| reply to Le Socialist
Re: What is the difference? This is not an entity receiving kickbacks from tax payer dollars and subsidies to build out. Hence, this site is exclusively private and able to regulate itself how it wants. ATT is not exclusively private. It takes money from our tax dollars, has share holders, and is accountable to others for its actions. Hence, it no longer holds the power this site does to make exclusive decisions regarding what it does and does not do with the customer experience. Not to mention, both of these places have to abide by the laws in their respective areas. |
|
|
|
| Interesting. I guess I'm having trouble with all the hoopla over AT&T and the fact that, the 25 people that were watching couldn't hear a lousy band criticize dubya. There's something new...More attacks on the president...Woopee.
Now if AT&T had cut the mic during their tirade then that would be different. I guess we could be that lucky. |
|
| Well your assessment is still wrong. ATT had no right to cut the mic. They are not an exclusive company. I seriously doubt it was a mistake. I said it above. They are under investigation for their NSA wiretapping role. Bush wants to buy them immunity and they WILL NOT be biting the hand that pats them on the back for selling out our rights. That's the truth here. Is it legal what they did, I would have to say no. Will someone pursue it and find out if it was intentional, I doubt it. |
|
