| pfft.. The reason BellSouth doesn't want competition is because they're pigs. They know that once their is competition, they're SOL unless they get off they're asses and do something right. |
|
 spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·Clear Wireless
| Hey,
Michael Powell is a friend of Leo Laporte's, therefore, he is a friend of mine!
On second thought,yeah, you guys are right, he is an Asshat!:D
--
Let's get real, real gone! |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Shaw
 ·TELUS
| reply to bigdaddy175
companies are evil and they want to make the most money possible.
however it doesn't entirely sit well with me, that someone gambles, and builts all this fibre, cable whatever. They build it so they can make money, its a given.
but then they have to start letting other companies use what they built? won't that reduce their incentives to expand the areas that they service, or reduce incentives to upgrade.
it seems kinda lame, that they built it, probably at some point borrowed money to do, now they make money off it, but other people want to force them to let them use the infrastructure they built.
If they want to compete, maybe they can invent new technologies, that don't require wires everywere, or faster technologies.
piggybacking doesn't seem like something that will lead to pregress to me. |
|
 KonaguyLive From Kailua-Kona, HawaiiPremium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·Hawaiian Telcom
| said by zod5000:piggybacking doesn't seem like something that will lead to pregress to me. I guess you want your yard ripped up everytime a new company
wants to put in their exclusive fiber-optic cable. Or you want
just one telecom provider providing you voice/TV/Internet.
None of which sounds very good to me. |
|
| reply to zod5000
There's the issue, they did not build it, AT&T did, and it was taken off AT&T. They did not borrow money to build it, it was paid for with taxpayer money. The cable companies paid for theirs with private money. ISP owners should have access to the wiring that their tax money helped build. It should be public, not for the private use of a money grabbing, unethical monopoly hiding behind some paid off politician. |
|
| reply to zod5000
Aside from the other valid statements said on this thread there is one major hole in what you're saying. The ILECs agreed to share their lines back in 1996. They wanted more long distance power and signed away an agreement saying competitors can share their lines. This isn't about the FCC being unfair to a company. It's about those companies trying to go back on their word because they were too greedy when they signed it, too shortsighted (and greedy) to see the emergence of affordable broadband, and too stubborn (and greedy) to adapt to the changing climate. |
|
