Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » U-Verse Will Proceed in CT » Good
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Thats not right »
« This was the right thing to have happened....  
AuthorAll Replies

boober321

join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI
·ViaTalk

reply to pnh102
Re: Good

said by pnh102 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast

reply to boober321
said by boober321 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

It has nothing to do with government.
The government is the one telling these companies that they cannot do business.
said by boober321 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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.
Forums » U-Verse Will Proceed in CTThats not right »
« This was the right thing to have happened....  


Wednesday, 09-Dec 09:17:24 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [197] Sprint Sued For Distracted Driving Death
· [81] 3G Network Test Says AT&T Is Tops
· [72] Mediacom Unveils 105 Mbps Pricing
· [62] Sprint Poised For A Turnaround?
· [54] WPA Cracker: Test WPA-PSK Networks In 20 Minutes
· [50] The Future Of Wi-Fi Is Bright
· [47] Site Leaks Yahoo, Verizon Fed Data Share Pricing
· [44] Microwaving Your Innards Is Not 'Extreme'
· [39] Verizon LTE: 5-12 Mbps Downstream
· [21] AT&T Releases Network Reporting iPhone App
Most people now reading
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· Official Mal'Ganis Thread [World of Warcraft]
· Comcast refused to install 400' feet. [Comcast HSI]
· buffs, nerfs, and 3.3 [World of Warcraft]
· [How to] Install Asterisk on an Asus WL-520GU router [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Woo hoo for snow! [Home Repair & Improvement]
· New PvE Content [World of Warcraft]
· persistent connection to qw-in-f113.1e100.net on boot [Security]
· HOA Headaches [General Questions]
· [TIVO] Problems with TIVO/CableCard in WNY (No Encrypted Channel [Verizon FIOS TV]