how-to block ads
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Good Another asinine blockade to progress removed. Everyone wins in this one.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Re: Good Agreed. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Good said by TKJunkMail  :Now Ct. gets some competition, which was the laws intent all along. I am just against any law that restricts information service delivery for any reason. People here always whine about how the USA is supposedly "so far behind" in broadband. I assert that the primary reason is that government at all levels goes after the companies which actually want to provide service.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
 ·ViaTalk
| Re: Good This is a moronic argument. AT&T, Verizon, and all the other big telecomms impede progress, so they can make more money. It has nothing to do with government. I almost all areas, the new provider simply has to meet the standards of the curent providers- A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. This is simply a ploy to get out of responsibilities to there customers and have carte blanch to do what they want when they want to who they want.
Gotta love these anti-American people that would love to divide our country into "haves" and "have nots"... | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Good said by boober321 :This is a moronic argument. AT&T, Verizon, and all the other big telecomms impede progress, so they can make more money. Really? Then why are AT&T and Verizon implementing U-Verse and FIOS, respectively? Are these not next generation technologies?
The costs of these deployments are huge and the only hope for any recovery of that investment is that people purchase these services.
said by boober321 : It has nothing to do with government. The government is the one telling these companies that they cannot do business.
said by boober321 : I almost all areas, the new provider simply has to meet the standards of the curent providers- A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. So AT&T, or any other company, shouldn't try to see if it can get a more favorable deal with the government? Just because other companies were too lazy to bother doing that, doesn't mean AT&T should be faulted for doing it.
said by boober321 : This is simply a ploy to get out of responsibilities to there customers and have carte blanch to do what they want when they want to who they want. What responsibilities? If customers do not find U-Verse service favorable, they will not buy it.
said by boober321 :Gotta love these anti-American people that would love to divide our country into "haves" and "have nots"... So how would you solve this? If the judge had not ruled the way he had, no one in CT would have any hope of getting U-Verse. Is that what you want?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk
| Re: Good said by pnh102 :The costs of these deployments are huge and the only hope for any recovery of that investment is that people purchase these services. They stifle other enterprises that would offer cheaper and more efficient services. Why is it that other countries like South Korea have vastly superior networks? It's because big telecomm in America drag their feet and stop other others from using innovative technologies. Much like Verizon's lawsuit against Vonage. Extremely over broad patents that should never have been issued, used to stop cheaper solutions from being offered.
And BTW- U-Verse is ANYTHING but cutting edge. They're using the same crap as always except now they have to limit internet speeds to also provide a crappy same as everyone else television product...
said by pnh102 :The government is the one telling these companies that they cannot do business. No, the government is telling then they have to FOLLOW RULES to operate, instead of being given the ability to run rough shot over the customers and local communities.
said by pnh102 :So AT&T, or any other company, shouldn't try to see if it can get a more favorable deal with the government? Just because other companies were too lazy to bother doing that, doesn't mean AT&T should be faulted for doing it. No they shouldn't. They undermine the wishes of the communities they service. The requirements for these companies is often minimal and require they perform at a specified level... I see absolutely no harm in that.
said by pnh102 :What responsibilities? If customers do not find U-Verse service favorable, they will not buy it. What of the people that DO buy it and get the shaft? There is little to no recourse or oversight.
said by pnh102 :So how would you solve this? If the judge had not ruled the way he had, no one in CT would have any hope of getting U-Verse. Is that what you want? Please. They are simply using a scare tactic to get what they want. If there is profits to be made they will be there. Only now, they can cherry pick so only a select few can get a choice. So nice that you so easily abandon your fellow citizens for a half-rate internet/cable selection. | |
| | sm2016a
join:2004-03-02
Belleville, IL
·VoipYourLife
| said by TKJunkMail :said by pnh102 : Now Ct. gets some competition, which was the laws intent all along. You only get competition if you are in the area AT&T wants to deploy there service if you aren't then your still back at square one. Thats my main problem with AT&T they cherry pick and so do many other corporations but it all comes down to how can i make the most money with spending the least. | |
| | | | | | | 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: Good The answer would likely depend on which side of that choice the person you are asking is standing on. | |
| | | | | | | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI | It is better to get a company in that will roll out the service FOR ALL customers. Great that you are one of those anti-Americans that want to develop a two tiered system for the rich and the poor. | |
| | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Good said by boober321 :It is better to get a company in that will roll out the service FOR ALL customers. Great that you are one of those anti-Americans that want to develop a two tiered system for the rich and the poor. So are you saying products/services shouldnt be released if everyone in the country cant afford them?? I am not in any way advocating a two tiered system here, but sometimes its not economically feasible to roll something out to 100% of a geographic area. Furthermore, your argument is fundamentally flawed. People said the same thing about FIOS (that they cherry pick wealthy areas), however that has been shown over and over not to be the case. There are plenty of lower income areas that have FIOS these days. Look at the NYC and DC metro areas and suburbs if you dont believe me. Sure, a lower income area might not be the first to get a particular service, but does that even matter?
People on this website seem to forget that companies exist for one purpose; and this is to make money. As for your "Anti American" comments, you honestly make me laugh. So if I understand YOU correctly, you think being "Pro American" means believing "if I cant get something then neither can Johnny accross the street". I have news for you bud, thats not called being "Pro American", thats called being a selfish prick.
--
я люблю Денди! | |
| | | | | | 
greendragon
Premium
join:2003-09-20
Stewartville, MN | Re: Good Although I may have worded it a little differently, I agree with you 100%. | |
| | | | | | 
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
 from:
ross
| quote:
So let me ask you this. Which is better, choices for some customers OR no choices for all customers?
Choices for some is better. But are you really acting in good faith when you suggest that the stark option is either deregulated broadband duopoly or none of us has anything. We have, in the past, attained universal coverage of services by a combination of for profit behavior in markets, government regulation, and socializing some of the costs of infrastructure development.
quote:
So are you saying products/services shouldnt be released if everyone in the country cant afford them?? I am not in any way advocating a two tiered system here, but sometimes its not economically feasible to roll something out to 100% of a geographic area.
So which are we talking about? Whether everyone can afford them or whether the company even provides the opportunity for people to buy them?
I don't think anyone is arguing that, if everyone can't afford something, no one should have the chance to get it but how long should we expect those who don't have the opportunity to buy to continue tolerating the trickle down argument. In most of the country there is a duopoly without the previous longstanding tradition that market dominating companies, that build and maintain basic infrastructure, should have a requirement to attain coverage for everyone in exchange for society tolerating their market dominance.
No on denies that businesses exist to make money, nor would I argue that it is wrong for them to exist to make money. There is a long record of bad consequences, though, when the profit motive combines with the power to control a market. The problem is when, for ideological reasons, we allow a small number of these for profits to control the country's communication infrastructure, tell people who are denied access to this infrastructure that they should go f themselves, and simultaneously deny society the ability to use other mechanisms to get infrastructure built, such as government action. If it isn't feasible for these companies to build infrastructure so be it, but they should get the hell out of the way when society tries to get it built by other means. If they won't get out of the way then society should move them out of the way without any remorse.
Corporations seeking profit is fine. Allowing corporations to dominate the infrastructure that a society depends on and then cutting the legs out from under all attempts(whether antitrust, regulation, public infrastructure build) to find a way around that domination is NOT fine. Expecting society to sacrifice all other interests to the moloch of corporate profits is NOT fine. Corporate profit is not the only value in human civilization. | |
| | | | | | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk
| said by wifi4milez :So are you saying products/services shouldnt be released if everyone in the country cant afford them?? I am not in any way advocating a two tiered system here, but sometimes its not economically feasible to roll something out to 100% of a geographic area. Furthermore, your argument is fundamentally flawed. People said the same thing about FIOS (that they cherry pick wealthy areas), however that has been shown over and over not to be the case. There are plenty of lower income areas that have FIOS these days. Look at the NYC and DC metro areas and suburbs if you dont believe me. Sure, a lower income area might not be the first to get a particular service, but does that even matter? People on this website seem to forget that companies exist for one purpose; and this is to make money. As for your "Anti American" comments, you honestly make me laugh. So if I understand YOU correctly, you think being "Pro American" means believing "if I cant get something then neither can Johnny accross the street". I have news for you bud, thats not called being "Pro American", thats called being a selfish prick. Being Pro-American means we stick up for each other, instead of the "I get mine screw my neighbor" attitude you have. AT&T can make a profit by serving all communities. No one ever said the roll out had to be completely done before it can be offered, but they shouldn't be able to pick here and there and leave it at that. And don't be stupid, big telecomm has been leaving communities out of the loop since they started rolling out the service. And when the communities band together to start their own services, AT&T and Verizon are there to do everything in their power to squash that possibility.
And let's not forget that AT&T is using the PUBLICLY subsidized lines that we all paid for. They have a duty as a utility to serve the community and they are trying to get out of that. If they want to cherry pick, let them put up their own private lines on property that isn't the government's (ie. the easement on private property for utilities.) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| said by wifi4milez :...I have news for you bud, thats not called being "Pro American", thats called being a selfish prick. Definitively your area of expertise... | |
| | | | | skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by boober321 :It is better to get a company in that will roll out the service FOR ALL customers. Great that you are one of those anti-Americans that want to develop a two tiered system for the rich and the poor.
You are correct, it IS better to have a service rolled out to ALL customers but that is economically not feasible. The payback on a system that only feeds a handful of customers (such as in the less populated areas of the state) would be far too long, if at all.
Given that, it makes sense that the company will invest in areas that will make money - what company wouldn't? But, to say that this is being delivered to the rich only and not the poor is WAY off target. Uverse is already installed in the downtown areas of Waterbury, New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport, etc. If you want to call those areas rich feel free, but I would hate to see your definition of poor.
Uverse is being deployed in areas that have the highest density first to enable AT&T to make the most bang for the buck. I suppose you can say that is wrong, especially if you live in the rural areas, but it is business. | |
| | | | | 
MrFixitSC
Premium,VIP,ExMod 2001-06
join:2000-12-01
Moncks Corner, SC | as a matter of absolute fact Uverse is available in more lower income areas than higher income, simply a metter of economics and population density, most bang for their buck. Logical business sense it is.. | |
| | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| said by sm2016a :Thats my main problem with AT&T they cherry pick and so do many other corporations but it all comes down to how can i make the most money with spending the least. Business 101. | |
| | | |
|
