socialism is good, SBC sucks.

SuperSniperX said:
Why don't you just head over to the forums at dslreports and do a search. This argument has been done to death over there.

Cable companies, Mobile, wifi, and Sat to a lesser extent, are quickly becoming parallel competing services. They are all starting to offer overlapping services.

SBC does fight hard to stop from having to resell Fiber and wire that They installed, and that they paid for.

Dragging feet on installs is bull shit. When installs for a CLEC come through, they are usually first to be completed. Jesus, the things I have to do for CLEC's reselling our DSL Services. These little mom and pop ISP's that don't know the last thing about setting up their equipment. I've been forced to configure many a router for some little Hardware Store/ISP so that they can take business away from the service my company offers.

There is no clear cut answer to this. Multiple sides to this. I really don't feel like going into all the problems I have with the regulations we are forced to adhere to.

If you really are this worked up, like i said, go to www.dslreports.com and have a field day.
Click to expand...

This is entirely correct. I used to work for SBC in Tulsa and have seen this countless times. Because of Govt regulations SBC even has to operate it's broadband business as a seperate entity to it's telco ops - when I placed a DSL order for a customer the system couldnt even talk to the broadband guys and the order had to be printed and re entered in their system, while CLEC customers got to go direct. It's a fucking nightmare.
 
Hey let's look at all the gaming software mergers.

I'm sure their product quality is going up and prices are going DOWN DOWN DOWN
 
cogzinofa said:
SBC does prevent companies from competing with them. They have a government protected monopoly and they lobby heavily against any plans to allow in third parties. other private companies can't step in and compete.
Click to expand...

Then someone should hit them and those in government who are doing this with a anti-trust suit right away. As far as I can tell, it is illegal not to allow others to compete. Did I miss something? Did someone post something on the books that says SBC is protected from competition? Has there been a case of a company that wanted to install lines and were stopped from doing so? Honestly...I wouldnt mind seeing something official that shows how our government is protecting SBC.
 
government prevents new carriers from laying new wire/cable/fiber while allowing SBC to keep networks closed. on top of that the laying of new wire/cable/fiber is expensive without government help, which was given to SBC/related companies and government isn't going to fund it for another private company :shrug:
 
How is Capitalism any better? The Lower class pays little taxes, the Upper class pays little taxes ,and the Middle Class gets fucked. Socialism isnt' so strict that people who don't do shit get off easy... that's hardly true, no more so than it is in a Capitalist nation.
 
I love SBC

they laid fiber to my backwater fucking town of 500 people


but we can't use it because Verizon is the phone company and wont let us get DSL from SBC
 
MaxxCarnage said:
How is Capitalism any better? The Lower class pays little taxes, the Upper class pays little taxes ,and the Middle Class gets fucked. Socialism isnt' so strict that people who don't do shit get off easy... that's hardly true, no more so than it is in a Capitalist nation.
Click to expand...

The best solution is a balanced capitalsocio system
 
cogzinofa said:
government prevents new carriers from laying new wire/cable/fiber while allowing SBC to keep networks closed.
Click to expand...

What I was asking for was a link to something that shows the government is preventing other companies from doing this...there must be an example.

A business is just that...a business to make money and I would never put it past them to do take as much advantage as they can (or as much as they are given) Again, if there is a problem having to do with fair business practice...if SBC is recieving government help (which I cant find proof of on the web )...then again its the governments fault for allowing it and participating in fraud. I dont think this means that we need to place it all in the governments hands since they have already shown they are capable of breaking the law and showing favor to a company (if they indeed do that)...The government should regulate...and do it right...not control it IMO.
 
Last edited:
You are mixing facts with companies. Verizon had the problems with taking lots of money in Penn. and not delivering. That really hasn't happened with SBC. The government funded a copper network many many many years ago. Alot of money and work that SBC PAID for has gone into that network since then.

And NO... SBC DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM INSTALLING COAX, WIFI, SATs, and MOBILE TOWERS. They are all competition. If you are so pissed, get rid of all your SBC connections and switch over.

Why aren't you including the Cable Companies like Comcast that are even less regulated, and are even more vocal about stopping government sponsored Broadband services.

And the latest SBC FTTP/FTTN program is NOT government funded. I have seen alot of the budget info for these projects. Hell, 600million of it is going to one of the projects I'm lead on.
 
Last edited:
i love how cogz has no facts just this belief that SBC has the government keeping thier monopoly. Its expensive to run a fiber optic network across the country if other companies can afford it they should go ahead
 
He's just reading this Article.

The funny thing is that the person that wrote this article shows very little understanding into the Fiber Roll out SBC is doing. Especially their understanding of a "Node" and the only up to 24/25mb speeds. There's alot more to it than that.

Alot of areas will get Fiber to the prem. I'm even hearing that they may eventually go Fiber to prem everywhere in Cali.

Areas that are fed from a Node, will likely be looking at 40mb speeds. ADSL2+ is feeding the last run (which will be under 3000ft) and gives us the abillity to do Multi-pair bonding of lines. 2x24mb/1.5up minus about 15% for ATM and IMA'ish protocol.

Like i said.. there are both sides to every story.
 
PsioniX said:
I love SBC

they laid fiber to my backwater fucking town of 500 people


but we can't use it because Verizon is the phone company and wont let us get DSL from SBC
Click to expand...
see? these phone companies are evil.
 
SuperSniperX said:
And NO... SBC DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM INSTALLING COAX, WIFI, SATs, and MOBILE TOWERS. They are all competition. If you are so pissed, get rid of all your SBC connections and switch over.
Click to expand...
where did I say that?

and wifi isn't competition because it still needs local access from *somewhere* mobile towers have data rates that are so slow they're not worth mentioning. sats have such high latency they're useless for anything other than data retrieval.

Why aren't you including the Cable Companies like Comcast that are even less regulated, and are even more vocal about stopping government sponsored Broadband services.
Click to expand...
because I'm complaining about SBC right now and not cable companies that are just as, if not more, evil.

And the latest SBC FTTP/FTTN program is NOT government funded. I have seen alot of the budget info for these projects. Hell, 600million of it is going to one of the projects I'm lead on.
Click to expand...
they get tax benefits for many of these programs. that's a subsidy, albiet an indirect subsidy.
 
TonyElTigre said:
i love how cogz has no facts just this belief that SBC has the government keeping thier monopoly. Its expensive to run a fiber optic network across the country if other companies can afford it they should go ahead
Click to expand...
so the fact that the government gives the phone companies tax subsidies and helped them build themselves in the first place is inconsequential :huh:

and not just any company can run around and install fiber. when you have to dig up streets or otherwise abuse government owned or managed public land the government starts to care.
 
cogzinofa said:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-01-03-fiber-cover_x.htm#

the rule needs to be changed so that if a company owns the infrastructure (phone, cable, fiber, etc.) they can't provide service on that infrastructure.

so if SBC wants to be in the BB business or phone business, they can, but as a common carrier, not as a service/content provider. they can provide all the data lines they like, but they can't be an ISP.

or they just need to get the fuck out of the way. I'm tired of being ranked 13th in BB deployment. we invented the goddamn internet for christ'ssake.
Click to expand...


This is a tricky issue, not sure there is a fair one size fits all answer for it.
 
isnt there a new company for cable phone. ive only seen the commercials, but i got the impression it use a cable modem as a phone line. this is all i have to add.
 
Neutrino said:
I knew SSX would come in and lay down the ownage when I read the title. :p
Click to expand...

yah.. like it was said, this is a tricky issue. There are Pro's and Con's to each side.

And i'm not going to lie and say that SBC is an angel. There are things they do that piss me off. Especially them allowing the company that is under contract to provide call center functions, to move operations to Bangalore India. That just pisses me off.

Luckily, they are not renewing this contract with the outsource firm.. and will be bringing call centers back in house once the existing contract is up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top