Message-ID: <t5ckvh$v2p$1@dont-email.me>
Date: 9 May 2022 23:08:35 -0400
From: "Michael Trew" <michael.trew@att.net>
Subject: Re: Concurring Statement of FTC Commissioner Noah Joshua
Phillips regarding Frontier Communications Corp., et al
On 5/9/2022 18:16, Bill Horne wrote:
>
> Frontier told consumers that it could provide service
> "up to" certain speeds, but failed to deliver. The complaint details
> how, in some cases, Frontier could not, as a technical matter, even
> possibly deliver the speeds it promised. Some consumers paid for more
> expensive service than they received.
I can't recall ADSL2+ or VDSL, but when I worked there, the two ADSL
tiers were "Broadband Max" (up to 6 Mb/s dl) or "Broadband Lite" (up to
1 Mb/s dl). "Lite" was $31.99/mo and "Max" was $34.99/mo -- depending
on the market.
If, for example, a rural customer could only achieve 3.76 Mb/s, we sold
them "BB Max", as it made sense for a few more dollars per month to
achieve over 3 times the bandwidth. 1 Mb/s is almost useless in this
day, unless you do nothing other than Usenet and E-Mail; forget about
streaming video.
In short: I suppose the issue here was that we/Frontier still marketed
the "BB Max" as "up to 6 Mb/s", even if the customer could only achieve
3.76 Mb/s (or anything over 1.5 Mb/s) and that's what they were
provisioned for. I, of course, always looked up and informed the
customer what they were going to be provisioned at, but I suspect that
many phone reps did *not* do that.
Message-ID: <20220509235936.CB1FA7C0@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 23:59:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com>
Subject: Older Corporate Worker Opposes MTD in Discrimination Case
Against AT&T
Last Friday, an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) plaintiff
seeking to represent a class of AT&T workers impacted by the copmany's
purported policy of replacing older workers with younger ones, fought
the wireless carrier's partial motion to dismiss. The opposition says
that dismissal is premature in view of the affirmative defenses AT&T
has raised and otherwise unwarranted.
In 2020, AT&T moved to compel arbitration in the Philadelphia, Penn
case. Interpreting multiple contracts, the district court, and
subsequently the Third Circuit, decided which was the applicable
employment agreement. AT&T lost the argument, thereby depriving the
company of its right to push for arbitration on a contractual basis.
https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/older-corporate-worker-opposes-mtd-in-discrimination-case-against-att/
--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Message-ID: <20220510000303.0AD2C7C0@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 00:03:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com>
Subject: AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and 17 Other Internet Companies
Agree To Bring High-Speed Internet to More US Families Under Biden's
Infrastructure Plan
By Vance Cariaga
The Biden administration has lined up some heavy telecom hitters to
expand high-speed internet access to more Americans, as 20 internet
providers - including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon - have agreed to help
out.
The companies will assist in offering high-speed internet to millions
of unconnected households as part of the Biden administration's $1
trillion infrastructure bill, the Wall Street Journal reported.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-verizon-comcast-17-other-132259390.html
--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
