Re: NEWS: Cingular claims US first with HSDPA handset

In article <pan.2006.07.19.21.26.12.452462@25thandClement.com >, William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:10:10 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>
>> Data-tastic
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/18/cingular_lg_cu500_hspda/>
>>
>> Cingular yesterday claimed a US first for its new HSDPA phone, a skinny
>> black clamshell from LG, dubbed the CU500.
>>
>> Cingular boasts that its new phone breaks the speed barrier, but given
>> Joe Public's indifference, nay hostility, to mobile data, few people
>> will be aware that there is a speed barrier to break. Still customers
>> can always talk faster on their shiny new phones.
>>
>> HSDPA is often known as "Super 3G", or "3.5G" - it's up to five times
>> faster than vanilla 3G networks. This means that watching video and
>> browsing the internet by phone becomes much less of a chore - even if
>> the costs are hugely inflated compared with, say, watching video on your
>> laptop by Wi-Fi.
>>
>> The LG CU500 comes preloaded with AOL, Yahoo! and MSN messenger clients,
>> a "full featured" music player - and optional Bluetooth stereo headset -
>> and a 1.3 megapixel camera. It is available in 18 major markets -
>> Cingular expects to roll out its 3G network to most major markets by the
>> end of the year. It costs $99 with a two-year contract. Choose the most
>> expensive plan and you can get a $50 mail-in rebate.
>
>It's also comes preloaded CRIPPLED! Got mine yesterday, and today I
>learned that the CU500 (unlike the CU320), will force the user to confirm
>each and every HTTP connection initiated by a Java applet (at least,
>applets not blessed by Cingular). Big deal, you say? Try using google
>maps: http://google.com/gmm. I pay $100/month so Cingular can pull stupid
>stunts like this!? (Literally every connection; not just every
>instantiation of the applet.)

And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
Where are the real trust busters when we need them?

>
>I've been waiting for this phone for months, now I'm regretting not having
>gone w/ Sprint.
>
>

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:55:33 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<UtKdnUZQOti4vlzZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
>> technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
>> marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
>> owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
>> Where are the real trust busters when we need them?
>
>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.

Even with regard to the local loop, since ready alternatives exist, and
since other competitors are free to run their own local loops.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <UtKdnUZQOti4vlzZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
>> technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
>> marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
>> owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
>> Where are the real trust busters when we need them?
>>
>
>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.
>

Ever try to call the fire department using your Direct TV box, they'll show
up in time to save the chimney. There is no choice for the consumer. I know
you are brain washed into thinking cable = choice, it does not, you are
just trading one monopoy for another. This is why the fight over net
neutrality is so critical, because as a consumer you in fact have very few
to no choices about the wire into your home.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <ftscc2p2fabadtqn1bqi8j7l0csvbc5lbh@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:55:33 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
><veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
><UtKdnUZQOti4vlzZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@giganews.com> :
>
>>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
>>> technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
>>> marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
>>> owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
>>> Where are the real trust busters when we need them?
>>
>>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
>>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.
>
>Even with regard to the local loop, since ready alternatives exist, and
>since other competitors are free to run their own local loops.
>

I don't know what country you live in John but in the entire USA there are
three wire options into people's homes, the bell monopoly, the cable
monopoly and the power monopoly. That is it, no one else is allowed by law
to play. There ar esome reasonable and pratical reasons for this, but
nver-the-less that is all the choice a consumer has and actually only two
of them are even remotely viable. Are you sure you aren't in the direct pay
of AT&T, I mean you are better then the official spokes person, even they
admit there are very limited choices.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what country you live in John but in the entire USA
>> there are three wire options into people's homes, the bell monopoly,
>> the cable monopoly and the power monopoly. That is it, no one else
>> is allowed by law to play. There ar esome reasonable and pratical
>> reasons for this, but nver-the-less that is all the choice a
>> consumer has and actually only two of them are even remotely viable.
>> Are you sure you aren't in the direct pay of AT&T, I mean you are
>> better then the official spokes person, even they admit there are
>> very limited choices.
>>
>
> This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and
> they use the common carrier to deliver service. I can use DSL
> services via an ILEC like Covad if I like. Futher, there is no
> monopoly on Phone Service in general as I choose a different phone
> company [as already established], I can choose to use a company like
> Comcast or I can choose to use VoIP or even wireless.
>
> So, in short, I can get telephone, data and television services from
> multiple sources, so none of the three are local monopolies. The
> ONLY local monopoly is your basic utilities [of which phone is no
> longer a part]; electricity, natural gas [if you get it] and water.
>
> So, if you have issues with utilities ... including telephone
> services, you can talk to your PUC, but misusing the term monopoly
> won't get you far these days.

Note the word "INTO" in the above (there are three wire options into
people's homes).... Sure you can use others, but there is ONLY one local
company that can do the end part INTO your home...

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:44 -0400, "Peter Pan"
<PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> wrote in
<g72dnebHMbVHslTZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know what country you live in John but in the entire USA
>>> there are three wire options into people's homes, the bell monopoly,
>>> the cable monopoly and the power monopoly. That is it, no one else
>>> is allowed by law to play. There ar esome reasonable and pratical
>>> reasons for this, but nver-the-less that is all the choice a
>>> consumer has and actually only two of them are even remotely viable.
>>> Are you sure you aren't in the direct pay of AT&T, I mean you are
>>> better then the official spokes person, even they admit there are
>>> very limited choices.
>>
>> This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and
>> they use the common carrier to deliver service. I can use DSL
>> services via an ILEC like Covad if I like. Futher, there is no
>> monopoly on Phone Service in general as I choose a different phone
>> company [as already established], I can choose to use a company like
>> Comcast or I can choose to use VoIP or even wireless.
>>
>> So, in short, I can get telephone, data and television services from
>> multiple sources, so none of the three are local monopolies. The
>> ONLY local monopoly is your basic utilities [of which phone is no
>> longer a part]; electricity, natural gas [if you get it] and water.
>>
>> So, if you have issues with utilities ... including telephone
>> services, you can talk to your PUC, but misusing the term monopoly
>> won't get you far these days.
>
>Note the word "INTO" in the above (there are three wire options into
>people's homes).... Sure you can use others, but there is ONLY one local
>company that can do the end part INTO your home...

As a result of deregulation, there isn't any artificial limitation on
"INTO" -- companies are free to overbuild even the last mile if they see
a sufficiently good business opportunity. The problem is that the
business opportunity isn't sufficiently good, not any monopoly.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:58:42 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<FL2yg.24785$Nt.24782@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <UtKdnUZQOti4vlzZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
>>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.
>
>Ever try to call the fire department using your Direct TV box, they'll show
>up in time to save the chimney.

They'll respond just as fast whether you call with cable phone service,
VoIP, sat phone, cellular, or landline.

>There is no choice for the consumer. I know
>you are brain washed into thinking cable = choice, it does not, you are
>just trading one monopoy for another. This is why the fight over net
>neutrality is so critical, because as a consumer you in fact have very few
>to no choices about the wire into your home.

There are actually lots of choices, some of which I've listed above.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In alt.cellular.cingular Peter Pan <PeterPanNOSPAM@akamailnospam.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and
>> they use the common carrier to deliver service. I can use DSL
>> services via an ILEC like Covad if I like. Futher, there is no
>> monopoly on Phone Service in general as I choose a different phone
>> company [as already established], I can choose to use a company like
>> Comcast or I can choose to use VoIP or even wireless.
>>
>> So, in short, I can get telephone, data and television services from
>> multiple sources, so none of the three are local monopolies. The
>> ONLY local monopoly is your basic utilities [of which phone is no
>> longer a part]; electricity, natural gas [if you get it] and water.
>>
>> So, if you have issues with utilities ... including telephone
>> services, you can talk to your PUC, but misusing the term monopoly
>> won't get you far these days.
>
> Note the word "INTO" in the above (there are three wire options into
> people's homes).... Sure you can use others, but there is ONLY one local
> company that can do the end part INTO your home...
>

It is not a monopoly, no matter how you shape and wrap it. Feel free to spin
it otherwise if you like, but you will show your lack if you do.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In article <kjpic25p86bebkgubosn2m2ibr1rqvhghb@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:58:42 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
><FL2yg.24785$Nt.24782@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>In article <UtKdnUZQOti4vlzZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Thomas T.
> Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>>>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>>>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>>>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the
> latter
>>>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>>>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.
>>
>>Ever try to call the fire department using your Direct TV box, they'll show
>>up in time to save the chimney.
>
>They'll respond just as fast whether you call with cable phone service,
>VoIP, sat phone, cellular, or landline.
>
>>There is no choice for the consumer. I know
>>you are brain washed into thinking cable = choice, it does not, you are
>>just trading one monopoy for another. This is why the fight over net
>>neutrality is so critical, because as a consumer you in fact have very few
>>to no choices about the wire into your home.
>
>There are actually lots of choices, some of which I've listed above.
>

John you simpley do not live in the real world. Get out of the bay area
sometime, it will prove an eye openner.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <mc7yg.72568$2C5.15029@fe07.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what country you live in John but in the entire USA there are
>> three wire options into people's homes, the bell monopoly, the cable
>> monopoly and the power monopoly. That is it, no one else is allowed by law
>> to play. There ar esome reasonable and pratical reasons for this, but
>> nver-the-less that is all the choice a consumer has and actually only two
>> of them are even remotely viable. Are you sure you aren't in the direct pay
>> of AT&T, I mean you are better then the official spokes person, even they
>> admit there are very limited choices.
>>
>
>This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and they use the
>common carrier to deliver service.

Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.

> I can use DSL services via an ILEC like
>Covad if I like. Futher, there is no monopoly on Phone Service in general as
>I choose a different phone company [as already established], I can choose to
>use a company like Comcast or I can choose to use VoIP or even wireless.
>
>So, in short, I can get telephone, data and television services from multiple
>sources, so none of the three are local monopolies. The ONLY local monopoly
>is your basic utilities [of which phone is no longer a part]; electricity,
>natural gas [if you get it] and water.
>
>So, if you have issues with utilities ... including telephone services, you
>can talk to your PUC, but misusing the term monopoly won't get you far these
>days.
>

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <9Nnyg.31124$my2.10097@fe48.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.cingular Peter Pan <PeterPanNOSPAM@akamailnospam.com> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>> This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and
>>> they use the common carrier to deliver service. I can use DSL
>>> services via an ILEC like Covad if I like. Futher, there is no
>>> monopoly on Phone Service in general as I choose a different phone
>>> company [as already established], I can choose to use a company like
>>> Comcast or I can choose to use VoIP or even wireless.
>>>
>>> So, in short, I can get telephone, data and television services from
>>> multiple sources, so none of the three are local monopolies. The
>>> ONLY local monopoly is your basic utilities [of which phone is no
>>> longer a part]; electricity, natural gas [if you get it] and water.
>>>
>>> So, if you have issues with utilities ... including telephone
>>> services, you can talk to your PUC, but misusing the term monopoly
>>> won't get you far these days.
>>
>> Note the word "INTO" in the above (there are three wire options into
>> people's homes).... Sure you can use others, but there is ONLY one local
>> company that can do the end part INTO your home...
>>
>
>It is not a monopoly, no matter how you shape and wrap it. Feel free to spin
>it otherwise if you like, but you will show your lack if you do.
>

Let me guess, one of the Bush appointees to the FCC?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<BQtzg.3150$l7.1482@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <mc7yg.72568$2C5.15029@fe07.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and they use the
>>common carrier to deliver service.
>
>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.

There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
some in fact do so.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:34:23 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<POtzg.3149$l7.2441@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <kjpic25p86bebkgubosn2m2ibr1rqvhghb@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>There are actually lots of choices, some of which I've listed above.

>John you simpley do not live in the real world. Get out of the bay area
>sometime, it will prove an eye openner.

Been there; done that. Choices abound.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
> some in fact do so.

"Some" would mean a very very very very very small number that get past
the PUC and easement right of ways.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:20:53 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nono@no.no> wrote in
<pfwzg.45$o27.30@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>> some in fact do so.
>
>"Some" would mean a very very very very very small number that get past
>the PUC and easement right of ways.

By Federal law such permission cannot be withheld unreasonably.

The problem isn't PUC and easements -- the problem is lack of sufficient
financial incentives.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <uuqsc2dme74ku95oi3jrrs7nau5lgobao5@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
><BQtzg.3150$l7.1482@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>In article <mc7yg.72568$2C5.15029@fe07.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T.
> Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and they use
> the
>>>common carrier to deliver service.
>>
>>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
>>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.
>
>There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>some in fact do so.
>

Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <2cqtc2dcnm44lmsihk1r8pbkdmn36jqit7@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:20:53 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nono@no.no> wrote in
><pfwzg.45$o27.30@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>>> some in fact do so.
>>
>>"Some" would mean a very very very very very small number that get past
>>the PUC and easement right of ways.
>
>By Federal law such permission cannot be withheld unreasonably.
>
>The problem isn't PUC and easements -- the problem is lack of sufficient
>financial incentives.
>

You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:58:08 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<AZJzg.9889$48.5540@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <2cqtc2dcnm44lmsihk1r8pbkdmn36jqit7@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>The problem isn't PUC and easements -- the problem is lack of sufficient
>>financial incentives.
>
>You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?

Ameritech New Media

See 47 USC Sec. 541:

(1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the
provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its
jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an
exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an
additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application
for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the
franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to
the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply
with this subsection.
(2) Any franchise shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way, and
through easements, which is within the area to be served by the
cable system and which have been dedicated for compatible uses, ...

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:56:38 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<aYJzg.9873$48.8521@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <uuqsc2dme74ku95oi3jrrs7nau5lgobao5@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
>><BQtzg.3150$l7.1482@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>>In article <mc7yg.72568$2C5.15029@fe07.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T.
>> Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and they use
>> the
>>>>common carrier to deliver service.
>>>
>>>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
>>>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.
>>
>>There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>>some in fact do so.
>
>Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)

Ameritech New Media

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
> case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>
> fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Hmm ... Comcast ran their cable through easements and up to my DMARC. For a
period of time, I received POTS phone service (called Digital Phone) without
using any QWest lines (the local ILEC). Same equipment and same internal
wiring in my home. In short, there is no monopoly; I can use at least two
companies for POTS (plain old telephone service) and indeed, they each offer
their own wire carrier.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)
>

Coon Rapids, MN. Comcast rans their own cable for POTS.

> fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Your tagline stinks.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In article <neruc29p9un4dr8r3mal5mtijs3jbvddj9@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:56:38 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
><aYJzg.9873$48.8521@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>In article <uuqsc2dme74ku95oi3jrrs7nau5lgobao5@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
>>><BQtzg.3150$l7.1482@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
>>>
>>>>In article <mc7yg.72568$2C5.15029@fe07.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T.
>>> Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>This is not true at all. I can get a different phone company and they use
>>> the
>>>>>common carrier to deliver service.
>>>>
>>>>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
>>>>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.
>>>
>>>There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
>>>some in fact do so.
>>
>>Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)
>
>Ameritech New Media
>

Not familar with this area/town. what state in the Union is this?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <e4ruc2dl5vq4dslv33nrp112deesotugj0@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:58:08 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
><AZJzg.9889$48.5540@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>In article <2cqtc2dcnm44lmsihk1r8pbkdmn36jqit7@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>The problem isn't PUC and easements -- the problem is lack of sufficient
>>>financial incentives.
>>
>>You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>>case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>
>Ameritech New Media

I think I asked this in a previous post, but where (in the real world) is
this actually taking place? Not pie in the sky, real people can go touch
it, is this actually happening?

Don't tell me choices exist until they actually exist. Because they clearly
do not exist before they exist in reality.


>
>See 47 USC Sec. 541:
>
> (1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the
> provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its
> jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an
> exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an
> additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application
> for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the
> franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to
> the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply
> with this subsection.
> (2) Any franchise shall be construed to authorize the
> construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way, and
> through easements, which is within the area to be served by the
> cable system and which have been dedicated for compatible uses, ...
>

Just so much bullsh*t until someone has strung wire that can be touched.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <%8Kzg.42771$fk1.5820@fe68.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>> case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>>
>> fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
>
>Hmm ... Comcast ran their cable through easements and up to my DMARC. For a
>period of time, I received POTS phone service (called Digital Phone) without
>using any QWest lines (the local ILEC). Same equipment and same internal
>wiring in my home. In short, there is no monopoly; I can use at least two
>companies for POTS (plain old telephone service) and indeed, they each offer
>their own wire carrier.
>

I missed this, how many cable providers are there and how many phone
companies with wire are in your home (or can get there)?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:15 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<AH7Ag.33176$ZH1.27859@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <e4ruc2dl5vq4dslv33nrp112deesotugj0@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Ameritech New Media
>
>I think I asked this in a previous post, but where (in the real world) is
>this actually taking place? Not pie in the sky, real people can go touch
>it, is this actually happening?

"Google is your friend."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:18:37 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<SI7Ag.33185$ZH1.2664@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <%8Kzg.42771$fk1.5820@fe68.usenetserver.com>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <rico_001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You say this, but can you show us even one example where this is indeed the
>>> case. that the barrier wasn't the existing bell monopoly and the local PUC?
>>
>>Hmm ... Comcast ran their cable through easements and up to my DMARC. For a
>>period of time, I received POTS phone service (called Digital Phone) without
>>using any QWest lines (the local ILEC). Same equipment and same internal
>>wiring in my home. In short, there is no monopoly; I can use at least two
>>companies for POTS (plain old telephone service) and indeed, they each offer
>>their own wire carrier.
>
>I missed this, how many cable providers are there and how many phone
>companies with wire are in your home (or can get there)?

Here in Walnut Creek CA there are two choices for cable (Astound and
Comcast), which makes three wireline providers.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:12:45 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
<mD7Ag.33153$ZH1.878@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:

>In article <neruc29p9un4dr8r3mal5mtijs3jbvddj9@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Ameritech New Media
>
>Not familar with this area/town. what state in the Union is this?

"Google is your friend."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:56:38 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote::
> >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:36:17 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
> >>>Net they don't string new wire, bet they lease it from the bell monoploy.
> >>>You can only get service as good as the bell monopoly will allow.
> >>There is no monopoly. Other companies can run their own cables, and
> >>some in fact do so.
> >
> >Name the location. (city, town where bell also exists)
>
> Ameritech New Media

Ameritech New Media is a subsidiary of Ameritech. Ameritech was one of
the original seven RBOCs, though they're now owned by SBC.

So, what you're saying is, there is some area where a RBOC subsidiary
is competing against another RBOC, and they each laid their own
independent wire to consumers' houses?

I've Googled them, and I can find much about their cable TV service in
Chicago. I can't find any references to their telephony services -
perhaps you can point me to some references?

In article <n732d2tni0fk0g3oqfnf9nec7dq1a7vu22@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:12:45 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
><mD7Ag.33153$ZH1.878@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>In article <neruc29p9un4dr8r3mal5mtijs3jbvddj9@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Ameritech New Media
>>
>>Not familar with this area/town. what state in the Union is this?
>
>"Google is your friend."


Does this mean it is an imaginary place? One made up by you and doesn't
actually exist on any maps?
>

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <6032d29ng71i7kv48m2bn328g1m4aeucna@4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:15 GMT, rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote in
><AH7Ag.33176$ZH1.27859@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>In article <e4ruc2dl5vq4dslv33nrp112deesotugj0@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Ameritech New Media
>>
>>I think I asked this in a previous post, but where (in the real world) is
>>this actually taking place? Not pie in the sky, real people can go touch
>>it, is this actually happening?
>
>"Google is your friend."
>

Right more made up BS.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.