  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Good... Let's see if Comcast can pull the same BS tactics there. I wonder if Rick will be there with his highlighter! | |
|
 | |
|  RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
2 edits | Re: Good... removed trolling
As for the FCC holding another hearing..I think they should.
Comcast bringing in placeholders wasn't really needed anyway. They have enough real fans to fill the seats.
removed trolling | |
|
| | ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
1 edit | Re: Good... I don't promote Uverse. It's not even remotely available in my town and won't be in the near forseeable future. My other option is a small cable company called Metrocast.
If something better than my current connection comes around, I would move to that just like I moved from my cable company to DSL for my internet provider. IF the price is right and the service is good, I go to that provider. Will I research their subscriber numbers, growth plans, and cafeteria plans? Hell no. I want a connection, not a long term business strategy. | |
|
| | | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
2 edits | Re: Good... (trolling removed)
...time is running out for them...and the clock is ticking away.
Everything i've predicted about uverse is coming true and it's turning out to be a massive failure.
Focusing on Comcast and these points you try to make so often is what is falling on deaf ears.
Comcasts "traffic shaping".
Putting "placeholders" at meetings.
"Comcast's caps".
(trolling removed)
And it's why as it stands now..Comcast and the other cable co's stand poised to finish off AT&T.
And finally, for the record once more..that's not the way I'd like to see it happen.
My posts have always been about the need for competition..and the urgent need for AT&T to immediately change their ways. My posts have been about the consumer...
not about benefiting any particular company.
But, I'm also about calling it like I see it. And there is simply nothing with AT&T's strategy that I see as positive.
And that's sad.
Truly sad. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Good... I suspect that any changes to the 'status quo' will bring another round of price increases.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Hard news here ??
| |
|
| | | Re: Hard news here ?? Maybe you don't mind large companies Railroading the little guy.. We on the other hand DO Care.
--
Reach out and Tap someone! | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Hard news here ?? The point was that unless the FCC says that they're going to hold another forum, then this "news" is merely a rumour. | |
|
| | |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: Hard news here ?? The point is that unless it toes the same line as he does then he has to point out that it's irrelevant. | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by Romney2012:Maybe; unattributed; sourceless; etc. This is certainly something to get excited over - NOT. There is some foundation to this rumor;
1- some groups have asked the FCC for more time to file
2- Markley's bill would compel 8 additional FCC meetings around the country on Network Neutrality
3- One of the FCC commissioners said at the February 25th meeting that they should have the 8 additional meetings even without Markley's bill
My only objection would be if any of these suggestions would keep the FCC from stopping the Comcast interference now. The FCC can, at least temporarily, stop the interference as it investigates further. I have no problem with that.
But to further delay while allowing the interference to continue is unacceptable.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|
| | Seat holders... eventually get replaced with someone else! These people never left! | |
|
| ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| Re: Seat holders... said by neufuse:eventually get replaced with someone else! These people never left! They were holding the seats.....for themselves. | |
|
 GrumpyPremium
join:2001-07-28
NW CT | fcc FCC ... FCC...
Oh yeah - they're the geniuses who set it up so that my Verizon cell phone won't work at 100 feet away from an AT&T tower.
How brilliant they are at deciding our fate | |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: fcc That might be more your phone's fault than the FCC's.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| GrumpyPremium
join:2001-07-28
NW CT Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Yahoo
4 edits | Perhaps you're right. My phone is a brand new Motorola Razr, and according to the state's database of radio towers, there are two towns locally that have AT&T signal only towers. Neither tower will light up my Verizon phone so much as a single bar, no matter where I put the phone's band seeking software. If there is a way to change this, I'd sure like to know. It's a long ride to & from work without service every day.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be better for everyone if every cell phone worked on every cell tower? Wouldn't this be good for all parties concerned - both the consumers and the providers? More minutes is good for the providers, and a wider service area is good for the end users. I don't believe this is how it all works in this day and age. I could be wrong.
Maybe I'm just ignorant of the bigger picture here, but way back when, it's my understanding that the FCC split up the bands in the name of competition, but now we seem to have provider incompatibilities within active service areas, at least here in the sticks it's this way.
Maybe there are now cell phones that work on every cell tower. In all sincerity, I'd like to know who offers such a single phone and service plan. I'll sign on today. City folks with an abundance of signal strength probably think I'm off the wall, but it's not unusual here in the woods of western CT to travel 50 or 60 miles with no cell signal. | |
|
| | | | Re: fcc I believe that AT&T uses GSM and that Verizon uses another protocol, just not sure which. That may explain why your phone doesn't work on the AT&T towers. | |
|
| | |  ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | Re: fcc verizon uses cdma | |
|
| | | | | said by Austinloop:I believe that AT&T uses GSM and that Verizon uses another protocol, just not sure which. ATT = GSM (mostly)
Verizon/Sprint = CDMA | |
|
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | The bands were established at different times (AMPS vs SMR vs PCS etc.) but those differences have been blurred to the point of irrelevance. If you are very close to a tower and happen to be in an antenna beam it could desensitize the receiver enough to cause reception problems to other signals in another band. You won't see the strong signal indicated on your phone but it will drive the RF AGC down to the point where you won't pick up anything else either.
However, for that to happen the phone would have to have lousy out of band overload specs and you would have to be in a very strong unwanted signal for most of your travels.
If this just started with the new phone, I would suggest you return it. While I don't have Verizon I do travel into the sticks, and my LG CU500v doesn't have trouble finding a signal unless I am really far from a town or paved road...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | |
| | | GrumpyPremium
join:2001-07-28
NW CT |
I do believe that Verizon phones will not work on the AT&T tower infrastructure, at any range. | |
|
| | who wants net neutrality i dont think anybody wants this crap besides the fcc | |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | ID required ID should be required as should a copy of your cable bill to ensure those seats go to those that deserve them. not some junkie thats going to buy crack with the $20 they got for going there.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
|
|
