If they don’t like something, they say change the law. If we don’t like something, they say well, you have to pay more for better service. Really AT&T?
Att is one of/ if not the biggest beneficiary from these laws.
For a party that claims to be about small government and states rights the conservatives certainly seem to have a moral relativism about enforcing regulation where their big money donors are concerned.
Yup. I would expect nothing other than disinformation and propaganda from a company trying to enforce and secure the oligopoly.
EDIT: Also, it's really easy to navigate 50 different rules. Find the one that is the most restrictive in what it protects and make that your policy. ;)
> Find the one that is the most restrictive in what it protects and make that your policy. ;)
Pretty much. As an example, see how car manufacturers follow California's emission standards nationwide, because it's easier to just do it for every car than to make compliant cars just for California.
If they don’t like something, they say change the law. If we don’t like something, they say well, you have to pay more for better service. Really AT&T?
Of course he would say this.
Att is one of/ if not the biggest beneficiary from these laws.
For a party that claims to be about small government and states rights the conservatives certainly seem to have a moral relativism about enforcing regulation where their big money donors are concerned.
Yup. I would expect nothing other than disinformation and propaganda from a company trying to enforce and secure the oligopoly.
EDIT: Also, it's really easy to navigate 50 different rules. Find the one that is the most restrictive in what it protects and make that your policy. ;)
> Find the one that is the most restrictive in what it protects and make that your policy. ;)
Pretty much. As an example, see how car manufacturers follow California's emission standards nationwide, because it's easier to just do it for every car than to make compliant cars just for California.