I never stated any such thing.And again, another post that fails to address the fact that it is being paid for... By the customers of Comcast and the other ISPs. I am paying for every bit of data I request. Comcast has agreed to this payment by offering me their service and accepting my money. What they want and what you seem to be in favor of is for them to be able to charge twice for each bit of data. It would be like the post office charging both the sender and the recipient for transporting a letter. It's nonsensical and just a $$$$ grab.
With this Title II issue looming, do you not think AT&T is going to delay any new investments in plant expansion?It is good to see the FCC calling AT&T's bluff and requiring them to turn over all the documentation as to their gigabit plans. They may have announce over 100 cities to get 1 gigabit service, but what % of customers in those announced markets would actually see 1 gb/s service? Was it really all just a press release to get the AT&T/DIRECTV merger approved? Were they really going to do 2 million households?
Please show me how the previous net neutrality rules that were in place until ISPs sued and got them tossed on a technicality screwed things up in the way you're predicting the new ones will.I never stated any such thing.
What i cannot believe is when I see normally rational people who believe they absolutely must have a certain product or service, believe there is some one or some entity depriving them of said product or service and their solution is to run to the government to "fix" it for them...And time and time again, every single time when government interferes in the marketplace, they manage to screw it up.
ATT was already delaying a significant portion of their investment. Hell, they only said they were rolling it out to counter the bad press generated by google fiber running circles around their offerings. They'd much rather charge current prices for current speeds than to actually put money into to improving speeds. The only reason they do is competition. If there was more competition in this field, net neutrality regulations wouldn't be needed. Consumers would have choices and be able to choose a provider that didn't throttle or otherwise violate net neutrality principles.With this Title II issue looming, do you not think AT&T is going to delay any new investments in plant expansion?
I sure as heck do. Why should they?
When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"In what way was I being "offensive"?
He wasn't saying you were. He was asking who was your post addressed to or responding.When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"
aren't you taking that personal? Because it sure seem to me.
Please elaborate on why such a response.
Original post
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Your post
To whom aRE YOU RE
With this Title II issue looming, do you not think AT&T is going to delay any new investments in plant expansion?
I sure as heck do. Why should they?
Well I have no need to since dangue did such a fine job of it right after this statement of your. sYour area. Ok I can see issues there.
Answer this question...Government intervention will do what for me( you)?
Lets just say for a moment the FCC moves forward with Title II. The internet becomes a regulated common carrier. Then what? Without going into a long wish list of things you'd like to see( what you or I want is irrelevant), offer some insight as to what you believe will be the result of a regulated internet.
I know my view. I think prices will rise, providers will refuse to invest anymore than exactly the federally mandated minimums which means copper.
Rural areas will see little if any benefit because the telcos will claim there is already copper plant by which these areas can recieve internet service.
The prices will rise because the government will mandate that those areas of communities currently unserved by fiber, will get fiber and because the business generated will be minimal, the providers will demand as a trade off, some kind of fee attached to all their existing customer's bills ( internet welfare tax)
I am telling you if the government gets their paws on this they will make a big mess out of it and our prices will skyrocket.
The simple explanation is "it's government"....Meaning based on past performance, the federal govt is bound to screws up the thing. Badly.Please show me how the previous net neutrality rules that were in place until ISPs sued and got them tossed on a technicality screwed things up in the way you're predicting the new ones will.
I wish there was only one thread on this topic so I wouldn't have to repeat myself over and over. In a nutshell: There is so much agency capture that the FCC barely has the appetite to even consider net neutrality let alone al the other regulatory FUD that everyone is predicting will screw up the internet.
Of course competition would spur price drops and improvement in technology.ATT was already delaying a significant portion of their investment. Hell, they only said they were rolling it out to counter the bad press generated by google fiber running circles around their offerings. They'd much rather charge current prices for current speeds than to actually put money into to improving speeds. The only reason they do is competition. If there was more competition in this field, net neutrality regulations wouldn't be needed. Consumers would have choices and be able to choose a provider that didn't throttle or otherwise violate net neutrality principles.
I did NOT post that. Someone edited what I posted or you posted back to me on someone else's post.When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"
aren't you taking that personal? Because it sure seem to me.
Please elaborate on why such a response.
Original post
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Your post
To whom aRE YOU RE
Just a minute. You posted to no one. I asked "to whom are you responding"?When I said how AT&T is a joke and your response was "You Are"
aren't you taking that personal? Because it sure seem to me.
Please elaborate on why such a response.
Original post
I can't get U-Verse TV here but can get phone and dsl which I won't anyway, I'll just stick to wireless to put up with that joke of a company.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Your post
To whom aRE YOU RE
Hey, I don't write in code. If I want to insult someone, it's readily understood.Well he didn't complete that statement or a short word meaning perhaps
so I took it the wrong way, and meant what I thought it meant
With so many short meanings I can't keep upso it's cool now
btw I wasn't responding to anybody just forming my opinion.
AT&T has but one goal in it's business model...Keep the price of the stock rising.They announced cuts to their CAPEX to the wireline side (uverse/dsl/pots) 3 billion in the weeks before Title II came up... One of the ways they were going to save money for the merger... Hmm, they announce the merger will deliver gigabit service to 100 cities via a press release and wire up a few homes in Austin while cutting the equipment budget $3 billion. Then conveniently blame the lack of investment on sudden fear of new regulation. They must have forgotten they were being reviewed by the FCC and had made promises before that last press release...
AT&T has a long history of announcing great U-Verse things that they never really seem to widely deliver. Again they go to the press release to look good for a merger, promising that they could deliver more high speed internet.
That is the Business model of every Large profitable company.AT&T has but one goal in it's business model...Keep the price of the stock rising.
AT&T is not a telecommunications company. It is a firm which attracts and then attempts to keep investors.That is AT&T's primary goal. Everything else the company does comes last.
AT&T has but one goal in it's business model...Keep the price of the stock rising.
AT&T is not a telecommunications company. It is a firm which attracts and then attempts to keep investors.That is AT&T's primary goal. Everything else the company does comes last.
Okay it's fine but I didn't see the responding part when you quoted me, just REHey, I don't write in code. If I want to insult someone, it's readily understood.
Now let's just conclude you reacted to something that wasn't there and move on.
You are wrong about what you thought you saw. That will be all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?