how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
536 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| PacBell can go to %$##! Why is cable beating out DSL? PacBell can't screw the cable companies by controling the "Last Mile" of service. All PacBell supplies is a damn pole for the cable to be tied to. They can't double or triple the loop length etc... DSL would be in line with cable if the damn Bells could be actually put in their place. Far to long have they been in control. I hope & pray some new tech comes out (be it wireless, line of sight, satellite, etc..) that screws them hard!!! 1.5 million in fines is nothing. They need to be bustedup and fined 1.5 million A DAY and the money given to the competition until they actually SERVE the public!!! | | |
|
| said by kilingspam:
Why is cable beating out DSL? PacBell can't screw the cable companies by controling the "Last Mile" of service. All PacBell supplies is a damn pole for the cable to be tied to. They can't double or triple the loop length etc... DSL would be in line with cable if the damn Bells could be actually put in their place. Far to long have they been in control. I hope & pray some new tech comes out (be it wireless, line of sight, satellite, etc..) that screws them hard!!! 1.5 million in fines is nothing. They need to be bustedup and fined 1.5 million A DAY and the money given to the competition until they actually SERVE the public!!!
You are really in the dark... Cable is beating DSL because SBC isn't controlling cable??? How about the reality that cable isn't required to invest in a network so that competitors can underprice them by $5?? There AREN'T ANY competitors with cable. NONE!
And you hope that SBC (the company you WANT TO INVEST IN DSL MORE) goes belly up?? Then what?? What would you do then?? Sue the wireless companies for charging per minute rates? Think of a rational conclusion to your problems... Be careful what you wish for- you might get it.
Boogie74 | |
| reply to kilingspam
quote:
1.5 million in fines is nothing. They need to be bustedup and fined 1.5 million A DAY and the money given to the competition until they actually SERVE the public!!!
Where did you get the idea the SBC only paid $1.5 million in fines? Try to the tune of $69-70 million to date. Besides which, if it is such a cheap price, are you willing to write the check for it?
Boogie74 | |
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74:
You are really in the dark... Cable is beating DSL because SBC isn't controlling cable??? How about the reality that cable isn't required to invest in a network so that competitors can underprice them by $5?? There AREN'T ANY competitors with cable. NONE!
Boogie74
No, you're in the dark.
Show me one ISP partner of SBC's that is trying to undercut SBC's pricing. Put down the crack pipe, and stop trying to distort the issue at hand.
FACT: ISPs are paying almost retail for the line with no IP service
FACT: ISPs are offering services that PacBell does not, and there is demand for these services.
FACT: Cable is not a natural monopoly, partially funded by the government, and IP service is not their bread and butter, TV is.
FACT: SBC's unregulated ISP arm is operating at a loss solely to allow them to jack the prices up on the wholesale transport side.
FACT: The wholesale service is PROFITABLE for SBC. They make the money on the line and get to offload support, IP transport, and mail services to a third party.
Any sane person who takes the time to read the CISPA complaint posted in this thread can see that there are no unrealistic demands made. They are simply looking for SBC to honor the terms of the contract and obey the law. If you have a problem with the law, get out of the regulated monopoly business, but stop posting all this false trash.
Feel free to prove to me that the long term ROI on SBC's dsl is negative. Just don't give me the cooked books handed to the PUC. | |
Anon | reply to kilingspam
You're jumping on the HATE BIG CORPORATIONS bandwagon, aren't you? Here are the facts. Pac bell is REGULATED by the Public Utilities Commission (you know the same commission which is handling the power crisis so well?). That means everything from prices to how far we're able to pull cable into a customer mpoe is regulated, fixed. The advantage we DO have is PacBell owns all the copper cables in the ground which were placed over the last 100 years. Now here's where the fun starts... all these new "phone companies" are renting Pac Bell lines at a set price (by the PUC) and then reselling them to their own customers. Pac Bell furthermore has to give these other companies priority in everything from due dates on installations to maintenance and repair and basically tell their own customers to piss off.... because if Pac Bell helps MR Pac Bell Customer first instead of Mr MCI customer.. then MCI goes crying to the PUC and says "they're trying to out compete us."
SBC is all about getting into Long Distance now.. which basically means they're required to let all the competitors come into their market.. their central offices, and probably soon their REmote Terminal sites. The Competition can make a huge profit by leasing these lines, these spaces... because they're not public utilities, and they are not financially responsible for maintenance, for repair... for spending money to add more and more equipment.
The reason all these competitors are biting the dust is because when you have 20 companies competing for a local loop market... well divide a million 20 ways and you'll see that its not easy for any one company to make a profit. AT&T has invested all this money to get into the local phone market.. look what happened to them.
I work in Engineering at Pacific Bell... we can double and triple the loop length... and we put a lot more in than telephone lines. After this "project Pronto" is complete, the availability of DSL will increase dramatically. But if you're living in the middle of nowhere, you probably won't be able to get DSL. And its not because the BELLS are big evil empires... its because the projects needed to provide loops lengths of 30 miles would result in a rate increase for all rate payers. AS a regulated company... that's just a reality. As far as competing with Cable Companies... Pacific Bell WAS working on a broadband project before they were bought by SBC... SBC basically said "CABLE is not the future" and scrapped the entire project. Maybe that was a stupid call.. maybe not.. time will tell I guess. The bottom line is that no matter who you're buying your phone and internet service from, and how much you hate Pacific Bell, and how much you're oohing and ahhing about how great Cox and all these other "phone companies" are... I'm the one that's providing the service; I'm placing the CEVs and Mesa II cabinets; I'm trying to secure easements from local city governments who like to bleed utilities dry by imposing rediculous taxes and hold ups when the project is for the public good; I'm the one basically doing the competitions job for them while they get to spend their profits on public slander campaigns.
So next time you see a banner for a competitor.. and it shows the bell with the X through it and says forget Pac Bell. I'm a " " customer. Make sure to be honest and write at the bottom "Our fiber backbone is provided by Pac Bell". | |
 arielnet
join:2001-01-29
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA | Give me a break! This is not a bandwagon for people who hate all big corporations. There's only one corporation involved in the CISPA complaint - SBC... YOUR EMPLOYER. You're wearing blinders put on by the corporate spin doctors if you think we are making this up. You incorrectly assume that people don't have legitimate complaints just because you work for the corporate empire.
There's a reason that small independent ISPs such as my company have spent a great deal of our precious time and money to pursue this action. PacBell is the single biggest impediment to our ability to make a living and provide a viable service, based on their unfair business practices. The problems we have experienced with Verizon are nothing when compared to what happens with PacBell on a daily basis. If I hadn't witnessed them firsthand, I'd have a hard time believing some of the stories that I could tell you about are true... But, they are!
If it weren't for their monopoly power, I seriously doubt that SBC would survive, based on the pervasive ineptitude of their corporate operations. PacBell uses their monopoly power to create a built-in competitive advantage for their affilliated companies in areas that are not subject to regulatory controls. Maybe competitors like MCI get preferential treatment when it comes to voice services. But, it's exactly the opposite when it comes to DSL. I know. I've been there, seen it.
BTW, I'd like to thank PacBell for the fiber backbone in my area, but they don't have one! On the other hand, Cox Communications, who you claim provides phone service thanks to the PacBell infrastructure, does have fiber, and provides their own phone service over that fiber.
If you want to criticize us for standing up for what we believe in, at least get your facts right... | |
| reply to sporkme
said by sporkme:
said by boogie74:
You are really in the dark... Cable is beating DSL because SBC isn't controlling cable??? How about the reality that cable isn't required to invest in a network so that competitors can underprice them by $5?? There AREN'T ANY competitors with cable. NONE!
Boogie74
No, you're in the dark.
Show me one ISP partner of SBC's that is trying to undercut SBC's pricing. Put down the crack pipe, and stop trying to distort the issue at hand.
FACT: ISPs are paying almost retail for the line with no IP service
FACT: ISPs are offering services that PacBell does not, and there is demand for these services.
FACT: Cable is not a natural monopoly, partially funded by the government, and IP service is not their bread and butter, TV is.
FACT: SBC's unregulated ISP arm is operating at a loss solely to allow them to jack the prices up on the wholesale transport side.
FACT: The wholesale service is PROFITABLE for SBC. They make the money on the line and get to offload support, IP transport, and mail services to a third party.
Any sane person who takes the time to read the CISPA complaint posted in this thread can see that there are no unrealistic demands made. They are simply looking for SBC to honor the terms of the contract and obey the law. If you have a problem with the law, get out of the regulated monopoly business, but stop posting all this false trash.
Feel free to prove to me that the long term ROI on SBC's dsl is negative. Just don't give me the cooked books handed to the PUC.
FACT: I never said that ISP partners of SBC are trying to undercut SBC pricing. I was referring to CLEC's- not ASI associated ISP's.
Fact: SBC isn't funded AT ALL by the government. It is a publicly traded corporation- just like IBM, Intel, NBC, GE, Ford and Best Buy.
Fact: It isn't my claim that Long term ROI on SBC's DSL is negative. It is YOUR claim that it is WAY OVER POSITIVE. Pricing to CLEC's (I am not referring to DSL wholesale to ISP's) is set by the PUC. SBC doesn't want to have to invest money in a network for others to buy at a discount, only to resell.
BTW, what services are the ISP's offering that PacBell isn't? Or are you naive enough to think that PacBell doesn't offer static IP's? They charge about $180 per month for them. And don't let the hype get to you- PPPoe DOES support static IP's. It isn't the same as auto-dynamic IP addresses.
Boogie74 | |
| quote:
PacBell uses their monopoly power to create a built-in competitive advantage for their affilliated companies in areas that are not subject to regulatory controls.
Where did you hear that ASI isn't regulated? Also, you need to research why ASI was created- it was a condition of the SBC/Ameritech merger to make sure that if SBC wanted to sell data, they would have to buy it wholesale from ASI just like any other competitor that wants to sell ASI data with no advantages.
Boogie74 | |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74:
How about the reality that cable isn't required to invest in a network so that competitors can underprice them by $5?? There AREN'T ANY competitors with cable. NONE!
Well to let you know, yes Cable Companies are required to inves in a network, Here they are laying Cable like mad, dig a trench and put it in. And competitors are undercutting them, mabey not in the CLEC ILEC sense but in the Satilite/cable sense. Imagin laying all of this to a neigborhood and then seeing everyone with a Dish stapled to there Garage or what have you and the ILEC installing DSL because you waited to long and charged to much.
That is exactly what Comcast is experiancing. For the same $60+ a month I could have twice the Channels and for $8 less a month I have DSL. | |
arielnet
join:2001-01-29
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA | reply to boogie74
You assumed I was referring to ASI. I was referring to my direct competitor, PBI, another SBC company. However, both my company and my customers have been told by the CPUC that DSL is NOT subject to the same regulatory conditions that PacBell voice services are. Thus, there has been no enforcement of quality standards or pricing for consumers, based on the thousands of complaints filed with the CPUC. It's been put in writing to the public that the CPUC has no enforcement power against ASI per se. The CISPA action is really the first time that regulators are giving serious consideration to the unfair DSL practices of SBC in California.
BTW, I'm well aware of how and why ASI was formed. I lived through the hell of the transition. No research necessary there. | |
| reply to kilingspam
AMEN! Glad to see the ISP's are finally unleashing their lawyers on PacBell.
ATTN CISPA LAWYERS: Please expand your filing to go after the PacBell tactic of installing inferior, non-DSL capable lines for new ISP DSL orders and forcing some of the wimpier CLECS (U all know who U are) to tolerate it, thereby forcing customers into buying PacHell service.
We The People are entitled to a CHOICE! That means COMPETITION, NOT MONOPOLIES!
Monopolies combine the worst elements of capitalism and communism and the benefits of neither.
And that goes for ALL monopolies, cable as well as copper! | |
Anon | reply to arielnet
I can tell you just as many horror stories with dealing with CLECs, be it pots, DSL, T1, Gigaman, etc. When its a competitor issuing the order, we have to jump through hoops and make rediculous commitments while we push the due dates on our own end user customer's service. So of course this creates the idea that the competition gives so much better service when, in fact, its still us doing the groundwork. Not that it's all bad, I mean it helps to kick the lazy people in the ass. You're point about cox and others having their own fiber rings, this is of course true and I was not saying that every piece of fiber in the ground starts with Pac Bell. However a great majority of these CLECS have us provide them with hi speed circuits, be it T1, T3, etc and then they channelize the circuit and sell it to their customers via localized networks.
You say you've been there, you've seen it. Well so have I, and perhaps we're both missing the big picture. I don't assume anything about the legitimacy of your or anybody's complaints. You assume that I'm just some pawn of a big corporate empire. I'm a pawn of nothing... I work hard and I provide people with the best service I can provide. I don't support political action committees, I don't support slander campaigns, I don't support marketing (either of their two faces). Believe what you want, but don't tell me that what I do on a daily basis is play corporate kiss ass and pawn.
The unfair advantage all Bell companies have is the ownership of the copper and over a hundred years of public recognition. If you're suggesting we should sell the copper cables to competing companies... that's all fine... you can also have the costs of maintaining the plant as well. No company is going to take on those costs, and they're certainly not going to place an entire new network. If there were one or two competitors, they could make a killing off of leasing the lines and reselling them. However, as I said before, the market is saturated with so many competitors today, no company can make a decent profit.
Tell me what is the solution? Break up the bells into more companies? Totally destroy the bells and auction off the copper? Well the solution these days seems to be, bend to the customer's demands more and more, Place 1000 ' of fiber and place Nortel equipment in 2 different pop locations in 7 days because if you don't do an impossible amount of work in 2 seconds, the PUC is after you. | |
 nufty
join:2001-08-09
San Ramon, CA | reply to susangg6
Your constant whining against corporate America has become tiresome. Just because a corporation is out to make a profit, you believe them to be evil. Customer service has become a lost art for most business. If you don't like the service, move on! Life is too short to turn into a bitter old woman.
When you complain about Pacific Bell next time, look at your phone bill. Monthly service at about $11 is a bargain. Especially compared to other parts of the country.
Don't like DSL? You have OPTIONS. I suggest you get over it and choose another type of service. Have you gotten over your election pains yet or are you still crying about that? | |
| reply to arielnet
said by arielnet:
However, both my company and my customers have been told by the CPUC that DSL is NOT subject to the same regulatory conditions that PacBell voice services are. Thus, there has been no enforcement of quality standards or pricing for consumers, based on the thousands of complaints filed with the CPUC.
ASI is the functional equivalent of an unregulated entity. This whole program needs to go back to the drawing board, as it's too flawed to repair. We need a comprehensive plan for broadband, not an endless flow of patches, Microsoft style. At least the issues are finally in the public eye. This noisy little group of ISP's looks like a force to be reckoned with. It's about time somebody fought back!
--
Pupowski
"Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth" | |
sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74:
FACT: I never said that ISP partners of SBC are trying to undercut SBC pricing. I was referring to CLEC's- not ASI associated ISP's.
You forgot what the thread was about? OK, find me a CLEC trying to undercut you on DSL then. So you do agree the SBC/ASI/PBI kerberos-like guardian of copper does not really face "competition" from these ISPs (not CLECs, wouldn't want you to forget what we're talking about) because the wholesale rate is so high. Good. You see what CISPA sees.
said by boogie74:
Fact: SBC isn't funded AT ALL by the government. It is a publicly traded corporation- just like IBM, Intel, NBC, GE, Ford and Best Buy.
Flawed argument dude. Publicly-traded does not equal "not a natural monopoly". The two have nothing to do with each other. My power company, gas company, and cable company are publicly traded, too. They are still monopolies. What is your point?
And the good old "build your own network" argument doesn't fly. Cable could have fallen as easily as the DLECs back when they started, but back when they started, they were not your competitor. I don't think you realize the impediments there are to "just laying another wire to the home". I suggest you suck it up and realize that the copper you own is part public property. No one will ever be able to afford to haul another one out at this stage in the game. And if they did, you know SBC would be the first to say "not on our poles, not in our conduit"...
said by boogie74:
Fact: It isn't my claim that Long term ROI on SBC's DSL is negative. It is YOUR claim that it is WAY OVER POSITIVE. Pricing to CLEC's (I am not referring to DSL wholesale to ISP's) is set by the PUC. SBC doesn't want to have to invest money in a network for others to buy at a discount, only to resell.
You claim that it's negative when it suits you. Glad to see you changed your mind back. If all of SBC thinks like you, then your customers should be scared. Think it through. SBC sells retail DSL for $39. At that price you provide EVERYTHING; the line, the IP transit, the customer support, helping people configure their Outlook and 'Endora'. You sell the "wholesale" product at what, $35? $37? And don't have to have any contact with the customer. You also get to sell a DS3 or OC-3 plus the transit charge on it to each ISP partner. And you don't lay out any cash for IP transit, mail, support, etc. How is that a bad deal? Can you explain that? Since ASI/SBC/PBI are separate, the ISP is just another transit provider, like PBI. No new OSS, billing. What is your point? To show us you don't do math well, or are you just a PR mouthpiece? Your answers read like a Verizon press release.
said by boogie74:
BTW, what services are the ISP's offering that PacBell isn't? Or are you naive enough to think that PacBell doesn't offer static IP's? They charge about $180 per month for them. And don't let the hype get to you- PPPoe DOES support static IP's. It isn't the same as auto-dynamic IP addresses.
That was a very cute, underhanded slap at the ISP community. Believe it or not, and I know it's hard in that little SBC bubble to believe this, but try... some people want a choice. SBC is McDonalds, the premium ISPs are closer to Ponderosa Steakhouse. The menu is longer, the service is better, the options are greater. Believe it or not, some people don't like PBI service. I'm not just talking static IP. Some folks don't want PPPoE. Some folks want multiple IPs on a residential line. Some want their domain hosted with their ISP for mail and personal web use. Not everyone, but choices are nice to have. But you wouldn't understand that, because SBC already knows what their customers want, right? 
Why not just come out and say "I work for SBC, and I hate the competition. No matter what they do, I hate them. I hate the PUC. I hate my customers. I will decide what they want. CLECS are EVIL. CLECS are EVIL." You're just not making any sense with all this flip-flopping.
I work at an ISP (not in SBC territory). I hate my ILEC, both for what they do to our business, and their general arrogance in all areas. They do not do business in a morally proper way. They are soulless. 50% of my hate for them comes just from dealing with them on consumer services that I personally (must) purchase. Monopolies never behave well. | |
| said by sporkme:
said by boogie74:
FACT: I never said that ISP partners of SBC are trying to undercut SBC pricing. I was referring to CLEC's- not ASI associated ISP's.
You forgot what the thread was about? OK, find me a CLEC trying to undercut you on DSL then. So you do agree the SBC/ASI/PBI kerberos-like guardian of copper does not really face "competition" from these ISPs (not CLECs, wouldn't want you to forget what we're talking about) because the wholesale rate is so high. Good. You see what CISPA sees.
said by boogie74:
Fact: SBC isn't funded AT ALL by the government. It is a publicly traded corporation- just like IBM, Intel, NBC, GE, Ford and Best Buy.
Flawed argument dude. Publicly-traded does not equal "not a natural monopoly". The two have nothing to do with each other. My power company, gas company, and cable company are publicly traded, too. They are still monopolies. What is your point?
My point is that RBOC's aren't funded by any governmental funds. And don't try claiming that USF funds all go to the RBOC's- they pay for telecom in schools and supply the funds for Lifeline Telephone Assistance given to low income customers- they don't just cut a check to the RBOC's to keep them afloat. My point is that RBOC's are out for profit- they aren't non-profit and they aren't funded by taxes.
quote:
And the good old "build your own network" argument doesn't fly. Cable could have fallen as easily as the DLECs back when they started, but back when they started, they were not your competitor. I don't think you realize the impediments there are to "just laying another wire to the home". I suggest you suck it up and realize that the copper you own is part public property. No one will ever be able to afford to haul another one out at this stage in the game. And if they did, you know SBC would be the first to say "not on our poles, not in our conduit"...
Definition of public property in my eyes is property that is funded by tax money- purchases, installs, upkeep, etc. Being that tax money doesn't keep the copper outside going, nor did it EVER pay for the copper outside to begin with, it isn't public property. What do you think Pronto is about? It is about paying for fiber to be strung out (more expensive than copper) between the CO's and RT's. If SBC can afford to pull out new loops, why can't another company do the same? SBC isn't getting tax money to do this. It isn't public property- period. It is corporately owned and maintained. Oh, yes... the poles, the conduit... I suppose that cable television and electricity cables aren't on these same poles... Electric and phone in fact are usually buried together in the same trench.
quote:
said by boogie74:
Fact: It isn't my claim that Long term ROI on SBC's DSL is negative. It is YOUR claim that it is WAY OVER POSITIVE. Pricing to CLEC's (I am not referring to DSL wholesale to ISP's) is set by the PUC. SBC doesn't want to have to invest money in a network for others to buy at a discount, only to resell.
You claim that it's negative when it suits you. Glad to see you changed your mind back. If all of SBC thinks like you, then your customers should be scared. Think it through. SBC sells retail DSL for $39. At that price you provide EVERYTHING; the line, the IP transit, the customer support, helping people configure their Outlook and 'Endora'. You sell the "wholesale" product at what, $35? $37? And don't have to have any contact with the customer. You also get to sell a DS3 or OC-3 plus the transit charge on it to each ISP partner. And you don't lay out any cash for IP transit, mail, support, etc. How is that a bad deal? Can you explain that? Since ASI/SBC/PBI are separate, the ISP is just another transit provider, like PBI. No new OSS, billing. What is your point? To show us you don't do math well, or are you just a PR mouthpiece? Your answers read like a Verizon press release.
SBC sells retail for $49.95. Before you complain about being outpriced, I suggest you research what your competition is charging. Also, there is a cost for billing, and PBI pays PacBell to do the billing for it- as PacBell doesn't do billing inquiries for PBI. Same for all other ISP's. Many ISP's do combined billing with PacBell just the same- OR they do their own Credit Card billing- just like PBI can do. Just the same, how do you come to the conclusion that PBI doesn't pay for IP transit, or pay their employees to supply support? These expenses aren't unique to you- PBI has them as well. And they don't charge $39.95 for DSL- they charge $49.95 for 768/128 access. They charge $179.95 for a static IP. They also charge $200 for a Full Tech Install, $378 for a router that runs around $130 retail, they ask for a year contract, and require that if you want the static IP, you MUST pay for the router and for a $200 tech to come out to the house to plug it in for you. They also charge a $50 service order charge if you don't order the service online.
They aren't the cheapest way around. If you as an ISP feel that only giving away free CPE, no contract and a $60 static IP is the way to get business, then you aren't going to make any money- no. Raise your prices for premiums like a static IP and start charging for your CPE and you might have some leg room.
quote:
That was a very cute, underhanded slap at the ISP community. Believe it or not, and I know it's hard in that little SBC bubble to believe this, but try... some people want a choice. SBC is McDonalds, the premium ISPs are closer to Ponderosa Steakhouse. The menu is longer, the service is better, the options are greater. Believe it or not, some people don't like PBI service. I'm not just talking static IP. Some folks don't want PPPoE. Some folks want multiple IPs on a residential line. Some want their domain hosted with their ISP for mail and personal web use. Not everyone, but choices are nice to have. But you wouldn't understand that, because SBC already knows what their customers want, right?
Some people don't want PPPoE because they think it means they must have a dynamic IP. Your analogy is bad, anyways. What options do you provide as an ISP that PBI does not? Besides which, ISP's aren't required to go with ASI for DSL service- meaning that customers aren't required to use DSL service originating from SBC. Yes, the local loop (the copper from the CO or RT) is owned by SBC, but the DSLAM in some cases is not. Some people want DSL from an ISP that uses ASI, yes- but if they don't that doesn't mean that SBC is necessarily to blame. That means that your sales and retention force isn't up to par perhaps- or maybe your service isn't flawless- or maybe your tech support isn't up to par- or maybe they don't like your pricing structure.
These are all possiblities based on your business set up. It isn't all about who is provisioning your DSLAM. Here's a hint- most people haven't a clue about the DSLAM in the CO- they haven't a clue about your costs for IP transit and they don't care. They want good service, at a reasonable cost. If you want to stay in the business, you can't rely on SBC to fund it for you the whole time. Find something that you can sell, and market it. Charge an arm and a leg for it if need be- quit giving away CPE, free months of service, no contract conditions, etc, and quit assuming that ALL the consumer cares about is price.
Most people that find out DSL is available to them don't take it because of different reasons- no computer is a BIG one. Another is that they don't go online. A HUGE reason is because they are in a contract for 15 million years with an ISP for a $400 or $500 rebate from Best Buy. Or because their company gives them free internet service- or because they are a student and they get free internet access from their university. Or because they are afraid to change the settings on their new $2500 computer.
It isn't all about price- those that want it will pay what the fair market price is for what they want.
quote:
Why not just come out and say "I work for SBC, and I hate the competition. No matter what they do, I hate them. I hate the PUC. I hate my customers. I will decide what they want. CLECS are EVIL. CLECS are EVIL." You're just not making any sense with all this flip-flopping.
??? Not sure when you turned into a complete nutbar...
quote:
I work at an ISP (not in SBC territory). I hate my ILEC, both for what they do to our business, and their general arrogance in all areas. They do not do business in a morally proper way. They are soulless. 50% of my hate for them comes just from dealing with them on consumer services that I personally (must) purchase. Monopolies never behave well.
I suppose you believe that it is all a big conspiracy to get you to lose money. How about going to where there isn't as much pressure and hard times from your ILEC. ALL ILEC's are doing exactly the same thing? Ignorance must be bliss... that's right- they all get on a conference call together to compare how they are going to OUST the competition and they do it all the same... the commies are coming, the commies are coming...
Boogie74 | |
|
