FightingBlue
@direcpc.com
 from:
RRedline 
Vvian Kalyss
| reply to stnlandr
Re: Good for Shapiro
Wrong. The companies would make more than enough money on such customers if they simply behaved in an efficient manner. Phone companies are required to provide service everywhere, as are power companies. Last time I checked, nether of them were going out of business. It's not that rural users don't deserve broadband, or that it's not profitable, it's that cable companies and others prefer to cater to affluent suburbia rather than offer universal service. If they want to save money, let them eliminate the Junior Vice President of Pencil Shavings, or pay their already ultrawealthy CEO less than $10 million dollars in bonuses this year.
The telecom providers essentially want corporate welfare--guaranteed service agreements, massive cash infusions, and legalized monopoly status--without the need to actually follow through and provide service to anyone they don't feel like. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | reply to stnlandr
They should be forced to service this customer because he is part of the area covered by the franchise agreement. They want exclusive rights to an area, they have to service the entire area, not just where they want. |
|
stnlandr
join:2005-07-11
| reply to TKJunkMail
Tell me this....would you go into a business endeavor knowing that you would lose money on the deal? That's exactly what is going to happen in this situation. It would take a minimum 40 years for the company to make money off this one subscriber. Why should anyone be pressured into doing something like that? Because it's a big cable co.? Or because it's become the american way to whine until you get what you want. |
|
