 |
 | 
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
49533
| Re: Good news for AT&T said by TK Junk Mail  :Believe it or not, this is good news for AT&T. The 9th Court of Appeals(the infamous commie court in San Francisco) ruled against them. AT&T appealed and the fact that the USSC decided to even hear the appeal means that AT&T has a good chance of winning. The 9th Appeals Court gets overturned by the USSC more than any other Appeals Court. Good news for AT&T, bad news for everyone else. | |
|
| |
| | boober321
join:2003-07-15
Milwaukee, WI | Re: Good news for AT&T Ah, but this new USSC is a puppet for the current Admin. They're hearing this after Bush himself pushed for the USSC to hear the case. Immunity, now this... welcome back to the age of monopolies... | |
|
| | | raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA | Re: Good news for AT&T Bush cannot "push" the Supreme Court to do anything. Where do you get this moonbat information? | |
|
| | | | jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM | Re: Good news for AT&T A president can't get a judge to rule in his favor but he can stack the judiciary with people who parallel his political ideologies so you're both right. | |
|
| | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by raye :Bush cannot "push" the Supreme Court to do anything. Where do you get this moonbat information? So the 2 guys Bush nominated for their lifetime cushy job including the the head justice aren't going to feel obligated to him? What planet do you live on? | |
|
| | | | | raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA
| Re: Good news for AT&T I live on a planet that understands mathematics you idiot. last I looked their were nine supreme court justices, not two. even if the two felt "obligated" to hear the case at&t must sway another three, presuming of course that the two bush appointed vote with at&t no matter what they say. | |
|
| | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by boober321 :Ah, but this new USSC is a puppet for the current Admin. Which explains why they lost bigtime recently on the 'enemy combatant - military tribunal' case. Try paying attention.
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash | |
|
| | | | 
hardmath
@knology.net
| Re: Good news for AT&T > Which explains why they lost bigtime recently
> on the 'enemy combatant - military tribunal'
> case. Try paying attention.
Although a 5-4 split, the ruling was one of several cases that went against the administration's claim to power of indefinite detention outside judicial review.
The surprising thing is that this vote was so close. After all the judiciary is defending their own turf on such an issue, which has to make it a lot more palatable to judges to rule as the narrow majority did.
regards, hm | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by footballdude :said by boober321 :Ah, but this new USSC is a puppet for the current Admin. Which explains why they lost bigtime recently on the 'enemy combatant - military tribunal' case. Try paying attention. Well judges don't like when their jobs are taken away from them. They need to justify their existence. | |
|
| | | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Good news for AT&T said by patcat88 :said by footballdude :said by boober321 :Ah, but this new USSC is a puppet for the current Admin. Which explains why they lost bigtime recently on the 'enemy combatant - military tribunal' case. Try paying attention. Well judges don't like when their jobs are taken away from them. They need to justify their existence. huh?
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Good news for AT&T said by tiger72 :huh? First is Terrorists don't get to see the judge, they see military tribunal, then bank robbers go infront of a "Bank Safety Commission", then child molesters go infront of a "Administration for Protection Of Children Sexual Crimes Taskforce", then drug crimes to the President's Commision on Drug Enforcement or a case psychiatrist at a "drug treatment" prison/hospitol, and then traffic tickets goto an appointed council of traffic violations, and now the Judges are jingling for change on a street corner, or back to being lawyers and having to earn money the hard way. | |
|
Hehe
@comcast.net | Did AT&T own SBC at the time? If not, how can they be blaimed? | |
|
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Did AT&T own SBC at the time? said by Hehe :
If not, how can they be blaimed?
---------
When companies merge or are taken over they inherit the financial and legal responsibilities of the companies they took over. In this case though it doesn't even matter, since SBC was the acquiring company and then they changed their name to AT&T - so it is the same exact company.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
|
| Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
| Re: SBC can go to hell  I also worked for an ISP. Management looked at offering DSL service after the year 2000. When we ran the numbers we found we would make about the same margin your employer made on a DSL Customer. Unfortunately the margin we would make on a DSL Customer was less than the margin we made on a Dial Up Customer. Furthermore we were required to commit to purchase a certain number of DSL Circuits in order to make that margin whether or not we were able to secure customers for those lines. Then came the bad news. The bean counters projections indicated that in the not to distant future our cost for dial up service would exceed revenue. The companies management realized that they were beating a dead horse and sold their dial up business to a national ISP. | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
| They did the same thing in Tulsa. We had some quality ISP's here that SBC murdered. And I'm not being over dramatic. They were murdered by SBC... unfair pricing, refusing to qualify, or just dragging feet and messing up the line (all the while offering their DSL to the customer).
Those friendly, quality ISP's are now all gone.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
edit:
June 24th, @10:12AM
| who cares? the clec business is all but dead anyway and small ISPs are a very small percentage of the market. even if the SC rules for Linkline (which I don't expect them to do), the number of people impacted is small in the U.S. market.
it sure won't impact me, I have the joy of living in a monopoly area.
this is sort of like closing the barn door after all the livestock has escaped. | |
|
|
clued in
@spcsdns.net | Re: who cares? The clec business is very much alive and kicking. | |
|
| viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by nasadude :the clec business is all but dead anyway and small ISPs are a very small percentage of the market. even if the SC rules for Linkline (which I don't expect them to do), the number of people impacted is small in the U.S. market. it sure won't impact me, I have the joy of living in a monopoly area. this is sort of like closing the barn door after all the livestock has escaped. There are many people who believe that it's exactly these types of practices that have caused the CLEC business it's problems. If that's the case (like Verizon doing improper winbacks) then SBC\at&t may loose.
A little side note on CLEC ISP lines not qualifying for DSL, but SBC can. More often then not, it's the exact opposite for Qwest. Often times a Qwest customer cannot qualify for DSL (usually due to loads) but if that customer orders from a local ISP who resells DSL, then Qwest will de-load the pair. Sometimes that's the only way a customer can get the service. | |
|
| |
ISP Tech
@telepacific.net
| SBC Case Its true that the margins are very small in the DSL internet world but that is not where company's should try and make money. 9.95 DSL was a big hit back in the day and forced the BIG company's to lower there prices in order to compete with the smaller company's. when you look at DSL you need to look at the over all contract not just monthly cost. are you charging for a modem that you get cheaper are you charging a setup fee and fee for extras such as Static IP or multiple IP's these are where you make your money. I have worked for multiple ISP's and I had at the time a pretty good idea what the line cost were and it was slim at best but you try and make it up with volume so you can get the prices lower. SBC/Verizon would rather have you pay them for doing nothing except using the line then providing it them self's its like someone giving you money to use your sidewalk, you don't do anything with it and its yours so why not have someone pay to walk by. As much as this lawsuit would help the smaller ISP it will really do nothing to the end users, the baby bells are closer and closer to one big bell. that really did nothing its all for show and yeah there will be people making money off this case but it wont be the people who staff tech support it will be the people at the top who have not idea what its like to work in the trenches and be on the other side of the phone trying to fix your DSL cause you need to get work done or a report for school done.
Yeah to the upper management who will always get a paycheck and bonus will the people who really make it work get NOTHING. | |
|
| ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: SBC Case said by ISP Tech :
Its true that the margins are very small in the DSL internet world but that is not where company's should try and make money. 9.95 DSL was a big hit back in the day and forced the BIG company's to lower there prices in order to compete with the smaller company's...
"$9.95 DSL back in the day"????? What planet are you from? $9.95 DSL is a current, not-well-publicized, barely available, marginalized product of AT&T, and was not available prior to 2007 to anyone, especially not wholesalers/resellers/ISPs. There was NEVER a time when the Bells didn't try to screw the CLECs, and the small ISPs, right out of their shorts.
I, for one, would like to see the CLECs and ISPs get some compensation for the anti-competitive actions of the Bells. We would have all been better off if the FCC had enforced the TA1996 from the start, particularly with regard to line-sharing, limited consolidation in the telecom industry, and if the GAO had forced an audit of the USF. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: SBC Case said by ross :said by ISP Tech :
Its true that the margins are very small in the DSL internet world but that is not where company's should try and make money. 9.95 DSL was a big hit back in the day and forced the BIG company's to lower there prices in order to compete with the smaller company's...
"$9.95 DSL back in the day"????? What planet are you from? $9.95 DSL is a current, not-well-publicized, barely available, marginalized product of AT&T, and was not available prior to 2007 to anyone, especially not wholesalers/resellers/ISPs. There was NEVER a time when the Bells didn't try to screw the CLECs, and the small ISPs, right out of their shorts. I, for one, would like to see the CLECs and ISPs get some compensation for the anti-competitive actions of the Bells. We would have all been better off if the FCC had enforced the TA1996 from the start, particularly with regard to line-sharing, limited consolidation in the telecom industry, and if the GAO had forced an audit of the USF. Heh, Telco trolling at its best. | |
|
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: SBC Case said by ISP Tech :
Its true that the margins are very small in the DSL internet world but that is not where company's should try and make money. 9.95 DSL was a big hit back in the day and forced the BIG company's to lower there prices in order to compete with the smaller company's...
said by patcat88 :Heh, Telco trolling at its best. Did you mean to reply to ISP Tech? | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: SBC Case said by ross :said by ISP Tech :
Its true that the margins are very small in the DSL internet world but that is not where company's should try and make money. 9.95 DSL was a big hit back in the day and forced the BIG company's to lower there prices in order to compete with the smaller company's...
said by patcat88 :Heh, Telco trolling at its best. Did you mean to reply to ISP Tech? Yeah. | |
|
guardfrog
join:2004-08-27
Dallas, TX
| WSJ As the Wall Street Journal said today, "The High Court also agreed yesterday to review Pacific Bell v. linkLine, in which the Ninth Circuit sided with linkLine in its contention that PacBell, now part of AT&T, is charging its broadband customers too little.
The idea that forcing a company to hurt its customers to help a competitor passed into obsolescence long ago -- or so everyone thought until the Ninth Circuit revived it. | |
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: WSJ said by guardfrog :now part of AT&T, is charging its broadband customers too little. Yeah, that's bass-ackwards. It's not they charge their customers too little. It's that they charge the resellers too much.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
|
The issue is that the goodies the telcos earned in the reform of 1996 required them to resell. If you sell something directly to people for $20, but charge your resellers more, then that's anti-competitive.
SBC is famous for allowing others to cultivate a market via resellers, and then killing it off and stealing the customers. They did this in the early-90's by killing the VARS for business Centrex services.
The biggest problem I have with this is that a lot of people invested in being able to resell DSL services or have access to copper and they had the rug pulled out from underneath them. This access was part of a larger quid pro quo where the telcos were permitted to do other things in exchange for competition. But they killed off the competition, closed the door to line sharing and were able to keep their new business lines. | |
|
Cable Me Not
@verizon.net | Too Little, Too Late This is just another chapter in the ironic post-divestiture tome of antitrust behavior on the part of the former and newly remarried Ma Bell.
The last mile is a natural monopoly.
It should be regulated as such. | |
|
turlockaviator
@stancera.org
|  SBC Anticompetitiveness
The bells (and their spinoff CLEC's such as SBC's ASI) contend that they own the infrastructure through their investment and should recoup this investment through fee structures they set.
Then there are the independent ISP's trying to turn a profit in a market where they don't own the infrastructure and have to resell.
I worked for many years for SBC including the CLEC known as ASI. I saw everything that everyone is discussing in this thread.
In my opinion, I enjoy competition and choice in the market. Case in point, the ISP known as Sonic.net out of Santa Rosa, CA
Through them, I can get 6+ Mbps DSL with true bridged static IP addresses for less than what AT&T's so called static IP package using PPPoE assigned "Sticky" IP addresses.
Couple this with the excellent customer service the folks at Sonic provide, and one can see why competition and choice in the market place is a good thing.
In any case, that's my two cents. I am actually a Charter customer at the moment, because in my area, their 10Mbps service does in fact yield the advertised performance. | |
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court To Hear Linkline/SBC Case
Good news for AT&T
