 bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Mediacom
2 edits | reply to 8744675
Re: High Quality versus Low Quality bicker said:
The problem is that folks want low cost and high quality. They're not willing to pay top dollar for DSL & landline, yet they expect an extraordinary amount of resources to be directed towards supporting those services.
...WHAT?!? People want the stuff that companies offer, and that they pay for UNDER THE COMPANY'S TERMS, to, I don't know....actually WORK. If VZW doesn't want to keep up the older copper network and concentrate on FIOS, that's their call. Stop accepting people's payments and don't offer the service. As long as they offer these services and charge for them, they have to work. I really don't understand your point of view here. |
|
|
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | said by bionicRod:If VZW doesn't want to keep up the older copper network and concentrate on FIOS, that's their call. No it isn't. They are forced to continue offering terrestrial copper landline service. The quality of service, or lack thereof, that you're experiencing, therefore, is a reflection of the regulators and/or market forces forcing a company to do something, and then not allowing them to charge enough to provide the level of service the you personally would want. Instead, the regulators and/or market forces specify a lower cost structure, to justify a lower price structure, to maintain affordable service. That's the PEOPLE'S choice: Lower quality matching the lower price than the service provider would charge for a more premium level offering.
said by bionicRod:As long as they offer these services and charge for them, they have to work. They only "have to work" as specified by the QoS standards, not your personal standards.
said by bionicRod:I really don't understand your point of view here. I'm sure you're not alone. Consumers often have a hard time applying reasonable standards to the quality/price scenario when they're the ones consuming the service. |
|
| Hmmmm, this sounds like a spoiled little kid getting back at mommy and daddy by punishing it's pet. Wow, that's what Verizon thinks of it's customers? It used to be that companies had to work had for their customers. Now they're so big they can just treat the customer how they please. That sure does sound like fascism/corporatism to me. |
|
| reply to bicker
Allow me to explain to you what should be most obvious. Companies have no real rights. Nothing in the constitution states that corporations should exist and be given protection by the government, as well as all the other various laws in place to protect them and their investors.
Verizon has no rights. There is nothing `reasonable` or `unreasonable` about what consumers expect from them.
The other aspect of this argument is that Verizon is an extremely, incredibly profitable company. They`re making billions in profits every year despite the very expensive layout of fiber and upgrades to LTE. There is no reason for them to be skimping on landline maintenance on account of `cost, certainly not without providing actual proof that their costs are higher than their income. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:Hmmmm, this sounds like a spoiled little kid getting back at mommy and daddy by punishing it's pet. That is indeed what many of the criticisms of Verizon in this thread sound like.
said by jjeffeory:It used to be that companies had to work had for their customers. When customers are willing to pay for what they want, surely, that is still the case. When consumers are unreasonable, and act like, as you say, "spoiled little kids" then that's when there is a problem.
I don't think you know what that word means. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Allow me to explain to you what should be most obvious. Companies have no real rights. Their owners do. And your perspective would deprive the owners of their rights. Your perspective is indefensible.
said by sonicmerlin:There is nothing `reasonable` or `unreasonable` about what consumers expect from them. That's ridiculous. You're simply trying to rationalize bad behavior by consumers by trying to avoid the reality that business is always a two way street: Consumers motivate companies to provide them what they want. That's the way of the world.
said by sonicmerlin:The other aspect of this argument is that Verizon is an extremely, incredibly profitable company. They`re making billions in profits every year But not on the things you want them to spend money on. Let the market determine what is important to invest in by what the market is willing to pay for. If the money isn't there to support the service, then either let the company decommission the service or accept that the service level will vary to match the extent to which consumers are willing to pay for good service. |
|
bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Mediacom
| reply to bicker
Alright, it's obvious to everyone that you're a vzw shill, but I'll respond (very late, just saw this).
If you, as a consumer, sign a legally binding contract with any company specifying a level of service for a set price, and you pay that price, said company should be required to provide the level of service stipulated in that contract. If they absolutely CANNOT provide that service for that price, they shouldn't have signed that contract to begin with. No company is forced to lose money, don't be ridiculous. If they can prove they are losing money, they can raise rates. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
1 edit | said by bionicRod:Alright, it's obvious to everyone that you're a vzw shill Gosh, how wrong can you be? I've been accused, just in the past year, of being a "shill" for Comcast, DirecTV, Cablevision, Disney, American Airlines, General Electric, Motorola, and about a dozen other companies.
The reality is that I'm a capitalist.
Pleased to meet you.
I have no connection with any of the companies that I comment on, except perhaps as a past or present customer, and/or past or present investor. I would NEVER EVER comment on a company that I worked for.
Never.
You owe me an apology.
said by bionicRod:If you, as a consumer, sign a legally binding contract with any company specifying a level of service for a set price, and you pay that price, said company should be required to provide the level of service stipulated in that contract. Absolutely true, specifically as you wrote it, i.e., as "stipulated in that contract". You clearly missed what I said to you in the previous message: "They only 'have to work' as specified by the QoS standards, not your personal standards." |
|
