 | |
Sounds like Bell CanadaNo different up here. | |
|
 | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
1 recommendation |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 2:50 pm
Re: Sounds like Bell CanadaThere is some choice in the US. I'm glad to be off ATT, and on Comcast business. My home phone is via Ooma, TV is from DirecTV and cell service comes from Sprint. Cell providers with 4G may begin to compete with wired ISP's. This post is brought to you by a tethered laptop using Sprint for internet access. I don't know that much about the Canadian situation, but believe the US overall may have a bit more choice. | |
|
| |  Mr_Derp
join:2004-11-10
Plainfield, ON |
Re: Sounds like Bell CanadaNaw, what he means is that Bell threatened our own regulatory commission (CRTC) with slowing their new fibre deployments across their service area if they don't get exactly what they want.
Then they were called out on this, because they will still need to innovate and push new products if they're going to compete with cable in order to keep their shareholders happy. | |
|
 Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
1 recommendation |
Robert
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 2:13 pm
Give them 10 cents..Give them 10 cents and call someone who cares.
Tired of corporations dictating to the government how to operate. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 2:51 pm
Re: Give them 10 cents..and they will ask for 15more cents just to let you dial! and then another 25 cents as a telephone operations fee, and then another 50 for a connection fee.... | |
|
|  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
to Robert
said by Robert:Tired of corporations dictating to the government how to operate. Tired of the government dictating to corporations how to operate. | |
|
| | deadzoned
Premium Member
join:2005-04-13
Cypress, TX |
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by FFH5:said by Robert:Tired of corporations dictating to the government how to operate. Tired of the government dictating to corporations how to operate. If said Corporations would focus more on innovation and broader development then there would be no need for the Government to step in. Without some type of regulations the Corporations would be even worse than they already are. | |
|
| | |
1 edit |
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by deadzoned:If said Corporations would focus more on innovation and broader development then there would be no need for the Government to step in. Without some type of regulations the Corporations would be even worse than they already are. Agreed. said by FFH5:Tired of the government dictating to corporations how to operate. Tired of corporations dictating pennies out of customers' wallets, forcing customers to accept unwanted "features", and not upgrading or providing decent service or product because of no/little regulation and/or lack of competition. | |
|
| | Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by Robert:Tired of corporations dictating to the government how to operate. Tired of the government dictating to corporations how to operate. It's called regulation. We need more of it in certain areas. | |
|
| | | FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 3:56 pm
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by Robert:said by FFH5:said by Robert:Tired of corporations dictating to the government how to operate. Tired of the government dictating to corporations how to operate. It's called regulation. We need more of it in certain areas. Granted. But we need a LOT less of it in most areas. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Give them 10 cents..Evidence suggests otherwise. The oil and banking industries can tell you something about that. | |
|
| |  TheBionicFunkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium Member
join:2009-07-06
united state |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by Robert:Tired of corporations dictating to the government how to operate. Tired of the government dictating to corporations how to operate. Yes because deregulation works out so well for the American people, and corporations that deal in necessity can be expected to act reasonably. Ask the banking industry, or big oil...  | |
|
| | |  JoeIac
Premium Member
join:2009-03-02
MA |
JoeIac
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 4:13 pm
Re: Give them 10 cents..Hey dont forget the airlines! i just love the $50 checked baggage fee! | |
|
| | |  jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL |
to TheBionic
said by TheBionic: Ask the banking industry, or big oil... Neither of THEM have any regulators to deal with, that's for damned sure. blinkWait a second now.... | |
|
| | | |
| | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
1 recommendation |
to TheBionic
said by TheBionic:Yes because deregulation works out so well for the American people, and corporations that deal in necessity can be expected to act reasonably. Ask the banking industry, or big oil... I like picking my own VOIP provider, I like picking my satellite provider, I'd like to have more choice with wired ISP's, but you see regulation limits my choices to only 2. Without regulation, there could be a lot more wired ISP's offering service in my community, the incumbents use existing regulation, legislation and the courts to preclude competition. Yet even though regulation is the cause of my limited wired choices, oddly I keep reading from many that yet more regulation will be the cure. Sorry, what we need is more open access to the poles by different companies and even municipalities. Let more entities have a crack at providing the last mile of service. | |
|
| | | |  Supervisor
Premium Member
join:2006-03-26
Marysville, PA
1 edit |
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by pandora:...Without regulation, there could be a lot more wired ISP's offering service in my community, the incumbents use existing regulation, legislation and the courts to preclude competition. I think you have something backwards. The Telecom Act of 1996, among other things, forced the big telcos to share lines with CLECs, resulting in plenty of competitive DSL providers. When the Telecom Act was gutted by the Bush FCC in 2005 (TRO Remand Order) almost all of that competition disappeared. said by pandora:...what we need is more open access to the poles by different companies and even municipalities. Let more entities have a crack at providing the last mile of service. Never going to happen without the existing regulations that require the local power companies and big telcos that own the poles to rent them to other entities. | |
|
| | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
1 recommendation |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 8:12 pm
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by Supervisor:I think you have something backwards. The Telecom Act of 1996, among other things, forced the big telcos to share lines with CLECs, resulting in plenty of competitive DSL providers. When the Telecom Act was gutted by the Bush FCC in 2005 (TRO Remand Order) almost of that competition disappeared. That is an example of more regulation failing. We don't need to regulate telephone companies to share, we need to get out of the way and allow more companies to hang their own wire. Regulation favors lawyers, the politically connected, the wealthy, and powerful, in other words incumbent telephone companies. Never going to happen without the existing regulations that require the local power companies and big telcos that own the poles to rent them to other entities.
All that needs to be done is to allow the poles to be shared on a pro-rated basis. No incumbent who owns wire is going to give it up without a fight. It is human nature to protect our assets. Cable is restricted by cable legislation and rules, as are telco's. We need government to get out of the way, not try to add yet more regulation which will only result in more litigation and greater barriers to entry. Once a company provides last mile service, the cable it ran can't be taken without due process. We need to have the government let more than one telephone company string cable, and more than one cable company. The reason we are limited to a single telephone company and single cable company is because of government regulation. | |
|
| | | | | | Supervisor
Premium Member
join:2006-03-26
Marysville, PA |
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by pandora:All that needs to be done is to allow the poles to be shared on a pro-rated basis. said by pandora:We need to have the government let more than one telephone company string cable... And you don't like regulations? I'm very confused. | |
|
| | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 10:55 pm
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by Supervisor:said by pandora:All that needs to be done is to allow the poles to be shared on a pro-rated basis. said by pandora:We need to have the government let more than one telephone company string cable... And you don't like regulations? I'm very confused. You don't seem to understand that the right of way to run poles and cables on them is very much regulated by our government. The government needs to get out of the way. It is the government which will prohibit a company from coming to my city and wiring up a new cable company or telco to all our homes. The government controls and restrains the rights of way, this benefits only the incumbent companies to the detriment of consumers. We need less regulation, not more. It is our government that controls the rights of way, that limits competition for the last mile of cable. The incumbents benefit and work with government to preclude any new competition. Currently the only hope most have is for decent bandwidth via cellular services. Verizon and AT&T are trying to leverage their wired monopoly into cell space. With the help of government regulation. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Supervisor
Premium Member
join:2006-03-26
Marysville, PA
1 edit |
Re: Give them 10 cents..That was sarcasm. Sorry it confused you. My point is that on one hand you don't like regulations telling ILECs and MSOs what to do with their networks, but on the other hand you do like regulations that tell ILECs and power utilities how to share their poles.
You really do like regulations, but only those that further your own policy objectives. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-17 8:07 am
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by Supervisor:That was sarcasm. Sorry it confused you. My point is that on one hand you don't like regulations telling ILECs and MSOs what to do with their networks, but on the other hand you do like regulations that tell ILECs and power utilities how to share their poles. You really do like regulations, but only those that further your own policy objectives. The right of way the utilities get is from the government. All the government needs to do is reduce regulation on that right of way to allow more competition, competition will self resolve this issue. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Give them 10 cents..You live in a dream world and completely missed the point posted originally to your first view. And as one already pointed out, you favor regulation that furthers your objective while dismissing the other.
Regulation that required they share their lines (1996) brought on many ISP's. When they gutted that regulation it eliminated pretty much any ISP but the carriers of the lines.
So again to dumb it down for you as you appear to have a hard time comprehending this.... Regulation brought more competition, deregulation eliminated competition.
Further more, if you even look into the history of the telco's you will see that right after 1996 they invested more money in their networks (even though they made these same threats leading up to it) and after it was gutted they greatly reduced their investment. Which again, disproves your theory using facts and the past conduct of these exact same companies. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
1 recommendation |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-17 9:02 pm
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by Skippy25:You live in a dream world and completely missed the point posted originally to your first view. And as one already pointed out, you favor regulation that furthers your objective while dismissing the other. No, I favor competition and minimal government involvement. Instead we have a situation where the government prevents competition, and Karl gets to whine about it every other day asking for more regulation. Sorry, we need less government regulation and more competition in wired services to our homes. The government right of way should be available to as many as can reasonably and safely use it for reasonable commercial purpose. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  TechnogeezAgape in amazement.
Premium Member
join:2007-01-20 |
to pandora
And here's what unbridled competition leads to... 
A good argument for at least SOME level of regulation.
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-20 9:47 am
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by Technogeez:And here's what unbridled competition leads to... [att=1] A good argument for at least SOME level of regulation. We don't need that, but some seem to think god wrote only 2 data providers on a stone tablet somewhere. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to pandora
said by pandora:said by Supervisor:I think you have something backwards. The Telecom Act of 1996, among other things, forced the big telcos to share lines with CLECs, resulting in plenty of competitive DSL providers. When the Telecom Act was gutted by the Bush FCC in 2005 (TRO Remand Order) almost of that competition disappeared. That is an example of more regulation failing. We don't need to regulate telephone companies to share, we need to get out of the way and allow more companies to hang their own wire. Regulation favors lawyers, the politically connected, the wealthy, and powerful, in other words incumbent telephone companies. Never going to happen without the existing regulations that require the local power companies and big telcos that own the poles to rent them to other entities.
All that needs to be done is to allow the poles to be shared on a pro-rated basis. No incumbent who owns wire is going to give it up without a fight. It is human nature to protect our assets. Cable is restricted by cable legislation and rules, as are telco's. We need government to get out of the way, not try to add yet more regulation which will only result in more litigation and greater barriers to entry. Once a company provides last mile service, the cable it ran can't be taken without due process. We need to have the government let more than one telephone company string cable, and more than one cable company. The reason we are limited to a single telephone company and single cable company is because of government regulation. I think you miss the point of why the government forced phone companies to share wires. This was so you didn't have 50 companies with 100 miles of copper each, seems kind of a waste of natural resources don't you think? Now...if they would only expand that regulation out to coax/fiber we could have a healthy ISP competition. | |
|
| | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 10:59 pm
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I think you miss the point of why the government forced phone companies to share wires. This was so you didn't have 50 companies with 100 miles of copper each, seems kind of a waste of natural resources don't you think? Now...if they would only expand that regulation out to coax/fiber we could have a healthy ISP competition. A pole can handle more than a telco and cable company. The only reason cable and telephone companies co-exist on the same poles was that initially the telephone companies saw cable as providing a service that didn't compete with them in any way. Times have changed, but in the U.S. we have constructed generally a duopoly in most areas which is the result of telephone companies permitting cable companies to jump on to the poles with them. There certainly is some limit to how many coax or fiber cables can be run on a pole, to claim that the limit is 2 would be total nonsense. I'm assuming 6, 8, 10, even 20 sets of cables could easily be run on our current telephone pole infrastructure. That it isn't, is because of the duopoly that exists with telephone and cable companies. If we want more choice, find out how many sets of cables can be run, establish long term (10-25 year) leases, and allow companies to submit bids to run cable or fiber. Many areas will have more choice. The only reason this doesn't happen is because of government regulation. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Supervisor
Premium Member
join:2006-03-26
Marysville, PA |
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by pandora:The only reason this doesn't happen is because of government regulation. You lost me again. How do current government regulations prevent a (for example) CLEC from placing fiber on a utility pole? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-17 8:09 am
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by Supervisor:said by pandora:The only reason this doesn't happen is because of government regulation. You lost me again. How do current government regulations prevent a (for example) CLEC from placing fiber on a utility pole? The use of utility easements is regulated by the states and local governments. Without permission of the government, you can't string cable on a telephone pole. All the government needs to do is get out of the way and permit competition. I'd love to see a CLEC offer last mile service, unfortunately they can't, my state won't permit them to. Instead they are forced to lease a cage in the CO. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Supervisor
Premium Member
join:2006-03-26
Marysville, PA |
Re: Give them 10 cents..You are wrong.
An easement governs where a pole may be placed in the ground. It does not govern who may place wires on a pole. Non-pole owning entities enter into pole attachment agreements with pole-owners to hang their cable on the pole. There are FCC REGULATIONS that require the pole-owners to enter into agreements with entities seeking to place cable on their poles. Existing regulations are what PERMIT any CLEC to hang cables on someone else's poles! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
••••••
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to pandora
said by pandora:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I think you miss the point of why the government forced phone companies to share wires. This was so you didn't have 50 companies with 100 miles of copper each, seems kind of a waste of natural resources don't you think? Now...if they would only expand that regulation out to coax/fiber we could have a healthy ISP competition. A pole can handle more than a telco and cable company. The only reason cable and telephone companies co-exist on the same poles was that initially the telephone companies saw cable as providing a service that didn't compete with them in any way. Times have changed, but in the U.S. we have constructed generally a duopoly in most areas which is the result of telephone companies permitting cable companies to jump on to the poles with them. There certainly is some limit to how many coax or fiber cables can be run on a pole, to claim that the limit is 2 would be total nonsense. I'm assuming 6, 8, 10, even 20 sets of cables could easily be run on our current telephone pole infrastructure. That it isn't, is because of the duopoly that exists with telephone and cable companies. If we want more choice, find out how many sets of cables can be run, establish long term (10-25 year) leases, and allow companies to submit bids to run cable or fiber. Many areas will have more choice. The only reason this doesn't happen is because of government regulation. But what is the point of running 2 sets of wires to a person's house? It is a pure and simple waste of natural resources. Why not just allow any broadband company to use the cabling that is already there? Sure, it would screw over the company that initial put the cabling down, but that is called competition. The original company would have to offer me something that the second company doesn't or for cheaper. Or better yet, let the customer pay for the cabling. I guess customers already do with the ever increasing price of broadband, yet the price of bandwidth keeps coming down. With your logic, we would use a different wireless frequency everytime a WISP croped up which is nonsense. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2010-Jun-17 10:21 am
Re: Give them 10 cents..said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:But what is the point of running 2 sets of wires to a person's house? It is a pure and simple waste of natural resources. Why not just allow any broadband company to use the cabling that is already there? Sure, it would screw over the company that initial put the cabling down, but that is called competition. The original company would have to offer me something that the second company doesn't or for cheaper. Or better yet, let the customer pay for the cabling. I guess customers already do with the ever increasing price of broadband, yet the price of bandwidth keeps coming down. With your logic, we would use a different wireless frequency everytime a WISP croped up which is nonsense. You run multiple sets of cable to offer information services to homes, and if a home wants your service then you wire the house up. There is absolutely no need to wire every home, only homes that want your service. The current situation in most of the U.S. is the result of telephone and cable companies establishing a government mandated duopoly. IMO it would be better to determine how many carriers our pole infrastructure could support. A CLEC or an independent ISP needs to know there will be some stability of their investment if they hang wire. All the government needs to do is open the telephone poles up. In my home, there is telephone service wired that I no longer use. My phone is via VOIP and has been for some time. My internet is via cable. The phone pairs are disconnected on a box outside my home. If another provider hung cable along my block and made a better offer than Comcast currently does, I'd be happy to let them run coax, fiber or twisted pair to my home. The problem is regulation prevents new entrants from hanging wire and requires dependence on the incumbent carrier for the last mile. Choice and competition usually drive down prices. If someone in my town established an ISP and offered internet at half the price of Comcast, they'd not only get customers, but Comcast would lower its rates to compete. AT&T would also react. They'd eventually have to. Instead, I read people demanding more regulation, when regulation got us to our current duopoly situation to begin with. | |
|
| |  Geminimind
Premium Member
join:2003-12-20
Sacramento, CA |
to FFH5
Tired of corporations dictating the peoples choice and killing competition. | |
|
| | |
shovel to Robert
Anon
2010-Jun-16 3:22 pm
to Robert
In the mean while ATT is loosing landline revenue to Voip operators and they threaten to stop competing essentially?
That strategy will really work. (right!)
If they don't U-verse the hood then they will be like the original ATT is burried.
Seriously doubt U-verse deployment would stop due to regulation, rather U-verse is delayed due to ATT cherry picking hoods and U-verse limitations in certain territories.
All because ATT wont upgrade to FTTH.
Oh sorry the Death Star is not fully operational. | |
|
| |  dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO |
dib22
Member
2010-Jun-17 12:07 am
Re: Give them 10 cents..exactly... cablecorp is loving this idea  | |
|
| | |
to Robert
ATT I do not care what your greedy company thinks.slow uverse ? who cares why not just shut it down and then you can lose more subscribers and who will be hurt in the end big mouth. | |
|
 trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 2:16 pm
This company continues to show that they are stupid...This company continues, time after time, to show that they are being run by a bunch of complete idiots. They continuously shoot themselves in the foot, I'm surprised they have anything to stand on anymore. What are they standing on, their bloody stumps?
Come on, they know that if they continuously do what they are doing they are not only going to hurt their consumers but themselves as well. What are they trying to do? Are they trying to commit corporate suicide? | |
|
| |
They already laid off over 1000 people in SouthEast aloneThere were crews doing Uverse around here, but they all got laid off. Now the guys who have been working ten years are next to get surplused. They just keep cutting and cutting.
Well I for one am voting with my wallet to not use any more att anything. As soon as my wireless contract is up I'm gone.
Some of my family got a Uverse salesperson at the door the other day and signed up. When they called and let me know about it I told them this story and they called him back and said forget it. | |
|
|
•••• |
1 recommendation |
meanwhile the little guys ,small independent telcos are slowly rolling out fiber, because they're in it for the long haul . | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 2:50 pm
Re: meanwhile the little guys ,yes but the small indy telcos dont have stock holders to answer to. and stock holders nowadays dont seem to believe in the long haul, part of the flaw in american industry in general is the owners and the stock holders have their tiny brains locked on how the company does per quarter and ignore that high costs now could save down the road(Fiber in theory can generate less calls due to electrical and RF issues since it doesnt have those). | |
|
| |
Uverse where?When FIOS comes to town, everyone within the zone gets FIOS. With Uverse, if your in the furthest 1/3rd in your cul-de-sac no Uverse. If you have no street level SAIs because your "too urban", no uverse. If you have underground delivery of phones, no uverse. If your SAI doesn't pass enough houses (1 SAI serves 1 block), no Uverse for you. If your in an apartment building, no Uverse for you. I don't really care for Uverse anymore, neither me at 3 different houses in last 5 years, nor any of my friends can get it in this fortune 500 headquarters city of 150K. I see VRADs everywhere, but only in single family homes with aerial plant. But because of how the trunks go, only a 45 degree slice of the radius of homes around the VRAD get Uverse. More people would get Uverse internet speeds if ATT just mounted a 11N antenna on each VRAD box. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey |
I wonder how much stimulisI wonder how much of the stimulus and rural deployment funds ATT gets , and complains they want more. Plus enough with 'spreading the wealth around ' | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL |
kaila
Member
2010-Jun-16 2:55 pm
Empty threat, don't buy it.....How's this for slow, I live in the middle of Chicago suburbia where AT&T has had unlit VRAD's installed for years (since 2007 at least). They aren't turned on, and we can't get even basic DSL.
Our town (Lincolnshire, IL) has tried for more than a decade to get at least basic DSL here. Then Ameritech/SBC had written our market off completely since Comcast was quickly moving to saturation levels. It took the rumblings that Clearwire was coming to finally get AT&T to move, but they seem to have no intention of lighting up Uverse now that the VRAD's are in anytime soon. | |
|
|
••• |
 CaptainRR
Premium Member
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH ·AT&T Wireless Br..
|
DSL Where?Most places out of town they don't even provide ANY kind of decent internet. I admit I travel and don't have to put up with dialup with them when at home very much. But when I am home that is I different story. Last test I performed speed tests pings were worse than satellite when last year they were around 200 and my speed went from 28k last year to around 12k 19k on a dry day. It shows they are letting rural lines around me run down. Even get crosstalk from others making phone calls from time to time. The only thing it is very reliable when during power failiers and my security system and I am stuck with no cellular service were I am at. So as far as investments go at&t can kiss my you know what! | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
1 recommendation |
KrK
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 3:10 pm
Same old AT&T... Good slow down usless U-VerseThis is AT&T's MO. Threaten to cut their own business model.
Win extra concessions and freebies. Continue as planned anyway.
Politicians always fall for it as well!
I'm so sick of this crap. We need an FCC with some balls. | |
|
| |
Extortion?So.... to speak plainly, AT&T is extorting the FCC.
Stay classy there AT&T. Whats next? "Keep DSL regulation down or the puppy dies?" | |
|
| | |
t3ln3t
Anon
2010-Jun-16 4:56 pm
Re: Extortion?I couldn't find it on the pootube, but there was an ad from a cable company ... saying that at&t hates puppies... | |
|
 Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23
1 recommendation |
Z80A
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 3:16 pm
As slow as AT&T moves the gov't moves slowerThey can wait and regulate them into the poor house. Sure, slow deployment, allow competitors to move years ahead...great plan douches. The gov't can wait a lot longer than your shareholders can. | |
|
| |
Nice job!Good job AT&T! Show the FCC who's boss and while you're at it, run yourselves right into the ground. AT&T= Always Thinking & Tanking | |
|
FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 3:23 pm
AT&T - wait until see where FCC goes with Title IIAT&T and other major telcos are waiting to see if the FCC is successful in moving to Title II and also how far they push it. If the FCC tries to implement some type of CLEC-like open access for broadband, then it is a slam dunk that the telcos will stop ALL investment until challenges wind their way thru the courts. | |
|
|
•••••• |
dforan
join:2000-12-09
Willoughby, OH |
dforan
Member
2010-Jun-16 4:04 pm
U worseI and my neighbors just got mailings from AT&T that said you can enjoy the wonders of U-verse. Ha last Friday my neighbor took them up on the offer and after several hours, they concluded Oh you are too far away.. Time Warner barely works.. | |
|
 WiseOldBearLaissez les bons temps rouler!
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Litchfield Park, AZ |
Who Cares?Let them slow to a crawl, then die in the road and be consumed by road kill aficionados. I would rather stay with Charter than ever have to deal with AT&T for internet service. They are bad enough when it comes to wireless phones. | |
|
 packetscan
Premium Member
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT |
Suicide bomber techniqueDo as we say or the puppy gets it! | |
|
1 recommendation |
ExecBonus
Anon
2010-Jun-16 5:45 pm
Maybe it's all part of a grand plan...If T cries loud enough, maybe they'll get some gubmint money to upgrade their network. Then, after operating the taxpayer network for a couple years they sell the parts they don't want off to a smaller rural telco and bank a tidy profit. Think of it as a giant money laundering scheme. | |
|
| |
Let em stop/slow down the rolloutGood. Maybe by the time they decide, at all, to start up again they'll dump using copper to the home and go with fiber. As more and more homes get multiple HD TV's their limitation of 2 or 3 concurrent HD channels won't fly at all IHMO. | |
|
slckusr
Premium Member
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
1 edit |
slckusr
Premium Member
2010-Jun-16 8:10 pm
It can get slowerATT you arent being very quick now, i would hate to see what slow is. Oh wait i do everyday with my DSL line. | |
|
|
|
·
·
