 | | Sounds like Bell Canada No different up here. | |
|
 | |
| | Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·FreePhoneLine
| Re: Sounds like Bell Canada Naw, 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. | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Give them 10 cents.. Give them 10 cents and call someone who cares.
Tired of corporations dictating to the government how to operate. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | 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....
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |
| | deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Re: Give them 10 cents.. said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Rob: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 fAcEtIOUs: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.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Rob: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.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
| | | | | Re: Give them 10 cents.. said by Rob:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Rob: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.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Give them 10 cents.. Evidence suggests otherwise. The oil and banking industries can tell you something about that. | |
|
| |  bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
·CenturyLink
 ·Mediacom
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Rob: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...  | |
|
| | |  JoeIacPremium
join:2009-03-02
MA | Re: Give them 10 cents.. Hey dont forget the airlines! i just love the $50 checked baggage fee! | |
|
| | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·voip.ms
| said by bionicRod: Ask the banking industry, or big oil... Neither of THEM have any regulators to deal with, that's for damned sure.
blink
Wait a second now.... | |
|
| | | | | yes great point go ask BP. | |
|
| | | pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| said by bionicRod: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.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| | | |
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. | |
|
| | | | | pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
|  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.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| 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.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| | | | | | | |
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |  TechnogeezAgape in amazement.Premium
join:2007-01-20 | And here's what unbridled competition leads to...
A good argument for at least SOME level of regulation.
--
The farther one travels, the less one knows. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| 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.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| 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.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | 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? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 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! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| | | | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| 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.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| | | | Tired of corporations dictating the peoples choice and killing competition. | |
|
| | | 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
kudos:2 | Re: Give them 10 cents.. exactly... cablecorp is loving this idea  | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
|
| | They already laid off over 1000 people in SouthEast alone There 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. | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: They already laid off over 1000 people in SouthEast alone said by alfnoid:As soon as my wireless contract is up I'm gone. Giggle | |
|
| | | | Re: They already laid off over 1000 people in SouthEast alone glad you find it funny.
I doubt you would find it funny to lose your livelihood. | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: They already laid off over 1000 people in SouthEast alone I'm not laughing at people losing their jobs. I'm laughing at the contrast between you being so upset at AT&T that you are willing to cut all financial ties... that is, only after your contract ends. | |
|
| | | etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | said by alfnoid:glad you find it funny. I doubt you would find it funny to lose your livelihood. Should we subsidize and support a mediocre company just because their employees are going to loose his/her job?
NO!
I'm sure AT&T employees don't care if I keep or loose my job all they care about is how much money they can gouge out of their customers.
Welcome to the 'life is a bitch and then you die' club. AT&T employees are not getting any sympathy out from me. | |
|
| | meanwhile the little guys , small independent telcos are slowly rolling out fiber, because they're in it for the long haul . | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | 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).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | 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
kudos:1 | I wonder how much stimulis I 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 | 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.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net | |
|
| Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
2 edits | Re: Empty threat, don't buy it..... Jeff,
Given the local demographics in your town, AT&T is crazy not to light up their VRADs there.
I would suggest that you get a large amount of L'shire citizens to call AT&T asking for U-Verse there.
(I see/hear lots of U-Verse ads lately in Chicago TV/radio.)
Have each person document their call. You can do this thru Facebook/email/etc. , so that you can record each one.
Also, research which local towns have any U-Verse .
And, document exactly what AT&T said to your village manager/council/trustees from the meeting record and agreed to in village contracts. Then, meet with your trustees/village manager/mayor about it. See if you can make a presentation at the next village council meeting. Get as many of these local U-Verse requesting citizens to also be there. Have all those people go to next L'shire village council meeting, and show that 200(or whatever) L'shire citizens asked for U-Verse service.
Request that L'Shire village council to either 1)Ask AT&T to light L'shire up OR 2)force AT&T to remove "those ugly VRAD's" if they haven't lit them since the 2007 install. Really, a "Use it or Lose it" request. Also, w/no U-Verse service, your town is NOT receiving any franchise fees from AT&T, so the vilage government(and its citizens) have a $ interest in this also.
It would get publicity!
And, might create some Chicago area news.! | |
|
| | | | Re: Empty threat, don't buy it..... I'll field this one. The bottom line is that we've done all that (petitioned, and filled our online request forms, dragged Ameritech/SBC/AT&T reps into meetings, etc) and now we're just plain fatigued. We are however, getting close to asking AT&T to remove the boxes. AT&T employees in our market are really stretched thin right now, and we're not confident they'd be able to dedicate manpower getting us served anytime soon in any case.
The village has tried to get DSL here, over, and over, and over again. For more than a decade, since 1996 I think. We've been promised deployments on numerous occasions only to have them scrapped. We were, supposedly, on their roadmap for 'Project Pronto' about ten years ago, then project 'Lightspeed', then on numerous other occasions. We admit that we're a small community with an unfortunate location in terms of being distant from CO facilities.
Ironically, we had then Ameritech in the late 90's as a cable/internet provider when they bought our communities Excite@Home holdings. It was sold to Comcast in 2002 as part of Ameritech's agreement to be absorbed into SBC.
For now, we remain confident in Comcast and Clearwire. What else can we do? | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
2 edits | Re: Empty threat, don't buy it..... for those areas with unlit U-Verse, how about a nice decoration on the VRADs with "AT&T: Light it or Remove it!"
-----OR-------
What else? (at least for Lincolnshire, and areas near Denver, Detroit, Cleveland, and Columbus.)
Invite WOW! into your town. They are in parts of the Chicago suburbs, I know. And, they are overbuilders not afraid to compete with Comcast. And make it a public issue at city council meetings. Most city councils nationwide will tell you that cable TV complaints are high in citizen interest.
All kinds of data out there on WOW!
Some of the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the cable TV business. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| 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 GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Same old AT&T... Good slow down usless U-Verse This 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.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | 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?" | |
|
| | | 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... | |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
·Cox HSI
| As slow as AT&T moves the gov't moves slower They 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.
--
"Our goal (was to make) a billion phones Flash-enabled by 2010...We're actually going to get 1 billion Flash-enabled phones by 2009." -Adobe Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch in Nov 2008. | |
|
| | 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 | |
|
| |  AT&T - wait until see where FCC goes with Title II
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
dforan
join:2000-12-09
Willoughby, OH | U worse I 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.. | |
|
 WiseOldNerdDe gustibus non est disputandumPremium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ
·Charter
·Cox HSI
| 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.
--
My perception is REALITY | |
|
| | Suicide bomber technique Do as we say or the puppy gets it!
--
Reach out and Tap someone! | |
|
approval from:
packetscan 
| 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 rollout Good. 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. | |
|
slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1
1 edit | It can get slower ATT you arent being very quick now, i would hate to see what slow is. Oh wait i do everyday with my DSL line. | |
|
|
|
·
