4 Dec
2008
4 Dec
'08
10:01 a.m.
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@gmail.com> said:
I deliberated for a while on whether to send this, or not, but I figure it might be of interest to this community:
One thing doesn't make sense in that article: it talks about POTS being subsidized by other services, and people cutting POTS lines. Wouldn't that be _good_ for the companies and their other services? The way the article describes things, fewer POTS lines = smaller subsidies taken from other services = better profits for other services and the company.
the lines are still there and still require maintenance so they loose money on it.