bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to qworster
Re: They can't abandon VT...yet...
They'll keep doing what they've been doing.
It's interesting to see the duality of opinions. It seems a lot of people see no problem with demanding that an incumbent always operate landline service even at a loss but then demand they be given no special treatment and have to just accept any attempt to eat away at their profits.
It seems that people won't be happy till the telecoms operate at a loss everywhere... but then they'll be angry that their phone isn't as reliable as it used to be back when telephones were a federally protected monopoly.
Next we can complain about insurance companies refusing to insure 16yr old kids who like to drive drunk.
I personally am shocked that people can't draw correlations and connections as they once could. |
|
RandyStevenson
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail 
| said by bogey780 : It seems a lot of people see no problem with demanding that an incumbent always operate landline service even at a loss but then demand they be given no special treatment and have to just accept any attempt to eat away at their profits. Megadittos, bogey780! People forget that the primary purpose of a corporation is to enrich their stockholders. Customers should only be given the minimum level of service to keep them paying, nothing more. Damm customers, give them 6Mb and before the day is over, they're crying for 10Mb.
Furthermore, we need to bust up the gobdam unions and drastically cut back the worker's pension and health care benefits. If some employee doesn't like it, they can leave. There are plenty of people looking for work. Dammit, we need to maximize the stockholders profit, not give it to some whiny budding socialist employee that thinks s/he's entitled to it!
Are you with me, boy? |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :It seems that people won't be happy till the telecoms operate at a loss [...] Next we can complain about insurance companies refusing to insure 16yr old kids who like to drive drunk. I personally am shocked that people can't draw correlations and connections Indeed. Shocking.
(quoted emphasis mine. just in case.) |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to RandyStevenson
Very poor attempt. |
|
MrMoody
But the Grinch ... did Not.
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
 ·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :Next we can complain about insurance companies refusing to insure 16yr old kids who like to drive drunk. Bad example. In most if not all US states, auto liability insurance is required and any company doing business in that state can't get out of insuring high risk drivers. Usually, uninsurable high risk drivers go into the state assigned risk pool, and all the companies get their share of premiums and pay their share of losses from that pool. It's another case where government requires them to eat a loss in order to allow them to do business. In the end, the good drivers pay for the really bad ones, the same as low cost telco customers pay for the high cost ones.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| But an insurance company can back out of a state. And they can increase premiums across the board or specifically for certain classes (pending regulatory approval).
TNSTAAFL.
Someone pays. Every Verizon customer outside of the states being sold benefits from their sale. Everyone inside those states benefit from the sale not happening because they need those deep pockets to keep their slim profit margined phone service running smoothly. |
|
