garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY | And the hubub is? Maybe it is just that “the purchase will add coverage in rural areas to AT&T's wireless network and save the company $2.5 billion in roaming costs and overhead expenses.”
After all, ATT is a COMMUNICATIONS company!
It is very interesting that this publication derides carriers for not providing rural coverage and then derides them for adding rural coverage. Someone here seems to always have to complain about something.... |
|
| said by garmst:It is very interesting that this publication derides carriers for not providing rural coverage and then derides them for adding rural coverage. Someone here seems to always have to complain about something.... Par for the course around here. Instead of just reporting it as it is, there always has to be something negative when it involves a large company.
--
Myspace | Yahoo! 360° | Blogspot |
|
| said by bassthumpa:said by garmst:It is very interesting that this publication derides carriers for not providing rural coverage and then derides them for adding rural coverage. Someone here seems to always have to complain about something.... Par for the course around here. Instead of just reporting it as it is, there always has to be something negative when it involves a large company. Well said, both of you.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Fred Thompson For President 2008 »www.imwithfred.com |
|
|
|
| Maybe, but if thats is true then why did we go through 23 years of BS just to end back up with Ma Bell.
I'm just disgusted that with all of the advancements in technology, my only 2 real choices in Chicago are Att and Comcast. Both have good spots and bad spots, but try living in an area where they're both bad!
PS. If they have 200 billion for mergers, then why can't they hire coherant operators to speak with instead of automated systems or "Chad" from India?
The Death Star is almost complete! |
|
