fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: well... said by hottboiinnc:What is your many cable providers? And how many actually announce that they offer them? But why should they when they're making the $$$. You made the initial claim.. so who offers regional plans? Since Comcast is the largest, and offers a regional plan in a very small amount of systems... TWC is the second largest and offers them in limited systems as well.. I don't think I need to go further.
And mobile to mobile calling is great on cell phones if you talk to a large group of people that have the same carrier. Why pay extra in minutes to talk to someone else with the same company. In-calling is nice, however, I buy my plans for my needs and not because others are on the same network. Besides, I'm loyal to myself as you are to you and others are to themselves. Are you going to stay with your provider that you decide no longer meets your needs simply becuase your friends are on the same network? Not really.. you're going to go where it's best for you. This is why In-calling is not effective.. it's just marketing. MCI started this with Friends and Family plans back in the 80/90's.. it didn't do TOO well for them.
I think you find fault with almost every comment that is posted on here. I think you need to be realistic. I don't need to explain my posting habits to you, however, your post, right now, is out of the TOS. Aren't you supposed to stick with the topic and not the user? I don't think I need to come to a this site and post only with people I agree.. for that, I use the thumbs up, usually. Besides, the majority of people are here to bitch, in my view. I think many people have lost their ways anyway.. but I digress. Based on the number of posts, and if I found fault with almost every comment posted here, I'd have to quit my job and spend full time doing this.. so I think your comment is way over exaggerate and self serving to distract.
I DID, however, if you read, told you that maybe I don't understand what you're saying here - that's your cue to expand. Sorry that you were looking for a reason to act like so many others and attack. And, you can say the same to me, however, going back years, I stopped letting people attack me and decided to strike back.. The short term memory on this site doesn't amuse me, sorry about that. People here are generally angry - that's there problem. Their own anger clouds their ability to think clear - again, not my problem.
And DSL could have stayed at $14.95 why ATT doesn't pay much for their transit when their the upstream provider past the DSLAM they don't have to pay to expand like other ISPs or pay wholesale. And your final mistake. It's not all about transit.. there are other costs that are associated with DSL. It's already been showed that they under priced that service - they even admitted it. The entire idea behind dropping the price was to gain customers from dial-up, cable service, and keep existing customers (when they were able to get that price) just long enough to get U-verse on line. As they said, and I'll quote, "it's easier to market and up-sell a current customer than it is to get a new one".. So, sorry to tell you, no, they could not keep $14.99 DSL going which is why they raised the price.. Sorry.
Also, if you'll recall, it was shortly after they started the $14 DSL prices that Mr. Ed of SBC started crying about companies like google, amazon, and netflix "using my pipes to make money off my back".. and the whole charge to get a 3rd line of revenue began. Don't you think for any moment that they were panicking becuase cable was starting to hurt their market? The $14 DSL was a gamble move to sustain their customer base and growth long enough to get to the next level.
Sorry, I just don't agree with you, AND, in many public discussions, there is a level of debate and disagreement. I'm not going to seek out people I agree with and say "hey, I agree with that!" .. People disagree.. that's life. |
