| reply to bicker
Re: High Quality versus Low Quality 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 | 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. |
|
