From this week's Village Manager's Memo:

AT&T Boxes: AT&T has requested installation of one of their new cable boxes in the public right-of-way on the west side of N. Cramer Street, just north of Edgewood Avenue. Letters were mailed to neighboring property owners for comments.

 

No, I do not mean they exploded in number.  I mean they actually exploded.  These boxes deliver the AT&T Cable Service.  With the recent passage of the "Cable Competition Bill", these boxes will be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.  There already is one of these boxes on Stowell, near the Shorewood Animal Hospital. 

Explosions mar AT&T video service cabinets

JSOnline, 1/16/08

AT&T Corp. (T) is replacing thousands of batteries in outdoor cabinets that provide U-verse video service after several cabinets have exploded or caught fire, including one in Wauwatosa.

No one has been injured in the explosions, although the force of the Wauwatosa blast, on Christmas morning, sent the cabinet's steel doors flying about six feet.

U-verse, a combination of TV and music channels plus high-speed Internet access, has been available in selected areas of Wisconsin for about 10 months. The cabinets provide U-Verse to neighborhoods where the service is available.

There are more than 240 cabinets in the City Milwaukee, according to a recent Journal Sentinel analysis.

In a statement released this morning, AT&T said: "As we gained experience with these batteries, we found they no longer met our stringent performance and safety criteria. As a result, we have decided to move forward with the removal of all Avestor batteries as quickly as possible. Since these batteries are used only as a backup to commercial power, we do not anticipate any interruptions to U-verse service during this process. It's important to understand that this issue is solely related to batteries used for backup power in some of our cabinets. It has nothing to do with our service or core U-verse technology in any way. Our U-verse deployment and strategy remains on-track and we're very pleased with our progress."

I have not posted anything on AT&T for a while (see previous posts).  In case you missed the headlines, the battle is over.  Just before Christmas, Jim Doyle signed a bill into law which will allow AT&T to compete with cable providers.  He vetoed some of the most offensive provisions of the law.  I have not seen full text of the final law, so I am not clear on how the new legislation will affect Shorewood in terms of current cable franchise revenue and the placement of boxes in our public rights-of-way.

Doyle signs 'cable competition bill'
12/21/07 - BizTimes Daily

Doyle Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle today signed the "cable competition bill," which opens the door for AT&T Inc. and other entities to bypass having to negotiate contracts with local communities when they seek to provide video content that will compete with cable television.

Instead, the bill grants statewide licenses to video content providers.

Doyle said he preserved protections for cable customers through several vetoes.

Doyle said he vetoed language from the bill that limited consumer protections and prohibited state agencies from drafting administrative rules regarding the new franchise application and revocation process.  Under the new law, video service providers will still pay a fee to municipalities set at no more than 5 percent of the company's gross receipts and public, educational and government (PEG) channels will continue to broadcast, Doyle said.

The new law clears the way for AT&T to launch its U-Verse video programming statewide.

The bill, which presumably ends a public relations flap between AT&T and cable providers such as Time Warner Cable, had plenty of critics, who said municipalities will lose control of local programming. Critics also said providers such as AT&T will be able to pick and chose the areas they serve, and they will be inclined to ignore rural areas or impoverished neighborhoods.

Mark Miller (D-Monona) said, "I would have preferred a veto of the entire bill, but I am pleased Gov. Doyle vetoed the worst parts of the bill, particularly the 'in perpetuity' language that would have granted a video franchise forever. The governor's vetoes improve consumer protection and provide for more industry accountability. I remain very concerned about the continued viability of local public access programming. However, the vetoes provide a window of opportunity to address these issues in the next legislative session."

Scott VanderSanden, president of AT&T, released the following statement: "Gov. Jim Doyle's signing of AB-207 launches a new era of video choice in Wisconsin, bringing the important benefits of competition to consumers and workers. Real video competition provides consumers with real choices, better prices, improved service and new products - as demonstrated by competition for other telecom services. In addition to creating a new, state process for video franchising, the final bill improves consumer protections, formalizes revenue sharing arrangements with local governments, retains municipal control over rights-of-way and preserves PEG channels. The bill, first introduced by 43 co-sponsors, received strong bipartisan support along the way, with the combined Assembly and Senate voting, 91-39, and the two utilities committees voting, 16-1, in favor. Numerous community groups, businesses organizations and labor unions supported the bill, including the Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The people of Wisconsin have shown solid support for the bill because they support competition and the benefits it will bring to residents, workers and businesses."

AT&T's trucks were in Glendale this last week, signing people up for their new U-Verse system. For those of you who do not know, delivery of AT&T's U-Verse system requires giant grey boxes to be built in the public right of way. One of these boxes is needed for every 300 customers.

What does this mean for us in Shorewood? 15-16 of these boxes will appear in Shorewood's public rights of way soon.

As you likely know by now, AT&T is preparing to launch their new U-verse cable service, pending regulatory approval. As a part of this process, they will be placing approximately 15 large, grey boxes in the rights-of-way around the Village. One piece of good news is that the boxes will be placed in front of businesses rather than residential homes. Although the pending legislation, in current form, would not require this restriction, I am pleased that the Village of Shorewood has won this one concession.

I asked Village Manager Chris Swartz if he thought this meant that homeowners could count on not having a box placed in front of their homes. He described himself as "cautiously optimistic" is this regard.

----------------------
AT&T update
Village Manager's Memo, 6/21/07

The Village Manager reported that AT&T has repaired their small plaza located at Capitol and Oakland (just east of Stein Optical). AT&T has also agreed to provide an easement to their property to allow development of a public pocket park. The Manager also reported that AT&T will start submitting permits for their new cable TV boxes. AT&T has agreed to place them outside of the residential right-of-ways or within the right-of-way of business
------------------------

Comments

1. Steve I think you deserve a lot of credit for bringing the "gray box" issue to the forefront and helping to get the concession from AT&T."
- Dave Tatarowicz, "Shorelines," 7/4/07

In case you missed it, AT&T is advertising on ShorewoodNOW for U-Verse, their cable TV service. This service relies on huge, grey boxes to transmit to your home.

Reading between the lines, we should expect a rapid increase in the number of these boxes in Shorewood, dominating the right of way, and detracting from the aesthetics of the multi-million dollar streetscaping program we are undertaking. One of these boxes is already in place (see photo top right), next to the Shorewood Animal Hospital.

This post has no larger point, except to warn you that the boxes are coming. As I have previously mentioned, current plans call for 15-16 of these boxes in Shorewood.

AT&T is continuing to plow their way into the cable market, handing out large piles of cash to elected officials in advance of the upcoming vote on cable franchising. If the bill passes, one of these decorative boxes could soon be arriving on your front lawn, and there will be nothing the Village government can do to stop it.

The details of the franchise, and who pays what to whom are now being closely scrutinized by various media outlets. On the other hand, nobody seems to be paying much attention to the fact that the delivery of this service requires the placement of huge numbers of massive grey boxes in the Village right-of-way.

------------------------------

AT&T doles out $54,000 ahead of cable bill debate

Doyle, lawmakers say money won't affect stands on deregulation legislation
JSOnline, 4/22/07

Communications giant AT&T pushed a controversial bill to have state government license cable systems by showering more than $54,000 in campaign cash on dozens of lawmakers and Gov. Jim Doyle over the past 15 months.

Campaign-finance records show that AT&T's political action committee gave a total of $10,000 to four legislators and the Assembly Republican Campaign Committee in the past two months, when legislators negotiated details of the complex package with AT&T's 15 registered lobbyists.

AT&T is launching its own Internet-based television service, called U-Verse, to compete with cable systems.

It's unusual for one special-interest group to donate so much after November elections. The next partisan elections are 18 months away, and $1,000 went to the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee) five weeks ago, even though Plale won't need the money until his re-election in 2010.

Three other senators each got $1,000 donations on Feb. 19 from AT&T's political action committee: Democrat Jon Erpenbach of Middleton, who also isn't up for re-election until 2010; and Roger Breske (D-Eland) and Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), both of whom are up for re-election next year. (READ FULL STORY)
----------------------------------

The article below by Dennis Shook appeared in this week's edition of the Shepherd Express.

--------------------------------------------

Is Competition the Best Thing for TV Consumers?

The Legislature will decide
Shepherd Express: April 04, 2007
By Dennis Shoook

Cable TV, as Wisconsin viewers have known it, could soon be dead and buried.

Currently, cable TV systems have contracts that give them monopolies in municipalities. But AT&T is trying to convince consumers they will save money through competition. The telephone giant wants to provide TV watchers another option with its own Internet-based TV system, called "U-verse."

The cable TV companies have responded by saying "It's not TV for us. It's TV for them."

But consumers may not have a choice, since the matter will be decided in the state Legislature. A bill that would allow for those new providers to offer alternative video service is being considered in Madison and could pass as early as May.

Will Competition Hurt Consumers?

There are arguments on both sides. On the one side, there is the argument that competition will lower monthly fees. On the other hand, one longtime cable TV expert says the possible death of cable TV franchises would actually hurt consumers in many ways.

Barry Orton, telecommunications professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has closely tracked the cable TV industry in the state for nearly 30 years. Orton said the so-called Video Competition Act being considered would not only allow for AT&T to enter the market, but the rule changes would also allow cable companies to renege on all of their existing deals.

The bill would allow the state to become the one and only video franchiser, replacing all the municipalities that have agreed to cable TV franchises until this point. The state would collect all the franchise revenues from new video providers, such as AT&T, as well as the current cable TV companies. Orton said that change alone would mean a loss of revenue to municipalities, an end to some existing consumer protections set up by municipalities and even the demise of the local public, education and government (PEG) channels that have been successfully developed in places like Milwaukee, Kenosha and Oshkosh.

Perhaps the key problem with the bill, which is being fast-tracked through the state Legislature, is the lack of any kind of meaningful regulatory control on the new television service industry.

Orton said if the measure passes as currently written, some major changes will result:

• Regulating the video industry will be the responsibility of the state Department of Financial Institutions. But that department will have no power to regulate or fine providers such as AT&T or Time Warner for any problems customers might have with service. Unlike current cable franchise agreements, which specify the years of the term, the bill does not currently place any time limits on agreements between the state and video providers.

• The franchise fees currently paid to municipalities, and used in lieu of property taxes, will be eliminated. Orton calls that "a back-door tax increase" in any municipality that currently has cable. It will mean a loss of $350,000 to the City of Milwaukee, based on city estimates.

• As the sole franchiser, the state of Wisconsin would be the government entity that gathers the fees and makes the rules. So the state can decide how much it wants to share with local municipalities. The current projection is the state would share about 2% of all the revenues it collects. But there are no guarantees.

• Funding for PEG channels, such as the Milwaukee Access Telecommunications Authority (MATA), would not be required, as it is in many cable TV agreements. The bill would also require that each local access channel produce 10 hours of local, original programming each day in order to retain its channel allocation, an all but impossibly high standard. MATA Executive Director Vel Wiley said if the bill passes in its current state, Channels 14 and 96 would certainly die off very quickly. There would also likely be no coverage of governmental or school meetings on those channels, based on those rules, she said.

• The current cable TV promise of a repair within 72 hours will be null and void.

• The mandate of 30-day notices for changes in programming or rate increases will be eliminated, as will the 10-day notice for disconnections.

The argument for competition lowering the price hasn't worked that well in other states.

"After the first year of competition, prices only lowered for a little while," Orton said of experiences in other states. "But they will continue to increase after that."

Room for Improvement

State Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), a co-author of the bill, vowed that many aspects of the b

The FCC is about to grant AT&T what they have wanted: the ability to compete in the TV/Cable market. Will Shorewood be ready?

-----------------------------------

FCC hopes to speed phone companies' entry into TV

USA Today, 12/1/2006

NEW YORK — Trying to spur competition and beat back cable TV prices, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed rules to make it easier for phone companies and others to jump into the video business.

The proposed order aims to streamline the video franchise approval process, FCC officials said.

…

AT&T and Verizon are building advanced broadband networks so they can sell bundles of TV, voice, wireless and high-speed Internet services. But deployment of their video has been slow, in part because of the franchising process. There are thousands of local authorities, each with its own rules.

The proposed order would require the bodies to rule within 90 days on applications by phone companies and others with existing access to public rights-of-way. For others, it would be six months.

The order would also make it harder for localities to impose "unreasonable" requirements. In one case, the FCC says, a video provider was asked to build a recreation center and swimming pool. In another, a video applicant was asked to fork over $1 million and fund a $50,000 scholarship with annual contributions.
-----------------------------------

As I was slogging through the pre-election coverage on JSOnline.com, I came across what appears to be a position statement on Project Lightspeed from our gubernatorial candidates. I bring this to your attention only because it is immediately apparent to me that neither candidate has the remotest idea why this is even an issue. Here is the relevant excerpt from the article:

=============================

Video competition

Note: Several states have taken steps to enact statewide video franchise laws, in response to a push by the telecommunications industry to offer more competition to the cable TV industry. Candidates were asked if they would support such a proposal in Wisconsin.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle: "Competing on the high end means we must invest in our technology infrastructure, which is why I enacted legislation to expand broadband throughout Wisconsin. I continue to support all efforts to bring competition into the marketplace and provide Wisconsin consumers with additional choices while protecting and creating good-paying jobs."

Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Green: "I would support any effort to provide higher-quality telecommunications services to Wisconsin residents, so long as it doesn't result in substantially higher costs or fewer choices for consumers." (9/29/06)
===============================

As a veteran of the war in Iraq, it pained me when Shorewood ran a referendum in April on an immediate withdrawal of our troops. I have no problem with people opposing the war. Indeed, one of the popular mantras of today's anti-war movement is, "oppose the war, but support the troops." I respect that point of view, and have publicly stated my thanks to opponents of the war who nevertheless actively and generously supported me during my time in Iraq. I believe our ability to make this distinction reveals an important way in which our nation has matured since the disgraceful treatment visited upon draftees returning from Vietnam.

That being said, I think we crossed a line of departure with the referendum, beyond which the nature and specific actions of opposition to the war negated the verbal and spiritual support offered to the troops. Organizing a village-wide statement of principle against the effort for which I fought, and some of my friends died, cannot be legitimately construed as supporting the troops.

I am a soldier. I will be a soldier until 2010. And I can tell you first hand, this referendum did not support the troops.

The Journal Sentinel has finally realized that Project Lightspeed is a story.  They ran a story yesterday, providing some more depth to what I have been writing about for months.

____________________________________________________

TV battle goes local

Cities consider implications of Internet video

By LARRY SANDLER
lsandler@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Oct. 21, 2006

Milwaukee and other Wisconsin cities are gearing up for a high-stakes battle over a new form of television.

Local officials are debating whether AT&T Corp.'s planned Internet video service would interfere with cable TV franchises that now reap millions of dollars for municipal treasuries. It's part of a nationwide struggle between telecommunications giants that is already being fought in Congress and over the airwaves, and that is swiftly working its way into city and village halls, state legislatures and perhaps the courts.

Phone companies say consumers want more choices, newer technology and lower prices than cable companies now provide. But consumer advocates and local officials question whether Internet video will offer the same public benefits now required of cable TV.

Milwaukee Common Council leaders have held two closed-door sessions in less than a month to confer with city attorneys and administrators over the new system's legal implications. City Clerk Ron Leonhardt says he's trying to set up a public meeting on the issue, possibly early next month.

"The issue is whether or not AT&T is building a cable system and has to comply with our cable ordinance," City Attorney Grant Langley said.

That is not an issue for Milwaukee alone.

Telephone and cable companies clashed publicly earlier this year, in dueling TV and newspaper ads over federal legislation that would have allowed the phone companies' Internet TV services to bypass existing local cable TV franchise regulations. Phone forces, organized as the TV4US Coalition, portrayed the bill as a way to give consumers "a choice to cable," while the Wisconsin Cable Communications Association derided it as "special rules for special interests."

With that bill stalled in Congress, AT&T and other phone companies are now turning to state legislatures to avoid the prospect of negotiating with hundreds of city councils and village boards, say Rich Eggleston, spokesman for the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, and Dan Thompson, executive director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities.

Several states already have adopted new telecommunications laws. No such bill has been introduced yet in the Wisconsin Legislature, but AT&T and municipal leaders say it could come up in Madison next year.

The stakes are high. Both cable and telephone companies have invested billions of dollars in networks that already compete in telephone and Internet service. And AT&T is pouring another $4.6 billion into Project Lightspeed, a 13-state effort that will upgrade its telephone and Internet offerings as well as lay the groundwork for the new video service, said Jeff Bentoff, a Wisconsin spokesman for the phone company.

By 2008, that new service - dubbed U-Verse - will provide more than 200 TV channels, digital music, local programming, video on demand and other features to 19 million homes, or about half of AT&T's local phone customers, Bentoff said.

A Washington, D.C., law firm has given Milwaukee city officials a legal opinion that says U-Verse would meet city ordinances' definition of cable television service, the "one-way transmission of video programming or other programming services," Leonhardt says.

Revenue at stake

If U-Verse is cable television service, municipal leaders believe it must operate under franchises that require cable TV companies to pay part of their revenue to local governments and to provide channels for governments, schools and public access, said Eggleston, whose organization represents Wisconsin's biggest cities. Time Warner Cable is paying Milwaukee $3.7 million this year, rising to $3.8 million next year, said Patrick Curley, Mayor Tom Barrett's chief of staff.

And if AT&T is allowed to provide cable television service on different terms than cable companies, franchise agreements in Milwaukee and elsewhere have "me-too" clauses that would let cable companies demand the same terms, warned Curley and Thompson, whose group represents villages and smaller cities.

Time Warner would consider invoking that clause, because it believes "like products should be treated alike" and wants all the players in its business to "operate on a level playing field," said Celeste Flynn, a Wisconsin spokeswoman for the cable company.

In the m

As promised, the Village Manager's memo includes a substantial section concerning the issue of Project Lightspeed, a story that I first brought up several months ago. As predicted, AT&T does not want to stop after the construction of just one box.

_______________________________________

"AT&T Project Light Speed. AT&T, in an attempt to enter the cable TV business, is constructing large equipment boxes in municipal right-of-ways. AT&T has certain rights to erect these large equipment boxes in the right-of-way because there is limited space within the boxes for “non-cable” services. Because of the substantial public outcry resulting from the placement of these large equipment boxes in residents’ front yards, municipalities such as Shorewood have been asking AT&T to work with them to install such facilities in spaces that are less detrimental to property owners. A recent request from AT&T to install a large equipment box on Cramer Street indicates that they are not interested in such cooperation.

Meanwhile, in Madison, AT&T has sponsored legislation through Representative Phil Montgomery from the Green Bay area to circumvent the regulatory authority municipalities have over taxpayers’ rights-of-way. AT&T continues to take the path of campaign contributions to implement their business plans. I will continue to update readers in this regard."

____________________________________

I would strongly urge you to email your Trustees and ask them to stop the spread of these boxes until we figure out what their presence will mean for the Village.

I attended tonight's public hearing on the Master Plan to redevelop the business district. After the meeting, Chris Swartz, the Village Manager, pulled me aside to let me know there will be an article about the AT&T Project Lightspeed issue in the upcoming edition of the Village Manager's Memo, due out this Friday. When that is available, I will post it here. I have written about this issue several times, and am pleased the Village is taking action before more grey boxes crop up.

Several months ago, I wrote about the big grey box in front of the Shorewood Animal Hospital. It is part of Project Lightspeed, an AT&T initiative to deliver content (including video) over the phone lines, without going through the bother of a cable franchise. Project Lightspeed continues unabated, though Milwaukee news on the subject is still in short supply. There has not been a story about the issue since July, although Marie Rohde of the Journal Sentinel did look into the matter. "I wrote the story," she told me, "but apparently it never ran."

Here are the stories which have since appeared about Project Lightspeed in Northern Illinois.

1. Video system fees adopted
Kane County Chronicle - Oct 03 12:00 AM

"GENEVA – To bring Project Lightspeed to the residents of Geneva, AT&T first would have to agree to pay franchise fees to the city, Geneva officials said. A multichannel video communications service agreement also would require AT&T, or any other company, to meet certain standards for constructing facilities in the city's rights of way, to designate channels for government, educational and public use, and to abide by certain customer-service guidelines."

2. Wayne Says OK to Project Lightspeed Village to Be First Municipality in Area to Agree to AT&T's New Service
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 September 2006, 21:00 CDT

"Wayne residents soon will get the high-speed Internet and cable television service that the otherwise affluent community has lacked. The Wayne village board voted Tuesday to allow communications giant AT&T to install Project Lightspeed, an upgraded fiber-optic network, in the community of about 2,200."

And finally...here is a picture sent to me by Shorewood Resident Jim Genthe showing what he thinks of the new box.

Looks like I was pretty close to the mark with my assessment of AT&T's Huge Grey Box Initiative, codenamed "Project Lightspeed".

The following is from a recent Barry Orton column in the Journal Sentinel

Internet speed must not be based on ability to pay

"The remaining big phone companies, led by AT&T and Verizon, are trying to persuade Congress to let them offer video services without bothersome local contracts that protect consumers. Time Warner and Charter have these traditional agreements with the municipalities that they serve in Wisconsin...

Instead of continuing the tradition of local control, the bill would allow phone companies to be granted national video franchises by the Federal Communications Commission.

It would completely prohibit local governments or the FCC from requiring what is now standard for cable television providers: agreements to serve everyone within municipal limits."

It also would appear that there are legitmate questions about whether the proposed bandwidth of AT&T's Lightspeed would be sufficient. A recent Wisconsin Technology Network Article asks this question.

AT&T should set sights higher than repackaging DSL with Project Lightspeed

"After all the fuss, is 6 Mbps enough bandwidth? What is the maximum speed supported by these new boxes? With HDTV and other applications on the close horizon, how soon will you be able to increase speeds to 1 Gbps? California has a broadband initiative of 1 Gbps or bust by 2010."

At the Village Board meeting this past Monday, several residents of N. Stowell complained of the sudden appearance of a massive grey communications box near the intersection of Stowell and Capitol. What is the box? Did the Village explicitly allow this eyesore to be placed there? Do we have any recourse to have it removed?

OVERVIEW

I did some searching on my own, and the box appears to be related to an AT&T initiative called "Project Lightspeed," which according to an AT&T's webpage, "will deliver a whole new portfolio of integrated, digital TV, high speed Internet and voice services - all under the AT&T U-verse brand."

These boxes have been cropping up in towns all across the region and the country, alarming residents and government alike. There has, in many cases, been no explicit authorization from the municipality for AT&T to install the boxes. Preventing AT&T from installing further boxes has, in other areas including Northern Illinois, required emergency ordinances to be passed, resulting in extensive legal maneuvering by both sides.

Because AT&T is intending to deliver video services through the boxes, there are questions about key aspects of the revenue sharing arrangement between the municipalities and the cable company. For Shorewood, the Village receives roughly $110,000 per year from this arrangement. As such, problems with this contract are of serious concern to us.

We need to stop construction of these boxes until we know for certain what they are (Although I believe they are related to Project Lightspeed, I am not certain). We also must require that AT&T work within the appropriate legal framework to seek permits. This issues affects you, even if you do not live on Stowell. Unless we take action, they will keep cropping up, and may soon visit your own street. Click here for a list of the current Village Trustees and their email addresses.

THE DETAILS

The problems with this onslaught of ugliness extend beyond the boxes' comprehensive lack of curb appeal.

1. Village attorney Ray Pollen explained at the meeting that AT&T has certain rights to install equipment in the village, based on their status as a provider of telecommunications. However, there are legitimate questions as to whether these rights extend to the installation of video (read: TV) equipment. Since these boxes are part of the infrastructure that AT&T intends to use to provide television programming, it is not at all clear whether they have the rights to install these boxes.

2. In addition to this lack of clarity, there are also concerns about the impact this service would have on the cable television agreements between the cable companies, and the municipalities. Cable companies share some portion of their revenue with many municipalities. Will AT&T be required to do the same? Will their entrance into the market make the cable compacts void?

3. Additionally, cable companies must adhere to a vast array of regulatory requirements. AT&T has attempted to argue, in other municipalities, that because their service will be carried over the phone lines, they do not have to adhere to the same regulations.

4. There is also the issue of zoning rights. Shorewood's village government ought to have the right to determine when someone is allowed to build a 6' x 3' x 3' metal box in the middle of the public right of way. Although AT&T has the right to install certain types of equipment without seeking a seperate permit, they appear to me to have abused that privilege in this case.

Articles about other municipalities dealing with Project Lightspeed

1. AT&T Says We Are Not Cable Television
2. Aurora holds off on AT&T plan challenge
3. Cable cries foul
4. AT&T threatening to pull plug on state