dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-07-17 15:32:39: As noted yesterday, incumbent ISPs have paid convinced Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn to rush to the defense of awful, protectionist broadband bills these companies have been writing and getting passed for much of the last decade. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


batman

@50.182.54.x

Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors

Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states. Why should they want to fund a competitor thru their own taxes. They have the same rights as any taxpayer - to lobby politicians to see things their way. And unless lobbying laws and election laws are changed to stop contributions to political candidates, they have to play by the laws as they exist.


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

1 recommendation

said by batman :

Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states.

Why stop there? There are plenty of things our taxes are used to fund that many people will disagree with. There are times I wish I had a choice, like with United Way, where I can decide how my "contribution" is used.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.


bmccoy

join:2013-03-18
Port Orchard, WA
Reviews:
·Wave Broadband
·CenturyLink

2 recommendations

Comcast

»www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.ph···exType=s

Comcast & the NCTA spent more on lobbying than the Koch Brothers, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, GE, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Exxon, Pfizer, and dozens of other nasty corporations just to help you, the consumer! Thanks, Comcast!

/sarcasm

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to batman

Re: Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors

First off, they could pull out of the state and stop paying taxes there now couldnt they? I would also be willing to bet that they are receiving some "incentives" in the way of taxes as well so they can leave those at the door when they leave.

Second, regardless of how they feel, if the community wants it and they vote for it. Then the community provides it. It is their money and their desire which trumps any businesses' desires. If they don't like that, then see point #1.

Lastly, if they were doing such a bang up job there, why would communities want/need to build a competitor? Certainly if they were providing a great service for a great price then there wouldn't even be anyone in the community talking about this. Clearly they are not so again, see point #1 and follow that up with point #2.

Brim77

join:2012-03-16
Lansing, MI
Reviews:
·Spartan-net

1 recommendation

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.

Corporations are made to make a profit. The American Government is to serve the people. When the free market refuses to provide what customers want, then the government SHOULD step in with a solution. Flood insurance is an excellent example.

Marsha Blackburn is a yearly candidate for Most Corrupt Congressman, an overpaid industry shill and an embarrassment for our political system. She champions the US telecom industry while former countries of the USSR go speeding by us in worldwide broadband. This lady is not to be taken seriously.

She treats taxpayers as toddlers and Mama Blackburn knows what's best for us. If she doesn't watch us closely, we might do something silly like play with matches near gasoline! Or vote to create our own ISP since the free market she champions REFUSES to provide it at a REASONABLE price. The horror!

I find WAY too much satisfaction in watching big telecom squirm at the thought of having REAL competition. And the most ironic part? Their competitors would be taxpayers. The same taxpayers that they have been screwing for DECADES.


batman

@50.182.54.x
reply to n2jtx

Re: Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors

said by n2jtx:

said by batman :

Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states.

Why stop there? There are plenty of things our taxes are used to fund that many people will disagree with. There are times I wish I had a choice, like with United Way, where I can decide how my "contribution" is used.

One very big difference. Stop paying taxes because you don't like how they are spending it - they can lock you up; take your assets. Don't like Comcast service - drop the service.

kaila

join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
reply to batman
If communities were spending money to bring brawndo (idiocracy reference) to my tap you'd have more of a point. Communities suffer when they lack viable broadband. Like it or not, the internet is a necessity, and with no private interest or options, what are communities supposed to do?

Just like I don't want Nestle serving up what comes out of my tap, I don't think it's a waste for communities to build their own, when no good options exist.


keithps
Premium
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN
Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
reply to batman
Yea, it's not like you need internet to do anything in the world today. Also, Comcast has no issue taking handouts and subsidies from the government, to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars a year.
--
RIP Dad (10-28-1955 to 4-10-2010)

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to batman
Well being there is pretty much no competition your "drop the service" suggestion is a false choice. I guess your next suggestion would be to move and the next one after that would be to start your own ISP.

The community didn't like Comcast service, so the community decided to do something about it. If Comcast doesnt like it, then they should stop pushing their user's to want to do such a thing.

In addition, being you are hiding and posting anonymously with a Comcast address, you are more than likely an employee thus your words mean nothing. Surely if you were just a consumer you would want them to have this or any competition so that they stay on their toes and keep improving your service.

outatyme

join:2006-10-05
Tallahassee, FL

chump change?

It's a shame to see that 'regulators' can be bought for the chump change price of $60,000 - to you and me that's alot! - to these people that's chump change!


batman

@50.182.54.x
reply to Skippy25

Re: Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors

said by Skippy25:

In addition, being you are hiding and posting anonymously with a Comcast address, you are more than likely an employee thus your words mean nothing.

Not an employee; no relatives are employees; no friends are employees. But I am a customer. But more importantly, I believe in the capitalist system, and I think government should be MUCH smaller and not continually getting larger and larger as they are already doing.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to keithps
said by keithps:

Comcast has no issue taking handouts and subsidies from the government, to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars a year.

Can you please provide documentation/proof of this claim?

I don't believe Comcast receives ANY gov't handouts or subsides.
Quite to the contrary, the pay out millions, possibly billions of dollars in taxes, franchise fees, RoW and pole attachment fees, to local, and state gov'ts.

It is my understanding that EPB (your ISP I believe?) owes it's existence to and is tied to the public coffers and taxpayers credit worthiness so perhaps you were confused.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to batman
I believe that a capitalist system has failed when you have a monopoly situation as we do here. You can praise and bow down to the all mighty dollar all you want but that doesnt change anything.

I also believe that when the people of said government speak, that government is to provide for them. The people have spoke thus the government needs to provide.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Brim77

Re: Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.

Though I agree with your principle, I strongly disagree with flood insurance as a good example. If you are stupid enough to build in a flood zone, then you should suffer the consequences of your stupidity.


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt

Re: Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors

Comcast, effective tax Rate over the last year: .4% Quandl(That's right, less than 1%). You're telling me they aren't getting MASSIVE subsidies and handouts? Guess what, you're WRONG. So WRONG on so many levels, it's scary. Sure, their INCOME tax rate is closer to 20%, BUT, with subsidies and government handouts, it's EFFECTIVELY less than 1%
--
The best way to defeat religion it to ignore it. Look at Ra/Thor/Zeus, they all thought they were forever.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

why would communities want/need to build a competitor?

Do communities really WANT to pay the price of overbuilding functional private systems?

I know you do, and some other, but in many situations if TAXPAYERS are given the entire TRUE cost of completing a competive (OR better) system then an existing cable or other HSI network, and the TRUE risks incurred (iProvo and many others) you probably wouldn't see a thumbs up vote.

Not that I support a total ban, but requiring public entities to do a full transparent and complete due diligence process BEFORE commiting to a USF like indenturing of public funds and bonding authority for an unknown benefit.

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to Skippy25
I have no problem with a co-op but not paid for by taxes of people that do not take the service.

I would support a government dark fiber network if it was region or at least covered an entire county. The customers would contact content providers and ISPs for internet they would lease the dark fiber and do the hookup. With that type of arrangement the network would be a utility that only provided transport but no content and be at arms length from the customer.

The utility fiber network if the content providers buy into it would give much more competition then a muni like the cable companies that gives you one choice.

Cal

join:2014-04-23
Asbestos, QC
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1 recommendation

reply to batman
said by batman :

said by n2jtx:

said by batman :

Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states.

Why stop there? There are plenty of things our taxes are used to fund that many people will disagree with. There are times I wish I had a choice, like with United Way, where I can decide how my "contribution" is used.

One very big difference. Stop paying taxes because you don't like how they are spending it - they can lock you up; take your assets. Don't like Comcast service - drop the service.

This analogy is flawed if we can get locked up and our assets seized for not paying our taxes why should comcast not get locked up for not paying their taxes? Doesn't matter if it is because they do not want taxpayer funded competition.

The analogy is about comcast as a company having "rights" like an individual. If we as individuals have no say in how our taxes are used neither should comcast.

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
reply to outatyme

Re: chump change?

The problem is the voter keep voting for her and other like her. ALEC hands them the pre-written bills and they don't even read what they are voting for. The voters keep sending them back.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to batman

Re: Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors

Neither do the taxpayers.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to karlmarx
Any tax breaks were granted by the Gov't generally with the intent of steering a corporation towards public goal A, B, C, (energy efficiency, hiring of "disadvantaged" workers, relocation, and a zillion other well meaning but sometimes over-reaching policy goals) if you don't like tax breaks tell your representatives ASAP.
I'm all for a very flat tax system with ONLY a bottom end MINIMAL per person deduction. and while very low/ near zero corporate rates are the international standard, as long as US corporations (and those operating here) choose to act like people that can pay people like rates on US earnings.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Skippy25

Re: Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.

said by Skippy25:

If you are stupid enough to RE-build in a flood zone, then you should suffer the consequences of your stupidity.

Sort of like cages at the zoo, not really to keep the animals in, more to keep stupid people out.
Some you just can't save.

Brim77

join:2012-03-16
Lansing, MI
Reviews:
·Spartan-net
reply to Skippy25
Everyone lives in a flood zone. Everyone =/= stupid.

»www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pa···ones.jsp
»www.fema.gov/news-release/2007/0···ood-zone

Unless you're referring to homes along the coast that get destroyed and rebuilt yearly, then I do agree with you.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to WhatNow

Re: Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors

Jesus Christ it's not paid for by taxes. The utility issued bonds for the initial capital outlay and then pays for expenses through customer revenue.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to batman
Of course they want to continue to have a monopoly or a near-monopoly. That doesn't make it right. Just another sign of a totally broken political system that can be so easily bribed to make incredibly stupid legislation.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

said by Skippy25:

why would communities want/need to build a competitor?

Do communities really WANT to pay the price of overbuilding functional private systems?

I know you do, and some other, but in many situations if TAXPAYERS are given the entire TRUE cost of completing a competive (OR better) system then an existing cable or other HSI network, and the TRUE risks incurred (iProvo and many others) you probably wouldn't see a thumbs up vote.

Not that I support a total ban, but requiring public entities to do a full transparent and complete due diligence process BEFORE commiting to a USF like indenturing of public funds and bonding authority for an unknown benefit.

You're trying to claim you know better than the communities that majority voted for these systems to be built. That they're just ignorant and stupid and don't know what they're getting into. They're just being fooled... By who? How patronizing and condescending can you possibly be? Concern troll much?


batman

@50.182.54.x
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

I also believe that when the people of said government speak, that government is to provide for them. The people have spoke thus the government needs to provide.

And that attitude is EXACTLY why this country is in the mess it is in today.

Quote:A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

Raides

join:2004-09-27

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt
I believe people have been complaining for a while now that the ridiculous tax breaks companies get are ridiculous. Yet, no representative seems to care what the people they're "officially" listening to are saying.

Many companies, mostly the big, international ones, are using well-known tax tricks, accepting millions in subsidies (Universal Service Fund, anyone?), abusing regulations (Common Carrier when it suits them, anyone?) to get untold amounts of money from the government.

You know this. The politicians and people running the companies know this. Don't tell me you don't and do not tell me it's not true because you would be flat out lying and I would call you a shill.

Raides

join:2004-09-27

1 recommendation

reply to batman
And this is exactly what's happening. The big companies have discovered that if they dump enough money, they can own government. Regulatory capture. When you make billions in profit, $30,000 to buy off a few people is couch change. They are writing laws that benefit them, buying policy and watching their profits grow, while returning none of that money back into the economy. Comcast's ass gets fatter by the minute.

You can't deny the growing unrest with the wealth gap in the United States.


atcotr

@65.60.144.x
reply to outatyme

Re: chump change?

That's not where the real money is. Often they get a cushy job with a title of "senior VP for governmental affairs," a seat on a board of directors, or become a lobbyist.