 | | It is what it is. And until someone stops large telcos from fattening the wallets of politicians nothing will change. This is America, where capitalism works if you are large enough and have the most money. | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: It is what it is. Its the golden rule.
Those that have the gold make the rules (or have lobbiests influence politicians on their behalf).
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | Re: It is what it is. Of if you are too big to failed. So you just need to failed to get even bigger. Just look at the failed banks such as Citi. | |
|
| | | exactly.greedbag large companies doing whatever they can to milk us of our money and to stop any competition.
and they do line the pockets of politicians | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
1 edit | A small error quote:
However, we've documented countless times how those same ISPs often then pass laws
ISP's do not pass laws. They may write them or influence them but it is ultimately their payoff's to politicians that get them passed. They themselves cannot pass and sign a bill into law.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | Re: A small error Yes. They only write them, lobby to have them passed, pay the people who pass them, then make up the fake science explaining how well they worked. An important distinction I suppose. | |
|
| | | You're arguing semantics. The point is, they have to power and influence to get laws written exactly the way they want. | |
|
| | | True, but when a politician takes an ISP's pre-written wording, introduces it as a bill, and gets it passed as is, the ISP might as well have written the law themselves. It'd be more efficient and would involve less bribery lobbying money spent.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
|  Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | That is like saying an ISP who uses an independent contractor to do an install didn't do the install.
These politicians are nothing more than independent contractors doing the bidding of these corporations. | |
|
|
|  NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: Subdivision wired for broadband but ISP's won't connect. To an extent, this makes sense. Why should an ISP provide service to an area if they feel it's not profitable for them to do so? Would you also expect Starbucks to open a coffee shop next door to you simply because you want it, and ignore the ROI of doing so? ISPs are businesses after all, and as such have a responsibility to their owners/shareholders of engaging in profitable activity. Nobody has a right to broadband.
That being said, I do not support the status quo of little to no government oversight, even less competition, and anti-consumer practices engaged in by the big guys (like Time Warner, Comcast, etc.). As long as the broadband service sector remains segmented to the extent that it offers an oligopolistic (at best) choice to consumers, some regulation is warranted-- especially when some ISPs engage in anticompetitive activities solely designed to allow them to to prevent any entry into their marketplace.
It should be the function of government to facilitate and foster the growth of competition in the marketplace to the greatest extent feasible. This isn't happening in the vast majority of places when it comes to broadband.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| | | | Re: Subdivision wired for broadband but ISP's won't connect. Nobody has a right to broadband...yet! We just need some strong willed politicians to make broadband a right just like in the European countries. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| said by NOVA_Guy:To an extent, this makes sense. Why should an ISP provide service to an area if they feel it's not profitable for them to do so? Would you also expect Starbucks to open a coffee shop next door to you simply because you want it, and ignore the ROI of doing so? ISPs are businesses after all, and as such have a responsibility to their owners/shareholders of engaging in profitable activity. Nobody has a right to broadband. That being said, I do not support the status quo of little to no government oversight, even less competition, and anti-consumer practices engaged in by the big guys (like Time Warner, Comcast, etc.). As long as the broadband service sector remains segmented to the extent that it offers an oligopolistic (at best) choice to consumers, some regulation is warranted-- especially when some ISPs engage in anticompetitive activities solely designed to allow them to to prevent any entry into their marketplace. It should be the function of government to facilitate and foster the growth of competition in the marketplace to the greatest extent feasible. This isn't happening in the vast majority of places when it comes to broadband. WHY?
How about because they've been given a de facto monopoly by the FCC? How about because they take money from the telecom slush fund made for just these reasons?
How come because they claim to serve these areas and are lying about it? | |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Sad but true America should have 100 mbps symmetrical network by now if the telco's spent the money on their networks and not advertising, lobbying and leer jets. | |
|
| | End bribery and lobbying by large corporations if the company has more then 100 employees the max you can ever contribute to one person in a life time would be say a maximum of 100$
99 or less the max woudl be 1000 over a life time | |
|
| NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: End bribery and lobbying by large corporations Why not simply disallow special interest groups, companies, corporations, lobbying groups, think tanks, nonprofits, and anything else that isn't an individual like you and I from contributing even one red cent to our elected and appointed officials?
Then set the maximum amount of money that any individual can give to an elected official very low, essentially what your limits are. This creates a situation that allows significantly more people (middle class folks) to contribute the same amount that affluent folks can, which somewhat levels the playing field when it comes to representation.
When it comes to our elected officials, things should be kept simple. Low limits on campaign contributions, and no "gifts", junkets, meals, or anything of value to be provided to them after their election. Remove the money, and you remove the greed. Remove the greed, and we'll finally start electing folks into office who represent us and our wishes-- not some crazy ideas and schemes of those who think the middle class should pay for those who are too lazy to work.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| | | | Re: End bribery and lobbying by large corporations No matter what the rules are "special interest groups, companies, corporations, lobbying groups, think tanks, nonprofits, and anything else" will show up to figure out how to break them. There is no way to win. There are only degrees of losing. | |
|
| | | | To further that.. why don't we take ALL funds as you outlined and put them into a US GOVERNMENT FUND that all government agencies/parties have the same access to.
No giving to X senator's campaign or party. Just a simple donation to the us government to help make it a better institution to represent it's people. Then any person of any party (or no affiliation at all) that can obtain X signatures to be put on a ballet can also gain access to the same amount of funds (personal contributions must go to general fund) as any other candidate. Then maybe the have nots can actually get representation by people other than the haves. (I use the word representation very loosely there.) | |
|
| | | | | Re: End bribery and lobbying by large corporations said by Skippy25:To further that.. why don't we take ALL funds as you outlined and put them into a US GOVERNMENT FUND that all government agencies/parties have the same access to. That idea already exists. Ever see that checkoff on your income tax form every year where you can designate $1 for elections. It doesn't work because the constitution(affirmed by SC) allows candidates to spend their own money to get elected. If you then prohibit everyone else from getting contributions, only the very rich can win elections.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | | | Re: End bribery and lobbying by large corporations Maybe you misread my statement.
My proposal helps prevent the rich from being the only ones elected.
I am not saying it is legal or not. If the constitution says it is legal now, then the constitution can be amended or laws enacted to say it can't be, along with placing term limits on representatives of both the house and senate to eliminate these life long bed buddies of the corporations. The single biggest issue is that you have those in control having to vote to reduce their control. Which we all know will never happen. Therefore I believe a previous poster hit the nail on the head when it said it is going to take an up raising to fix it.
We have tore apart the underlying meaning of this country and the founding fathers idea of the nation and government by "adapting". Now the structure of the government needs to be adapted to account for the sheer greed, power hungry, corruption, and corporate control. | |
|
| | | said by chronoss2009:if the company has more then 100 employees the max you can ever contribute to one person in a life time would be say a maximum of 100$ 99 or less the max woudl be 1000 over a life time And NOTHING would change. Because those who own the corporations will still control things and those wanting payoffs will find another way to get it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: End bribery and lobbying by large corporations said by fAcEtIOUs:said by chronoss2009:if the company has more then 100 employees the max you can ever contribute to one person in a life time would be say a maximum of 100$ 99 or less the max woudl be 1000 over a life time And NOTHING would change. Because those who own the corporations will still control things and those wanting payoffs will find another way to get it. Wait wait, I can do this too!
Then EVERYTHING would change. Because those who own the corporations won`t be able to control politicians and those wanting payoffs won`t be able to get it. | |
|
| |
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
2 edits | Best government corporations can buy They're all corrupt whores. Only when contributions are restricted to registered voters from that particular district the whore represents (no corporations, no special interests, no unions, only local individuals on an individual basis and with moderate limits, eg $1K) will this legalized bribery end. | |
|
|  moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA | Re: Best government corporations can buy exactly | |
|
|  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by Z80A:They're all corrupt whores. Only when contributions are restricted to registered voters from that particular district the whore represents (no corporations, no special interests, no unions, only local individuals on an individual basis and with moderate limits, eg $1K) will this legalized bribery end. Only for a short while until someone figures out how to game the system. Your example can already be gamed by exactly the same way Microsoft was trying to game the system for office format standards over in Europe.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
|
moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA | to Karl thanks Karl for shining light on this,and posting these topics,atleast that will help stop this kind of corruption......and i hate to see others being denied the internet so one co. can put make more money/avoid competition. | |
|
| Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
1 edit | Re: to Karl Stop it? This won't even be a dime face up on the highway. The corruption runs deeper and thicker than ever and unfortunately for all of us, the corrupt make the rules for themselves. | |
|
| | | | Re: to Karl said by Z80A:Stop it? This won't even be a dime face up on the highway. The corruption runs deeper and thicker than ever and unfortunately for all of us, the corrupt make the rules for themselves. The Golden Rule has existed for all known civilization. Those with the money rule. And that applied even in Communist countries. All that changes is that OCCASIONALLY the ones with the money switch hands - with some losing and others taking their place.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | | Re: to Karl Yes, but remember the golden rule has consequences. Ancient Egypt, Rome, France, etc. The fundamental problem the US has today, is that the 85% of the wealth lies in the hands of 5% of the population. That's not sustainable. 98% of the political power lies in the hands of the corporation. Again, no sustainable. I for one, will celebrate the day we take away the rights of 'personhood' from corporations, and yes, that day is coming. The US has 2 possible outcomes. #1. We stabilize the wealth distribution, rebuilding the middle class, or #2. We self implode with a bloody revolution. In both cases, the trend of more and more wealth and power being consolidated into the hands of the corrupt fat cats cannot continue for much longer.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|
| | | |
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| Re: to Karl Wealth redistribution never works in the end. If the government keeps raising the responsibility of the provider (aka. the corporation and business owners) then the provider will stop providing at a higher level or reduce it's rate of providing. A bloody revolution would REALLY mess things up. It's usually a bad idea to kill those who provides the jobs. I'm not saying what telcos are doing here is right but I find it amusing that people think that biting the hand that feeds them will make things better. Look at what Hugo Chavez is doing to his currency and economy by demonizing the rich and nationalizing everything. The rich were that backbone of the economy. Now, I'm not rich but I know where my job comes from and I am not going to sit back and allow somebody else to poison the well that my family & I drink out of. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Re: to Karl So you're just going to sit and be herded and shaved like a good little sheep until the day you die? It's not a bad idea to remove 'those who provide the jobs' if those who provide the jobs are corrupt and doing more harm than good. The jobs will get better if the greed and corruption is removed.
When you have an abscessed tooth, the dentist cuts out the infection so that the rest of the tissue may heal. When you have a cancerous tumor, the tumor is removed or destroyed so that the remainder of the body may live.
The corporate big-wigs, board members, and major shareholders are the tumors. They need to be excised. THEY are poisoning your well and then tricking you into believing that someone else is responsible.
Wake up, Clownzilla.
--
»/im/82288374/5591.png | |
|
| | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: to Karl Oh goodie, another thread derailed into yet another lame pseudo-intellectual socialist v. capitalist F-fest! | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Re: to Karl The problem is, I don't like capitalism OR socialism. Extremes of any kind need to be removed. Moderation is necessary. Believe it or not, there is a middle ground, but everyone is so stuck in the 'us vs. them' mentality that they don't try to find it.
--
»/im/82288374/5591.png | |
|
| | | | | | | said by Clownzilla77 :
Wealth redistribution never works in the end. If the government keeps raising the responsibility of the provider (aka. the corporation and business owners) then the provider will stop providing at a higher level or reduce it's rate of providing. A bloody revolution would REALLY mess things up. It's usually a bad idea to kill those who provides the jobs. I'm not saying what telcos are doing here is right but I find it amusing that people think that biting the hand that feeds them will make things better. Look at what Hugo Chavez is doing to his currency and economy by demonizing the rich and nationalizing everything. The rich were that backbone of the economy. Now, I'm not rich but I know where my job comes from and I am not going to sit back and allow somebody else to poison the well that my family & I drink out of.
That`s not true at all. Every major industrialized country has some degree of wealth redistribution. When that redistribution is done effectively, to empower those less fortunate, like in the Scandinavian countries, it improves the standard of living for everyone.
Your comment about Hugo Chavez is a non sequitor. You clearly have no idea what you`re talking about. | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
1 edit | Paging Mignon Clyburn - You're wanted in the OR.. Will our lovely Mignon Clyburn send CenturyLink a letter inquiring about their actions? Or is she too busy trying to "impress" us with the Verizon issue? | |
|
| | | Re: Paging Mignon Clyburn - You're wanted in the OR.. said by Rob:Will our lovely Mignon Clyburn send CenturyLink a letter inquiring about their actions? Or is she too busy trying to "impress" us with the Verizon issue? She owes her position to nepotism and all the lobbying dollars dear daddy sucked down in congress. Why would she do anything? | |
|
 Duramax08A Challenger AppearsPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | lobbying mmmmm, money. | |
|
| | Corporate america sucks... Why is it not illegal to lobby? | |
|
|  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Corporate america sucks... i believe the 14th amendment is the problem. i could be wrong. its the one that gives corporations the rights of the citizen, but none of the responsiblities.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | | Re: Corporate america sucks... said by FBGuy:i believe the 14th amendment is the problem. i could be wrong. its the one that gives corporations the rights of the citizen, but none of the responsiblities. And if corporate lobbying was ended, then those who own the companies will lobby on their own dime. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Corporate america sucks... said by fAcEtIOUs:said by FBGuy:i believe the 14th amendment is the problem. i could be wrong. its the one that gives corporations the rights of the citizen, but none of the responsiblities. And if corporate lobbying was ended, then those who own the companies will lobby on their own dime. That`s ok. We can always limit their contributions later on down the line.
But in the meantime, we can prevent the rich from accessing the endless pools of money that giant corporations have access to.
I love it when you comment actually. You exist to lie and spread false information. It`s so easy to refute your comments. | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | Re: Corporate america sucks... said by sonicmerlin :
That`s ok. We can always limit their contributions later on down the line.
Hammering away at campaign contributions always seemed myopic to me. Sure, it's a huge part of the corruption process. But if you have a ton of money there are at least three other things you will spend it on to get your interests into legislation:
•Access. Always have your wormtongue whispering in legislators' ear...at wine tastings, sporting events, private jets, in their sleep. You can also afford to be friendly with their staffers.
•Writing law. You can afford a team of lawyers who literally write the legislation. Because you have Access, whatever your minion wrote gets submitted directly to the legislature.
•Monitoring. You can afford to cultivate a network through which you'll learn of anything contrary to your interests whether it's the whisperings of a competitor's wormtongue or a social or consumer advocate that accidentally gained access to your legislator(s).
I guess the best part is that all the money you're spending you collected from the consumers you're trying to abuse. | |
|
fpilot
join:2007-02-24
Camino, CA | Call it what it is: Anti competitive market conduct "However, we've documented countless times how those same ISPs often then lobby to have laws passed or engage in sleazy activities to prevent those towns and cities -- or anyone else -- from wiring those un-served regions. ISPs get their cake and eat it too -- saving money on expansion, while avoiding a future competitor should the local incumbent someday change their mind and decide to service that market. It shouldn't work that way -- but it does, and all too often."
You're right. Competitive markets aren't supposed to work that way. What you are describing is anti-competitive market conduct warranting strong regulatory/legal action. Incumbent service areas are not exclusive proprietary franchises. | |
|
|
| | | Re: Lobbying Laws & How they could be All these laws do is shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. You think lobbying isn't going on in Wisconsin and that special interests aren't still controlling the agenda in the legislature. Then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn. | |
|
| |  ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada | Re: Lobbying Laws & How they could be How much? I'm in the market for bridges and swampland... | |
|
| | | | said by fAcEtIOUs:All these laws do is shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. You think lobbying isn't going on in Wisconsin and that special interests aren't still controlling the agenda in the legislature. Then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn. Every single one of your comments is an attempt to smackdown a suggestion. Besides the fact that every one of your comments is false, do you have your own suggestions? | |
|
|
 CAO
@pacbell.net | Who's at fault here, again? This factual error should be corrected: It's not "ISPs", but ILECs and CLECs who are opposing local initiatives.
There are many local ISPs who happily coexist with their peers in neighboring territories. It's the Telcos (as the story text makes clear) who are using their financial muscle to prevent local businesses from prospering by buying the "backhaul" at wholesale rates. | |
|
 koma3504AdvocatePremium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | Free enterprise However, we've documented countless times how those same ISPs often then lobby to have laws passed or engage in sleazy activities to prevent those towns and cities -- or anyone else -- from wiring those un-served regions. ISPs get their cake and eat it too -- saving money on expansion, while avoiding a future competitor should the local incumbent someday change their mind and decide to service that market. It shouldn't work that way -- but it does, and all too often.
Why would this not be agiast the law and free enterprise.
Fuck that either wire it up or let some one else that is willing to.
--
† Koma †
If YOu Don't Think It's Possable!! It's Acually A Reality!!The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay!!
Ya Don't Know The signal Till Ya Ride It!!
Voice Break's There's Trouble!!!! | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| More Nonsense Telcos aren't preventing "anyone else". They're preventing municipalities from illegally competing in their franchise.
Overbuilders and cable companies and utility coops are still viable means to provide broadband if they subscriber base wants to pay for it. But you can't have the city has the primary shareholder or financier if you expect the entity to pass legal scrutiny.
It seems a common theme on this forum to look to deny the profit motive and at the same time tax it and give away what you're unwilling to pay for. What is missed is that you don't get investors to risk their capital, to finance these massive projects, without the illusion of profit, and a projected rate of 20%. And without such profits, there isn't anything to tax without destruction. | |
|
| | We need Term Limits. Limit them to 2 terms max. | |
|
| |  treason and corruption
| |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| There ought to be a LAW.. Infact, there is.. however.. one can argue that the merged companies of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest have no incombent rights (though I'd cut qwest some slack where fiber IS deployed) to last mile deployments extended when it comes to interfering with another companies' right to build a network. If the local municipality approves, then it's green lighted. The spirit of the intent of the law was to prevent a hundred different providers from making a circus maze of wiring throughtout major cities.. but that's not where the problem lies.. the problem is there isn't ENOUGH build everywhere else.. and for that part, the incumbency MONOPOLY rights must be made EXEMPT in those geographies and interpreted to be expired because these laws existed under former operating companies. The NEW companies should have to apply for each and every rural zone they want to build in and then deal with the consequences of being denied a monopoly when they don't build a network. Time for rural zones to have a level playing field again. One size does not fit all with last mile monoplies. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I am still amazed that just in general we allow companies to force laws upon us that make it nearly impossible for a local/regional company to supply internet to those in that area that want it
I know that is general but it just still shocks me.
In this free country, a company starts up and decides to offer people something they want and can't get....and another is telling them no they can't....for no reason other than being afraid of that company offering a better service.
Wow | |
|
|
|
·
Subdivision wired for broadband but ISP's won't connect.
I looked at property in a subdivision in Astatula, Florida about a year ago. It appeared that the subdivision was already wired for cable and telephone service. I contacted Embarq and Florida Cable to find out why the existing houses in the neighborhood did not have Cable or DSL service available, even though the neighborhood was already wired for same. It appears that there was a disagreement with the developer regarding payment for hooking up of Cable. Embarq stated that they did not have a DSLAM close enough to provide DSL service and did not intend to install one until there were more potential DSL Subscribers. The Florida Cable's fiber passed a location prepared for the installation of a node. Florida Cable just did not install it. Telephone and coaxial cable was already buried throughout the subdivision. Voice Telecommunications service was available. Both companies took the position that the developer did not pay for the installation and there were not enough customers to justify delivering broadband to the subdivision. It appears that even if a subdivision is wired for broadband the ISP's will not install service unless it is profitable. 
