how-to block ads
|
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
| reply to en102
Re: welcome to the "consessions"
Perhaps the phone line was subsidizing the DSL line???
That is cable's argument for charging more. Also, if you have a receiver, it used to be a lot of people got just HSI and full cable too.
$10 more than regular bundle pricing is fair.
Having that basic POTS line is pretty smart during times when everything else fails during major storms, etc.  | |
ITZME
@sbcglobal.net
| READ the Chicago Tribune article more closely. The customer DOES have a POTS - from a re-seller of AT&T and appears to be happy with the service from the re-seller. But AT&T does not allow the re-seller to sell the DSL service. Therefore, if the customer wants DSL service, he is left with 2 choices: 1) Pay for a phone line that he does not want, need or use; 2) Abandon the POTS re-seller, one of a number of companies enticed into the telecom business by Ameritech/ SBC when it was trying to prove it had "competition" in the local phone service business and should, therefore, be permitted to sell long distance service. Immediately upon approval for long distance, Ameritech/ SBC began "wooing" back their old customers with methods like the one the customer describes. And even if the customer wanted to "gamble" and go without a POTS, shouldn't freedom of choice provide him the opportunity. They call that "competition". And this whole thing has nothing to do with "true costs" or with one service subsidizing another. This has to do with the fact that AT&T was a monopoly prior to the mid-80's and is doing everything they can to attain that status again - at least for wired services. And the FCC appears to be assisting them in the process. On behalf of all the current AT&T customers, I’d like to welcome the Bell South customers to this world of “competition”. | |
|
