Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Can someone help me out here?
And tell me, at what point in time did it become a requirement for a company such as AT&T is to have to be forced into delivering goods and/or services into areas which would most likely prove to be an unprofitable business venture for them?
What a HORRIBLE expectation to expect from this, or any other U.S. Company.
This and other companies put their and their shareholders hard earned money into building and upgrading their systems and in fact, in this industry, that amounts to billions of dollars.
This company is not here to service those people who CHOOSE and who have decided to live in the more rural parts of America with non essential services such as broadband internet, video over IP, or VOIP.
If I were to ever decide to live in the Mountains of California or anywhere else that's rural, or even borderline rural for new technologies, I would fully expect that I'd be sacrificing a certain amount of convenience to do so.
I wouldn't expect a national food chain to then move a supermarket down the street from me..which is an EXCELLANT comparison to this issue..only to service my and a relatively few others needs.
I would expect to drive a long distance for even such basics as Gasoline for my tank and even for things such as a doctor or hospital visit.
One of the biggest and first challenges companies like AT&T have had to face is how to service even those more densely populated areas with this newer technology.
I myself lived a while back in a pretty heavily populated suburb of Columbus Ohio, in a complex with over 300 units in it..and we couldn't even get DSL...because of the distance limitations. This wasn't the phone companies fault, it was the technology involved that had us too far from the C/O. But, if you were a FOR profit business...which would you RIGHTFULLY work on first...that type of a scenario involving many potential customers or the more rural customers where you might have to lay miles of new lines to service only a few?
The executives of a for profit company have an OBLIGATION to their shareholders and to the corporation itself to choose the first one. This is not a welfare agency and in business to lose money.
Just as any FOR PROFIT corporation in America should be as well.
For whatever faults they may have, I think AT&T has demonstrated their commitment to trying to get these things rolled out as fast as they can. Witness the recent lawsuit even against the city of Geneva IL..that they filed trying apparently speed along that community as well.
On one hand, the writers here at BBR complain about AT&T's attack against franchise agreement, and on the other you complain about how slow they are.
Which is it BBR?
Which one do you want to support?
You can't have it both ways.
~RRR
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery |
|
ross96
VIP
join:2000-11-02
Salem, OH | Amen Rick! |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to Rick
Not a hundred years ago they said the same thing about city water, electricity service, sewer service...you get my point. At what point did anyone "force" rural areas of the country to be electrified?
Eventually, HSI will be considered a utility (like it should be) and not the playthings of the urban populations of this country. Automobiles weren't plentiful in the rural areas of this country until Ford came along-where's broadband's Henry Ford? |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| said by garagerock  :Not a hundred years ago they said the same thing about city water, electricity service, sewer service...you get my point. At what point did anyone "force" rural areas of the country to be electrified? Eventually, HSI will be considered a utility (like it should be) and not the playthings of the urban populations of this country. Automobiles weren't plentiful in the rural areas of this country until Ford came along-where's broadband's Henry Ford? The difference between broadband and those utilities you mentioned are about 100 years apart. Electricity wasn't made available to everyone right away. It started in cities and in densely populated areas. If you were trying to point this out in your previous post, I am just clarifying it. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
stlpmpnu
join:2001-03-13
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Rick
Because they are given a monopoly they should supply service to everyone. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :You can't have it both ways. ~RRR And neither can ATT or Comcast or Verizon or anyone else.
If they don't want to deploy it FINE! They should have NO RIGHT to stop anyone else (private or muni-project.) |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Rick
because they being a utility should have provide full speed Broadband to anyone willing to subscribe. this is the 21st century distance from the CO should be nullified by deploying FTTH everywhere. Verizon is attempting this with FiOS infact i think VZ has the best route to rural high speed because fiber doesnt loose signal and doesnt really need amplifiers.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to garagerock
said by garagerock :At what point did anyone "force" rural areas of the country to be electrified? In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley. |
|
beedubaya
join:2004-11-30
Arkansas
| reply to Kearnstd
Its sad that we are in the 21st century and so many Internet users are still dialing up at 56k or less, even if they have broadband available! Cable finally became available in my rural area last year, and like somebody else in this thread said, I doubted its actuality until the day of installation.
Its one thing to deploy broadband in rural areas, but its another to convince them the switch from dial-up is worth it. Most people who live in the country are not typically tech savvy people, and use the Internet for relatively few things, and find a dial-up connection sufficient for their needs. That I believe is another reason rural areas are often under-served. I'm not sure if this is factual, but I've heard poorer inner-city districs of major cities are still not wired for broadband either. If this is so, its another one of the situations I discribed above, its not the lack of people, but the lack of the kind of people who would want broadband. This IMO is discrimination, whether it be inner-city minorities or rural Americans. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to batterup
said by batterup :said by garagerock :At what point did anyone "force" rural areas of the country to be electrified? In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley. Being as that the first city was electrified in around 1890, 45 years isn't bad. Broadband has only been around for 12 years or so. In another 20 years, broadband will be just about everywhere in the US.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Nightfall : Being as that the first city was electrified in around 1890, 45 years isn't bad. Broadband has only been around for 12 years or so. In another 20 years, broadband will be just about everywhere in the US. The percentage of homes that have electricity is 99 and 44/100% the percentage of homes that have any internet access is 60%. That is 40% that don't want it as dial-up is available to all. |
|
