how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
183 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Interesting Verizon can't install a DS3 in five days, and neither can anyone else. That claim seems a little unreasonable. I doubt that Verizon would agree to install a DS3 in five days, because they know they can't.
Teletruth's primary argument is that your phone bill is too expensive and the phone companies should invest in more capital expenditures. I wonder why investors do not think that the RBOCs are as profitable as Teletruth suggests, phone company stocks have plunged with the rest of the telecommunications industry.
When they Teletruth talks about accounting scandals, they point to Worldcom and Global Crossings. When they discuss competition in the long distance market, they mention how MCI is keeping costs down. Teletruth briefly states that when they discover long distance companies breaking the law, they will report it. Teletruth does not mention the well pulicized allegations slamming and cramming by AT&T and MCI-Worldcom.
Teletruth also [incorrectly] claim that the RBOCs are a monopoly, which is not true because there are competitors in the marketplace.
Their site seems quite biased and un-objective and the arguments cater to the naive. Bruce Kushnik admits that he has worked for AT&T. I wonder if they are still paying him.
Their site reminds me of websites that suggest the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
In their defense, Teletruth does link to DSLreports. It is interesting persuasive writing.
There seems to be a big bias against the phone companies. I don't blame people for getting pissed when they lose dial-tone or when they have high latency on the DSL, but if the phone companies lose money, the phone company won't be as capable of fixing these problems. How many MCI and Sprint trucks do you see driving around?
If the phone companies start to lose more money on broadband, you will have to wait longer for your service to get fixed when it brekas. | |
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| said by Inttteresting:
There seems to be a big bias against the phone companies. I don't blame people for getting pissed when they lose dial-tone or when they have high latency on the DSL, but if the phone companies lose money, the phone company won't be as capable of fixing these problems. How many MCI and Sprint trucks do you see driving around?
The phone companies are not losing money due to the piddly amount of competition they have. They are losing it because they are poorly run beaurocracies that reward sloth from the lowly 411 operator to the CEO.
They are slow, glacially slow, to adapt to changes in technology. They want to be trend-setters, but they are too damn ignorant and stubborn to even come close to innovating. This is *not* due to TA '96, this is not due to those darn CLECs, the state these companies are in is due to their own ineptitude and lack of vision.
ATM, remember when that was all the rage? Total telco hype. Now the only place you'll find it is in DSL aggregation and in wan links, but with the customer end set to emulate frame relay.
Without the rise (and fall) of the DCLECs, we would all still be on dialup, ISDN or 56K frame relay lines. Cable, another bastion of swolen heads with small brains, would not even think about high speed access without competition, they'd still be trying to convince us we need Video on Demand.
Morons, all of them. Don't be so gullible as to think these chumps would operate on a loss if they delivered on the many things they promised back when they were freshly pulled from Ma Bell's teat.
As to all the ILEC employees, why bother? I mean, unless you're a VP of something, is what they pay you really worth coming in here and defending your senior morons? Would anyone here really enjoy having dinner with Ivan?
I mean, just look at this hit-parade of shoe salesmen:
»investor.verizon.com/profile/lea···idenberg
That poor guy on the bottom there, man I can't tell if he should be in real estate or be a lobbyist. | | |
|
|
