dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54
share rss forum feed
Sukunai
Premium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX

1 recommendation

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

You are unfortunately thinking old thinking.

Today it is a gig, I can remember when the internet was measured in speeds that sounded almost odd. A modem was something that made all sorts of squawking noises.

Yes the video we watch uses a lot of bandwidth. And I hardly expect wireless to remain the same wireless it currently is.

I can remember when cable only sent a TV signal to a TV too.
I can remember when a phone line was only good for a phone call.

I don't really see a need to assume the old forms of transmission need remain the same.

But I think the future is more with fibre based tech actually. I am not sure wireless will actually ever be the best route. But it does have it's advantages.

I don't resent companies trying to get an edge with technology. Why should it only be the consumer that gets to enjoy all the perks?

I just hate people like Hollywood, that simply refuse to accept society has moved on, whether Hollywood likes it or not.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

You say fiber but who's going to bury it? Google?

Verizon has given up on expanding FIOS. Too costly. They, like AT&T, love wireless and its massive margin. If Verizon has booted copper and the idea of an in-ground network, do we think AT&T will experiment with fiber only to come to Verizon's conclusion?

I do agree that how we view today's gigabyte will likely be a terabyte in the future. When that happens, video won't be an issue.
canestim

join:2012-01-20

1 recommendation

Businesses are here to serve customers while making a profit. If they don't provide good service they don't deserve the "perks" you act like they are entitled to. Problem is monopolies or oligopolies do not provide good service unless they are forced to, and the government does a poor job at it. They don't have to provide good service because you don't have any choice. You have to earn perks right?

I can "remember" all those things as well. I also remember poor regulation and monopolies taking advantage of customers. Long distance anyone?

I agree with you, tech needs to move in that direction. But it needs to compliment it. If they gave them that power they could turn the switch off on millions of customers without notice, and that is not acceptable.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

and the Gov't does NOT need to but into the private businesses. If that was the case we'd be like China where the gov't owns the phone company and there is only one.

And still counting back on past history will NOT move anyone forward. it just keeps everyone behind. Why not just kill the wireline, especially in areas it does NOT make sense to keep and move those customers to wireless? It makes sense from a business stand point and customer stand point as the customer would be able to have HSI and VoIP and the business saves $$$ while bringing in more $$$ due to expanding customers serviced.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Nothing strange about this objective.

So much better to have giants like Bell and Standard Oil that gov't should just let screw the customers whichever way they want.
canestim

join:2012-01-20
Government shouldn't be involved in private business, free market business. Utilities, yes including Inernet (which has become a necessity basically) has to be regulated because you can't have 100 companies putting up towers or running wires. Utilities are not free market in our country the way the are set up. Maybe if they went to a model like in Europe, I don't know.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
Lets correct your statement and say Government does not need to buy into private business unless private business fails to deliver and the people (whom are the government) have elected for them to do so because of those failures.

Like it or not, if the people want the government to provide a service, regardless of how well the private sector provides it, then the government is obligated to serve it's people as they request. It is the entire purpose of the government.

I also like the lie you portray in your last sentence. Companies like AT&T could have their expenses completely zeroed out saving them billions and not a single customer will see a decrease in their bill. However, you can be sure that the CEO and shareholders see a big "bonus" fat check.