reply to woody7
Re: Without investors money to expand evapoporates
said by woody7:Note that even you had to put "advertised" in quotations. In the legal realm they get nearly all the wiggle room in the world when it comes to "as advertised." How do you think they get away with advertising themselves as "America's Largest and Fastest" network when, in reality, they are not? They technology they provide, in the few areas they provide it in, and under optimal conditions provide them with the fastest network... but it is consistently over-crowded, 3G is not available in quite a few locations, and their voice service tends to drop calls fairly often. Do you think they are the largest or fastest?
I am sure that the people using the service "pay" more than the "investors" do, and all they ask for is a service that works as "advertised".
- "Techie" Jim
When you say you have the best (insert whatever) and advertised (insert whatever) I find it troubling when you don't get "near" what is adverstised. If it is advertised 1.5 and I get 1.3, that isn't a problem, when you advertise 5, and you ger 2.3, that is a legitimate complaint. When you say you have the best "3g" coverage, and you get carded on it and comback with your total coverage "chart" I have problems. If it ain't so, don't lie and try and make it "so". Yes understand the importance of the "investers", but what about the people who "invested" in your product, don't they have a reasonable expectation that the kind of get what you "adversise" ? And remember, not everyone is sufisticated enough to figure out the "bull" from the advertising, and like there is a real difference between the companies and you have a real choice. Most people choose the "lessor" of the "evils' . I stand by my original statement that the end user comes after the "investor" .