ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
3 edits | Quid-pro-quo?
"You want a statewide franchise? -- how about FTTP fiber and no FTTN crap? (and you got a deal)"  |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
1 edit | (blank) |
|
NowVOIP
In the beginning there was POTS
join:2006-03-05
Round Lake, IL | ????
And this is news why? AT&T has been doing this everywhere.
--
The revolution will be televised! |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| What is wrong with discrimination?
After all, the poor do not need AT&T, only the rich folk do. If you are poor you should be glad that AT&T is not taking your money. Unless you are a Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, or any any one of the many 'beautiful' people, you do not deserve to have certain services (and besides, you do not provide triple digit returns for the stockholders)
Discrimination is wonderful, as long as you are the one doing it and not the one receiving it.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining
And that redlining claim is bogus and has never been proven. But, given that they have few other arguments, they use this to try and drum up support for their typical anti-corporate rants.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL | Money!
Yeah I can't imagine why a business would want to take care of paying customers. For shame! |
|
Albatross6
join:2000-12-22
Dallas, TX
| reply to RayW
Re: What is wrong with discrimination?
Right. And the reason that I had faster internet and IPTV available at my old house that was worth half of what my current house (where I don't have IPTV or fast DSL available) is . . .? Because clearly deployment decisionmaking is based on the income of neighborhoods and not on other things like, for example, the age of the existing infrastructure and other factors that ease deployment. |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining
Additionally --- its makes no biz sense. You want earn profit from as many customers as possible, not the fewest. Welcome to socialism double-speak. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| What socialism? This is a service that we all need to remain competitive and have opportunity and access to information, education, etc…
Is not all about business here. Is about giving everyone access. The Internet is becoming a necessity for many and it will be soon for every one. How many personal transactions (medical, financial, education, government, etc) you can handle now online and thus use your time more effectively for your personal and business life. So, are you saying that because someone has fewer resources ATT should not serve them, because they will profit less. If that so, we will not have the telephone system we have today. And the way I see it, the Internet (broadband) is fast becoming the “service” the telephone was 20-40 years ago.
And, the government for once needs to make sure that the entire citizens have equal access to that service so we can all have the same opportunities. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by chemaupr  :Is not all about business here. Is about giving everyone access. No, it is about government dictating to businesses that they must do business everywhere instead of where they can afford to provide service. And that is socialism at its most pernicious.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
idjk
@sprintlink.net
| reply to chemaupr
You may not remember - but I do telephones were slow to get to the burbs and so was cable. Any company will go where the greatest profit is 1st then fill in the blanks, when we start saying everybody has the "right" to anything we are moving into socialism.
I also seem to remember that cable was deregulated some years ago (at least in Fl.)so why should telco IPTV be different. |
|
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TechieZero
Re: Money!
It seems to me that it is not about the amount of money in the areas that they are wanting to exclude from competition but also the population of these areas also... For example, I live in an area where the majority of the people are wealthy but there are not as many people so in return we still do not have access to dsl and the areas where cable internet is available is still spotty (we still don't have digital cable)... But they do not plan to upgrade here and do not compete or seem to want customers in this area |
|
DaBavarian
Premium
join:2006-02-22
Saginaw, MI
| reply to ronpin
Re: Quid-pro-quo?
Not a whole hearted bell fanboy here...but Comcast hasn't deployed its telco srv everywhere that it serves and still little by little adding new areas to this day. What is the big deal with television service being rolled out area by area by AT&T? I mean we are talking their corporate investment like Comcast and telephone should be the same for AT&T and television. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining
you're forgetting AT&T in bed with the NSA for the purported reason of, you know, important stuff like spying on us terrorists.
yee haw! goodbye privacy! hello triple play by the new at&t! with added single bill convenience! wow! could life get any better? |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to Albatross6
Re: What is wrong with discrimination?
said by Albatross6 :Right. And the reason that I had faster internet and IPTV available at my old house that was worth half of what my current house (where I don't have IPTV or fast DSL available) is . . .? Because clearly deployment decisionmaking is based on the income of neighborhoods and not on other things like, for example, the age of the existing infrastructure and other factors that ease deployment. According to AT&T, the potential return on certain neighborhoods did not warrant extending service to them. Comcast did not see it that way and are the cable provider in my town now. Both my area and the area not desired had to have completely new infrastructure, so the primary factor for AT&T was one area was poor and one area was upper middle class.
Your mileage may vary.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Anti-AT&T crowd always wave same flag - redlining
Yeh your right the government should not tell them what to do they should just compete for the service making sure everyone gets access. Just like everyone gets access to water and electric you should be able to get cable and telephone and internet access no matter were you live.
It is a big investment to put a RT Dslam in a poor neighborhood. But we all know the Bells can afford it its only a business decision. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :And that redlining claim is bogus and has never been proven. But, given that they have few other arguments, they use this to try and drum up support for their typical anti-corporate rants. Oh?
AT&T said they did not want to wire certain parts of our town (poorer), yet Comcast said they would do the job. AT&T lost the franchise, Comcast has the franchise. At this point I do not know if they followed through, although they did put a lot of fiber into my area (predominately white upper middle class area) but I do not know if they have fulfilled the franchise contract in the poorer areas. I was told by the mayor of another town that they are having problems with Comcast not taking care of certain neighborhoods, so who knows.
Do not know if that fits your definition of red-lining.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| reply to chemaupr
said by chemaupr :Is not all about business here. Is about giving everyone access. The Internet is becoming a necessity for many and it will be soon for every one. How many personal transactions (medical, financial, education, government, etc) you can handle now online and thus use your time more effectively for your personal and business life. So, are you saying that because someone has fewer resources ATT should not serve them, because they will profit less. Oh yeah? What does you and your family do? If people can't afford your services or goods do you just give it to them? How about if your Boss can't meet payroll, do you just say "Hey Boss, I will just work for little or nothing for you."
Unreasonable right? Why do others think the telecommunications companies that employs people in the 1000s should do the same?
Because they "need" it? Phone and internet? Amazingly I had neither growing up in my life and I was able to get by. These are called conveniences not necessities. As it is deactivated cellphones and phones in many areas are able to dail 911. This is a public service provided by these very same ebil, ebil companies. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :Yeh your right the government should not tell them what to do they should just compete for the service making sure everyone gets access. "Making sure everyone gets access" is the whole point of contention and does require government stipulating requirements to commercial entities to provide the same service to all constituents at a shared cost and regardless of the ROI. This is a socialistic concept, which is TCH's point.said by Surfinusa :But we all know the Bells can afford it its only a business decision. I know you can afford the equipment, so why don't you purchase the RT, install it, connect to the telco, and then let the telco provide you service at their monthly rate? It's a business decision that doesn't always make sense financially for the for-profit business. Why can people never grasp this concept. Everything has a cost and no sane business is going to willingly take a loss out of the kindness of their heart to provide a service that may or may not be wanted to an area that doesn't provide an appropriate ROI. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to RayW
said by RayW :At this point I do not know if they followed through, although they did put a lot of fiber into my area (predominately white upper middle class area) but I do not know if they have fulfilled the franchise contract in the poorer areas. That would be the lack of proof that TCH mentioned |
|
