global guru
@rr.com
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail 
|  reply to TKJunkMail
Re: They admit ------------ and ?
every business owns another money.
anyone can sue anyone, in this great country of yours as well. Makes no sense not to pay a bill, but why not just have your government just print up some more fake money and hand it out as payment, as 500,000 people had no xmas, no jobs, and the country is out of money.......
your comments just prove my point in detail. everyone waits in line to criticize, while a handful actually look and communicate valid points, but still don't see how illegal business in the US can or has become. sure you have the right to do biz with anyone, but company's con each other to gain leverage, instead of win/win/win situations. They do as much damage they can to each other, while hiding in the civil legal laws, violating your very existence.
what businesses do to each other should be help by those same priciples and values. The lack thereof is new american disease, spreading to all west influenced countries.... |
|
regmanabq
join:2006-10-18
Albuquerque, NM
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: They admit they owe money ....
Qwest has held NM by the throat for years.
Which is funny, much of the technology for the internet was invented here, yet we still lag far behind the rest of the country on connectivity.
Glad to see them getting sued. Hope Qwest is found guilty and has to step up to the plate. Tired of having to choose shitty Comcast or Mafia like Qwest. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
What would you know about it. Telco's have consistently provided service at cost to drive independent ISP's out of business. We were the companies that brought the internet to small and medium sized towns outside the "Top 20" markets.
When DSL came out and our customers asked, we went to the telco's and they charged us on a per line basis the same price they were charging customers who went directly to them.
Now tell me how was my company supposed to pay to install separate phone lines to the 30k homes in the city we served?
Phone lines were taxpayers subsidized in many locations. It should be a copmany that managed infrastructure and all ISP/PHONE/etc should compete over services delivered across that. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
I think there are restrictions in place that make it impossible for new infrastructure to be employed, at least competitively. This was a major reason why CLEC's were allowed to use existing, oftentimes tax-funded, infrastructures monopolized by a select few conglomerates.
Edit: Perhaps I should have used a toll road as my analogy. If the owners of the toll roads charged too much for competing trucks to use, that would be closer to this situation. Sure other roads can be used, but not in those areas where the owner of the toll roads delivers, and that would be seen as anti-competitive. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207 : If a competing distributing company also owns your auto insurance company and charges you way too much to insure your trucks, how would that not be anti-competitive? Because you can go and do business with another insurance company. You don't have to buy insurance from a competitor.
And SkyWi could have built their own infrastructure(especially wireless) and not used Qwest. The whole CLEC kludge has always been ridiculous and just because it was mandated by the government doesn't make it a viable business plan for providing internet services.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Cheese
said by Cheese :But claim QWEST is doing this to be anti-competitive, it can't be both, you owe money or you don't, plain and simple. Why can't it be both?
If a competing distributing company also owns your auto insurance company and charges you way too much to insure your trucks, how would that not be anti-competitive? Clearly you would still owe some money to pay your insurance, but if you dispute the price because it's a ridiculous amount and nowhere close to what was initially agreed upon, you have both situations. You owe money, and the insurance company/distributor is being anti-competitive.
You'd think it would be illegal to own a truck fleet while selling insurance to other competing truck fleets? Maybe we should not allow QWest to sell service directly to it's competitors? This doesn't make sense to me either. |
|
