 SlickEnWPremium
join:2003-01-21
Seattle, WA | Bell Monopoly I think BBells should be able to do whatever they want to because THEY own the wires (including denying telco space) |
|
oldframePipe DreamsPremium
join:2003-07-26
Houston, TX Reviews:
 ·TvMax
| said by SlickEnW:
I think BBells should be able to do whatever they want to because THEY own the wires (including denying telco space)
If they knew how to respect their customers and offer fair pricing, that would be fine. But with the abusive business practices of the Bells, something must keep them regulated. Could you imagine how poor the service would be and how high the price would be if there were NO regulation of DSL.. There would be very little competition('cept in areas served by cable) and the phone companies wouldn't have any incentive to increase the value of their products. The rich execs in these companies should learn to quit biting the hand that feeds them.
Go Quest! Job well done.
--
Gotta love SBC's 6000/608 plan for $44.99! |
|
|
|
| reply to SlickEnW
They DO NOT "own the wires." You do. They were given a monopoly to run the system. |
|
| reply to SlickEnW
said by SlickEnW:
I think BBells should be able to do whatever they want to because THEY own the wires (including denying telco space)
Ya that would be smart.....NOT! Full on anti-competitiveness...one only needs to look to Germany at Deutsche Telekom to see how yer idea would act. If it was that way, we would ALL be still paying for by the minute LOCAL calls just the way DT charges in Europe where they own the lines. Ever seen a local phone bill over 200- in a month? I have, it's not a pretty thing.
--
All Things Arthttp://kkart.deviantart.com |
|
| reply to SlickEnW
Real nice. Forget the fact that the Bells had a completely unrestricted monopoly for over 100 years to build those wires. The Bells had plenty of time to profit from those lines and did so to the fullest. Those days are over and the Bells knew exactly what they were doing when they AGREED to share their resources back in 1996. Just because they don't like the competition now doesn't mean they can go back on their word. |
|
 uMe
@comcast.net | reply to A G Bell
Actually "they" own the wires up to your home, you own the wires from the network interface box hanging on the side of your home and the wires inside your home. That's probabaly what you meant... |
|
| reply to SRFireside
Monopoly - A business no one wanted to invest in until that business got really big and made a lot of money.
Rip off - I build a really big business and spend a lot of money on infrastructure. Then you come along a hundred years later and expect me to "give" you what I built when no one else wanted to build it.
I live in an apartment. I want your garage. You have a 3 car garage. I don't care that you spent the last 30 years paying off the house or that you paid for the materials to build it in the first place. Gimme "my" parking spot in your garage, you parking place monopoly. |
|
| Nice way to over simplify the scenario. Let me repeat. The Bells AGREED to sharing their lines. In other words they worked out a deal with the U.S. government to lease their lines to competitors so they can get better deals on offering long distance services. Nobody twisted their arm. Nobody coerced them. Nobody forced them to take the deal.
The Bells didn't get their monopoly because nobody else wanted to build it. They got it because the government wanted a standardized form of communication. If you check your history you will find out there were plenty of other telcos that ended up getting absorbed by Ma Bell because of this. The Bells have been riding a gravy train and then they screwed up by getting too greedy. That's why they have to share their lines. |
|
