| Union & evidently Ct Attny Genrl can't grasp simple facts .. Fewer customers means fewer workers needed to service them. And less income to pay them. Of course a government employee would have trouble grasping that concept - they just raise taxes when they want more money |
|
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| I suspect they know more then you think. AT&T making more profit, expanding services, yet failing to meet customer service standards and failing to take corrective action (What are you going to do--- we're the phone company!)...
And of course, they love laying off Union workers for any reason.
It's well within the Attorney General's rights to hold their feet to the fire.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | Why should AT&T be forced to offer better service than the gov't mandating the standards? More gov't,"do as I say, not as I do". |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Z80:Why should AT&T be forced to offer better service than the gov't mandating the standards? More gov't,"do as I say, not as I do". more than gov mandated? where does it say they are even meeting those standards setup by CT? If you read the thing it actually says they are still not meeting those standards and won't because it's to much of an inconvenience to have on call people to take care of things instead they make people wait.
--
Looking to get into Avaya telco if you might be in that field hit me up I have a lot of questions. |
|
| reply to Z80
said by Z80:Why should AT&T be forced to offer better service than the gov't mandating the standards? More gov't,"do as I say, not as I do". LOL! Thanks for that... |
|
| reply to RiseAbove
True. And if ATT doesn't want or didn't want to ahere to those laws by CT they should have never taken over SNET when ATT was SBC. They knew up front what they were getting into and now they don't wanna do anything. |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | reply to RiseAbove
If AT&T is expected to meet standards, so should those enforcing the standards. The gov't should not demand of any business why they aren't willing to do themselves.
It is just typical government hypocrisy, the same type of hypocrisy that had Congress lecturing GM over flying in on a corporate yet and mismanagement when Congress voted themselves new jets and the government is the most mismanaged entity is the history of entities. But unlike government, businesses like AT&T can't just print money or raise taxes. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Fewer customers means fewer workers needed to service them. And less income to pay them. Of course a government employee would have trouble grasping that concept - they just raise taxes when they want more money I live in Connecticut, and just over a month ago, our last landline was ported to VOIP. We had no problem with our POTS service in over 30 years. The state regulations, or AT&T's performance with respect to them were insignificant.
VOIP costs a lot less, and is good enough. AT&T couldn't get uVerse to my home. AT&T couldn't offer competitive phone or data service to my family. We are on Comcast and VOIP.
Many friends in my neighborhood have moved from AT&T to Comcast HSI / CDV due to double and triple play offers.
Generally AT&T hasn't been able to get great deployment of high speed internet to many, it tries to cherry pick, and it doesn't offer competitive prices for its older products.
My current VOIP bill is $0 per month, my AT&T bill for local calls only was $45.
The problem with AT&T is the cost of its service for older stuff, and the taxes and fees government imposes.
Our Connecticut attorney general is really into publicity, and snarling at AT&T in this very blue state gets him some mileage. I think a concern for the state is loss of landline revenue, and our AG may be trying to set up some claw-back mechanism to help recover lost tax revenue from former landline customers. Personally I hope he loses. We are in the 21st century, AT&T has to offer competitive services or it will fail, and our government has to stop taxing and regulating services out of existence.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
