 MoropoPremium
join:2002-07-28
Miami | ... So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. |
|
 Sr TechPremium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Funny, sounds like ATT back to being GOD of the telco world.
Stop crying ATT and apply for your license, why should you be any different than the cable companies. TV is TV no matter how you pipe it to the house. |
|
| reply to Moropo
You honestly think the state cares about "customer protection"? They want more money out of ATT, thats the real issue. How does limiting competition protect consumers?? |
|
| reply to Moropo
said by Moropo:So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses.
Yup, and the so called "CUSTOMER PROTECTION" Comcrap customers get now provides what? Oh yeah, Comcrap STILL raises rates, on average, twice a year AND they STILL get crappy customer service. So yes, you are correct, they need the protection. |
|
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY | reply to Moropo
said by Moropo:So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. as if this hs anything to do with customer protection, this is all about money. uncle sam needs his cut  |
|
|
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | reply to supernac
said by supernac:You honestly think the state cares about "customer protection"? They want more money out of ATT, thats the real issue. How does limiting competition protect consumers?? You got it right. The PUC decided to override the legislators and interpret the law against AT&T. They will lose in court, but that could take a year or more. In the meantime the PUC helps keep the cable monopoly in place and the payoff money they pay to towns flowing. The only losers will be the consumers who won't get a new competitor selling to them.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | reply to Sr Tech
said by Sr Tech: TV is TV no matter how you pipe it to the house. Satellite? |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to ThrowDemsOut
yes, what a loss to those consumers. half assed technology and the added benefit of being spying on by AT&T and the NSA. such a loss. |
|
 dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency?
join:2004-01-22
united state
kudos:1 | reply to batterup
Satellite doesnt impede upon the city right of way or use any extra services of the city. |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by dispatcher21:Satellite doesnt impede upon the city right of way or use any extra services of the city. Neither does U-Vers or FIOS. They bring telephone and internet. With U-Vers the wires are already in place.
In New Jersey we have a state wide TV franchise. Capping has stopped and prices are steady. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Moropo
you think the state cares about customers? they just want the money from Franchise Fees.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Sr Tech
said by Sr Tech:Funny, sounds like ATT back to being GOD of the telco world. Stop crying ATT and apply for your license, why should you be any different than the cable companies. TV is TV no matter how you pipe it to the house. Except cable doesn't have to follow build out rules anywys. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Moropo
said by Moropo:So yeah they are URGING the customers to complain so that said customers dont get CUSTOMER PROTECTION. Great idea, dumbasses. Even better idea, pissing a company off so NO customers get the service. |
|
| reply to Sr Tech
Cable monopolies recieved exclusive franchise areas in exchange for buildout commitments over 30 years ago
A second provider into a market does not get an exclusive franchise area and needs to win customers from the incumbemnt cable companies.
The Connecticut legislature and Governor established the new Video law to encourage additional entrants into the competitive video market. There are less regulatory requirements becsause the new entrants do not get exclusive franchise areas
The Attorney General and DPUC have it all wrong
CT needs to encourage business expansion and competitive alternatives / not kill them
It is apparent from this thread that most people here do not think logically |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | said by The truth hurts :
It is apparent from this thread that most people here do not think logically
Some do not think some are like you and have a financial interest. |
|
| reply to Sr Tech
look at federal cabel law 1984, even electric companies are exempt from being cable company. |
|
