Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17763897 en Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:35:53 EDT Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:35:53 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17764342 TScheisskopf : Hey, if a company wants to put a person on this site to fully express the corporate line, no problems here, as long as they are identified as who and what they are(black, shriveled souls that look like a raisin notwithstanding...;-) ).

No, what makes my teeth itch is astroturfers who hide behind an assumed "true grassroots" persona while peddling their wares in a specious manner. I find that vaguely insulting to my intelligence and I really don't like have my last remaining shards of intelligence insulted. It is also smacks of classic psyops and I really resent that they even try that.

I mean, if they have a good job with UltraMegaJigundo Telecom Inc., why be ashamed? Of if they have a grunch of their money invested in same. Or if they work for a public relations contractor, hired by same.

I am sure most of us would like to have a job with said company, or have the money to invest, and the resultant salary or dividends thereof. Soul Retention Optional.

I suggest that these companies read, digest and truly absorb "Guerilla Marketing" by Christopher Locke. Learn what having a REAL two-way dialogue with their customers can bring to the table in the wonderful world of The Intertubular Communication Matrix. Stop speaking at us. Speak with us. Not all of us drool and have unspeakable relationships with barnyard creatures. Surely, some of us do, but it's a big world and it takes all kinds.

It would also remove their craniums from a very unseemly aspect of their lower anatomies. Awful dark and smelly down there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17764342 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:38:50 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17763897 kamm :
said by TScheisskopf See Profile :

said by Karl Bode See Profile :

Your speculation that my speculation is speculation is pure speculation.

How's things at BellSouth, Cod?
Sure would be nice if there was some way to get some full disclosure going around here.

I know, I know...It's Da' Net and it's impossible, but let an old guy have his dreams, wouldja? ;-)
The most pathetic thing is when an astroturfer has been caught working in full-fledged corporate shill mode like this Cod guy, they simply disappear. No answer, no anything. :D

Truly pathetic.
--
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17763897 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:07:57 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17762266 Morty :
said by Alpine See Profile :

quote:
Sure would be nice if there was some way to get some full disclosure going around here.
Just like US citizens would generally have a better idea of what's going on in their own country than a foreign person reading AntiUSBias.com. Same thing.

:-)

Adam
The problem is the majority of Americans don't know what's going on OUTSIDE of their own country :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17762266 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 06:36:05 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17759051 P Ness : Does not matter what he thinks, he should enforce what his job requires him to enforce or step down....if its illegal then ATT will be the ones to fight it out in court...or Martin should go to the "cops" and let them figure it out....
--
www.stopfcc.com I do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17759051 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:58:05 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17759011 w4ncr : WHY IS EVERYTHING ABOUT WIRELESS--CINGULAR UPGRADES AND NOTHING ABOUT BROADBAND????????????]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17759011 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:51:29 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17758033 Alpine :
quote:
Sure would be nice if there was some way to get some full disclosure going around here.


Why? Would Cod's opinion matter less if you found out he worked at BellSouth? (If he even does. I don't know.)

Of course not. Saying so would be like saying one's opinion on United State politics doesn't matter because he lives there and thus must be biased. Obviously a stupid argument.

And, frankly, those that work in the industry generally know what's going on a heck of a lot better than those that just read DSLReports. Just like US citizens would generally have a better idea of what's going on in their own country than a foreign person reading AntiUSBias.com. Same thing.

:-)

Adam]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17758033 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:16:14 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757776 TScheisskopf :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

Your speculation that my speculation is speculation is pure speculation.

How's things at BellSouth, Cod?
Sure would be nice if there was some way to get some full disclosure going around here.

I know, I know...It's Da' Net and it's impossible, but let an old guy have his dreams, wouldja? ;-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757776 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:29:57 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757737 Karl Bode : Your speculation that my speculation is speculation is pure speculation.

How's things at BellSouth, Cod?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757737 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:22:09 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757714 Cod :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

And it's pretty obvious that the FCC won't enforce the network neutrality concession barring some egregious and direct blockade of competing traffic that forces his hand.
Pure speculation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757714 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:18:35 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757649 axus : On the surface it does seem wrong, but I think his job is to implement the bill as it was passed. Let a judge decide if its unreasonable or not. My point of view is that AT&T made a concession, and it should be enforced, if it was something they didn't agree with then they shouldn't merge or challenge it in court after its enforced. If he doesn't enforce it, he's not doing his job.

If the FCC had come out of nowhere with this, it would definitely be illegal, but if they had merged without meeting conditions that would also be illegal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757649 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:07:07 EDT Re: Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757624 Karl Bode : Nowhere does the item "imply" the whole agreement won't be enforced. Just the parts he doesn't like.
quote:
Martin and Republican Commissioner Deborah Tate suggested they would not enforce the condition because it improperly imposed obligations on other carriers.
Also, from Tate and Martin's statement when the merger was initially approved:
quote:
while the Democrat Commissioners may have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future Commission action. Thus, to the extent that AT&T has, as a business matter, determined to take certain actions, they are allowed to do so."
And it's pretty obvious that the FCC won't enforce the network neutrality concession barring some egregious and direct blockade of competing traffic that forces his hand.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757624 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:02:59 EDT Details on refusing to enforce "1 TERM" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757587 MAR_03_2002 : Martin only refusing to enforce 1 term that he contends is illegal. Not the whole agreement as implied in the BBR news item:
»www.usatoday.com/money/companies···at_x.htm
But in agreeing to the requirement, AT&T said it would not slash the prices it charges Verizon and Qwest, two of its largest rivals, unless the two local phone giants lower the lease rates they charge AT&T in their territories. AT&T, Verizon and Qwest all have long-distance units that serve big businesses outside their regions.

Verizon and Qwest say they will not cut their prices for AT&T.

In a statement released when the FCC approved the deal, Martin and Republican Commissioner Deborah Tate suggested they would not enforce the condition because it improperly imposed obligations on other carriers. They also said if Verizon and Qwest can't get the low rates, the concession would conflict with FCC rules that require wholesale services to be offered to all carriers on equal terms.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17757587 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:57:13 EDT