how-to block ads
|
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. | |
| | | |
|
