digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | reply to pnh102
Re: Thames Valley Communications = Losers
Wow, look, another AT&T shill. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to pnh102
Nice attempts at dodging. If TVC fails to deploy their network in a timely and cost-efficient manner because AT&T breaks regulations or the laws, then that's AT&T's fault, and they should be righteously smacked down for it. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to KrK
said by KrK  :said by pnh102 :I am merely suggesting TVC take the seemingly radical approach and run its own infrastructure instead. Then here's a seemingly radical approach: TVC should simply cut at&t's lines and put theirs in it's place to screw at&t over. OH wait, that's probably illegal... So you're trying to say that my suggestion of TVC running their own infrastructure is illegal?
said by KrK :So it's legal for at&t to screw over TVC, but not vice versa... or perhaps, it's NOT, which is why the State is now stepping in.... Not like TVC is trying to screw at&t. They merely want to exist, and get the access they are entitled to have. If TVC goes under because it did not find some way to bring service to its customers, then it is their fault, not AT&T's.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :There's nothing to understand. AT&T doesn't want to help out its competitors, so it will do whatever it can to screw TVC over. I am merely suggesting TVC take the seemingly radical approach and run its own infrastructure instead. So all's fair in war, eh? Then here's a seemingly radical approach: TVC should simply cut at&t's lines and put theirs in it's place to screw at&t over. OH wait, that's probably illegal... So it's legal for at&t to screw over TVC, but not vice versa... or perhaps, it's NOT, which is why the State is now stepping in.... Not like TVC is trying to screw at&t. They merely want to exist, and get the access they are entitled to have.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :Not sure which part of this you're not understanding. The part which doesn't line up with at&t's agenda, apparently! |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Matt
said by Matt :Not sure which part of this you're not understanding. The problem is you're expecting logic from a known telco shill. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to pnh102
Maybe, then, power should shun AT&T and do the same thing to them, right?
That's a good idea.. any new attachment AT&T wants to do that requires them attaching an electric pole, the power company should sit on it for a year. See how fast AT&T cries foul.
While I agree with you on principle.. go underground.. I strongly disagree with you in reality.
AT&T has a responsibility to share the poles. If this were Comcast doing it, you'd be up in arms. (And yes, Comcast does own some poles)
This move on AT&T's part is a calculated move to force a competitor to spend themselves out of their project potentially derailing the efforts all together.
I seriously can't believe you'd support AT&T on this one and stand for it. AT&T is, as usual, snubbing their nose at this and pushing the limits.
In a case like this, I'd condemn those poles, take them with eminent domain punishing at&t for their failure to respond properly. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :Not sure which part of this you're not understanding. There's nothing to understand. AT&T doesn't want to help out its competitors, so it will do whatever it can to screw TVC over.
I am merely suggesting TVC take the seemingly radical approach and run its own infrastructure instead.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by SRFireside :Why is it ATT's problem? Because the poles are shared. That's the agreement. Agreement or not, Thames Valley accomplishes nothing by whining about how unfair AT&T allegedly is. They need to be a "do-er" and not a complainer. They need to get a franchise agreement and run their own wires. Which is what they are trying to do, but poles require minimum clearances. AT&T is not cooperating and purposefully delaying the work required for TVC to string their wire. However, when AT&T needs to move wires around for minimum clearances, there isn't a problem getting THEIR work done, even if the order was put in AFTER TVC. This is why they now have 70-days to comply with the order.
Not sure which part of this you're not understanding. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :Why is it ATT's problem? Because the poles are shared. That's the agreement. Agreement or not, Thames Valley accomplishes nothing by whining about how unfair AT&T allegedly is. They need to be a "do-er" and not a complainer.
They need to get a franchise agreement and run their own wires.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Why is it ATT's problem? Because the poles are shared. That's the agreement.
//edited for spelling. |
|
