the answer is not more "utility regulation" that has sheltered Comcast for 30 yrs... it's more competition, choice, and like that.

Visitor, just curious: How far is it from here to where you live... I'm guessing that would be the Twilight Zone?

Im all for there being competition to Comcast and cox in Arkansas, but I do believe that At&t and all the other phone companies turned television providers should have to go through the same process that that the cable providers go through. Either local municipal contracts for television providers need to be thrown out all together are all television providers need to be forced to get approval in every town the want to enter

If you are "all for competition," then you cannot support the cable franchise rule. That rule was drawn up by the cable companies, for the cable companies, and it's what has kept out every (repeat every) potential competitor for 35+ years. Besides, IPTV is not cable tv, it's an Internet technology.

AT&T should have to provide service to every resident of Little Rock whether those residents are likely to buy the service or not and regardless of how dense the neighborhood is. If that makes the cost of deploying its service prohibitive, so be it. Tough nuts. You have to spend cash to play with the big boys.

Years ago, Comcast deployed its network so that every citizen can obtain service, so if Comcast is left as the only television provider in the city for the next 100 years, it has earned that right -- It shouldn't have competitors. The City should keep AT&T out of the market.

Dammit, Lonnie, you are absolutely right but don't stop there! Sears Roebuck was here first, so Wal-Mart & Target can drop dead. McDonald's is the only true burger, thou shalt worship no other fast food before me! Oh, and the Internet should be wiped out ... we'll stick with Western Union telegraphs. What a country!!!

Hey Lonnie,

How long has cable been in LR? How long did it take cable to provide service to every neighborhood? AT&T says it will offer service to every resident through a combo of IPTV and souped up satellite. Don't you think it is time to let consumers choose? Under your logic, AT&T/SBC/SW Bell should be the only phone company in town. I believe any rational person would say choice in telephone service has been good for the consumer. Prices have gone down and new services have been introduced. It is time to give the cable monopolist some competition.

tellitlikeitis - Let's see...

The "high-value" neighborhoods get IPTV.

The "low-value" neighborhoods get "souped-up satellite" over DSL - which is crap compared to IPTV.

The lowest-value customers only be offered a plain old Dish Network setup with higher bill than IPTV.

I hope the city board will take a stand against the digital segregation that you advocate. AT&T is the telephone company utility, and it should offer IPTV to all Little Rock customers in a timely manner without discrimination. There is no valid excuse for them to fail to do so.

Looks like that visitor is back again, must have just finished his lunch. How was the Philly cheesesteak? Bottom line is AT&T can't build out all at once. Comcast did not either, matter of fact, it took the cable folks over 15 years to reach all LR neighborhoods. Your demand that AT&T provide IPTV to all neighborhoods overnight is just ridiculous. Visitor, you know well that demand will drive deployment. With the popularity of Comcast here in LR, I am sure it will not take AT&T long to reach all neighborhoods. And, do you think City Hall should take a stand against price segregation in phone service? Don't you think City Hall should insist that Comcast pay a fee for the right to provide phone? Don't you think City Hall should demand that Comcast provide Lifeline phone service for those unable to pay who have grave medical conditions? Let's be fair here. It may not be that way where you are from, but here in LR we look at the entire playing field not just one seen through a tiny coaxial cable. Competition benefits consumers.

Satellite is crap, Visitor says. But the cable guy's PR guy (same person?) touts satellite as very very effective competition... so which is it?
Fact is, when Sat-TV came to town with its all-digital service that's when cable TV began adding digital channels. Tell me competition doesn't make things better.

ArkansasBusiness.com has posted a copy of the proposed AT&T ordinance.

The anti-discrimination clause is toothless and misleading. It needs to be amended to require full city-wide IPTV coverage within a reasonable time period, with a substantial penalty clause. The "other alternative video programming technology" clause should be struck out, because it is an open invitation for AT&T to deploy inferior service to their so-called "low value" customers.

If AT&T refuses to accept those changes, the matter should be litigated and Congress should take action to end this form of discrimination against the so-called "low-value" people.

Amen A Vistor!

Let me also say that AT&T's internet service isn't that great. I've got it and it has caused me plenty of headaches and plenty of time on hold and speaking with customer service representatives who are less than knowledgeable. I wouldn't want to count on them for my television services or to alert me to an emergency situation.

I sense the presence of SBC's CEO Ed Whitacre and his goon squad of lawyers reading this thread. Up yours, Ed!

I'm looking forward to the hearing at City Hall at 6pm tonight. It may be historic, and encourage other cities across the country to fight against utility discrimination.

A visitor -- It is obvious that you have a personal beef with Ed Whitacre. Since I don't know the man it may be justified but your personal animus towards him should not cloud your judgment on the IPTV agreement. Since you are a visitor and obviously not a resident of LR let me give you a little woodsheddin. Twin Lakes is not a high income neighborhood, it is predominantly African American. According to Ark Biz, Twin Lakes has one of the IPTV hubs. I venture to guess since the investment has been made in placing a hub there, Twin Lakes will recieve IPTV in the first wave. My guess is that AT&T will start offering IPTV service in areas they have the most residents and then build out from there in to the other neighborhoods as demand calls for it, just like cable did. Your low value argument is basically a veiled class/race attack. Or it is one made from ignorance. Don't know when was the last time you visited LR but we've worked hard here to overcome race and class prejudice. And, we're not real open to ignorance.

Comcast doesn't need competition. It provides a quality service at a fair price. Tell AT&T to stick to phones. Vote against IPTV!

Lonnie,

You've just been promoted to VP for PR at Comcast. Congrats!

Somebody here referred to the cable folks' PR person as a "he." Well, he's a she and her name is Amy Glover Bryant, a local PR pro. If you ask me, Ms. Glover-Bryant has opened a big can of whoop-ass on them big-city PR flunkies AT&T hired. Does the whole Arkansas PR community proud.

We be talking Len Pitcock. If Amy Glover Bryant is spreading all of this race-card mess, all I can say is her Mama raised her better.