on 6 February 2004 : 12:21, Semisweetchick sez:
Gosh, I hate to see you promote Qwest in any way. What you term "a firm local footing," we in the southwest term "a monopoly." I can recount to you innumerable horror stories in over two decades of dealing with Qwest and its predecessor, USWest. From policy lies (lip service paid to rural expansion of fiber optic networks [I live a mere 3 miles from a good-sized city, yet cannot get broadband service]) to harassment by their employees (because I would not purchase the expensive wireless phone the employee was pushing, he never put through my order to remove a premium feature from my phone package), Qwest is a nightmare to those of us who have to submit to their monopoly year after year. The thought they might be able to "create new forms of community" is laughable until they mend relations with their current customers. If only my DirecTV service did not require a land-based phone line, I would go wireless in an instant just to get out from under Qwest. Believe me, I'm not the only one.
on 6 February 2004 : 12:40, justin sez:
I don't have much fondness for my own local carrier SBC - they charge me so much, bother me with pointless offers, and the people that answer the phone know less about phone systems than I do. I could say similar things about Sprint PCS.
I think its very hard to be a large company offering the kinds of services people use every day. A thankless job. Some are more criminal than others. Most of the people working in most companies want to perform the services they promise.
I hope this panel was a sign that Qwest is trying to listen to new ideas and offer innovative services. And I believe they're working to emphasize better customer service. It's hard to push them towards new technologies when the old ones might not be working so well. But maybe some combination of wireless and fiber might begin to network the outlying areas you're talking about. Being a communications company in an area with low population density demands difficult infrastructure building. Sorry to hear they haven't kept up with your needs so far. Like I said, I look forward to seeing if they can better satisfy their customers and maybe even pleasantly surprise them.
on 6 February 2004 : 15:27, Robb Greathouse sez:
In New Mexico I was forced to get Qwest.
As soon as I applied for service they gathered up the past due accounts of everyone with a similar name and attempted to run the bills through my account.
Fortunately, I have a small bank. When they noticed that none of the information matched me (ie SSN, complete name, etc) they rejected all Qwest attempts to debit my account.
It was cute. Had an individual tried it, it would have been a felony.
Thought you should know who you are working with.
on 6 February 2004 : 20:39, James sez:
There's something amusing about the picture of a technological avant-gardist like yourself sharing wisdom with sweater-clad corporate profiteers, for money.
on 7 February 2004 : 08:32, Cowicide sez:
on 7 February 2004 : 14:58, Liz sez:
The only chance any of us have at turning these corporations around, is to get involved one way or another. Sure boycotting is one option, and maybe the fact that they are listening to a "Justin Hall" is a sign that some consumer pressure is working.
on 9 February 2004 : 14:44, Will Kreth sez:
Check this out - Qwest Kills Utopia in Utah:
Bill's approval foils UTOPIA
February 7, 2004 Saturday
Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
Supporters of a government-backed, high-speed data network suffered a defeat Friday as a Senate committee approved a bill many say telecommunications firms backed to prevent the system's construction.
Several city mayors appeared at the Capitol to support the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, a $540 million fiber-optic network that promises to offer data speeds 10 times faster than current broadband services. But telecommunications companies argued that government has no business in their business.
SB66, sponsored by Sen. Bill Hickman (R-St. George), would prohibit the use of tax revenue or city general funds to go toward telecommunications networks. The bill would allow such projects to be funded only through a revenue-stream bond, in which the bond debt is guaranteed through projected income. Such bonds would not only come with higher interest rates, but would require a vote of the public, as opposed to a city council vote as drawn up in UTOPIA's plan.
Mayors have accused broadband companies, such as Qwest and Comcast, of dragging their feet in establishing high-speed Internet service throughout Utah.
Layton Mayor Jerry Stevenson said cities like his are in "drastic need" of broadband service, not just for residents, but for budding businesses. Stevenson, who himself owns a small business, said he watched as Qwest brought in DSL service about 100 yards from his office. "I waited 2 1/2 years for Qwest's promise for DSL," which never happened, Stevenson said.
Mayors from Provo, Taylorsville and West Valley also expressed opposition.
Representatives of Qwest and Comcast argued it would be unfair for tax dollars to be used to build a network that would compete against them.
Jerry Fenn, Utah president of Qwest Communications, pointed out that Qwest paid the state $10.4 million in sales tax and another $11.3 million in other local taxes. Fenn argued that money should not be used to put his company out of business.
The Senate Transportation and Public Utilities and Technology Standing Committee sent the bill to the Senate with a favorable recommendation. Committee Chairman Sen. Sheldon Killpack (R-Syracuse) did express concern that because of the technical nature of the issue, state senators may become confused with high-tech terminology.
on 11 February 2004 : 22:17, Dude sez: