dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2006-08-22 13:19:45: Editorial: The "American Consumer Institute" yesterday issued a press release proclaiming that the call for net-neutrality regulation was coming from the "largest and most profitable Internet firms. ..


PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1

Good!

People deserved to be fleeced if they choose to continue ignoring this.
--
Mass Transit Sucks!

P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
way way out
Reviews:
·Comcast

Google alone against telecom's?

Funny cause after Google, who even comes close as a "web-centric companies with equal or superior market and financial power." vs the telecom's?

can't count microsoft or intel...none of the big tech companies even make 5% of their $$ on the web....
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob.

proefain
Premium
join:2000-05-08
Crofton, MD

Re: Good!

said by press release :


* Net Newcomers Google (50.1%), Yahoo (27.1%), and Amazon (25.9%) enjoy monopoly-like returns on invested capital compared to AT&T (8.5%) and Verizon (8.7%).
I wonder where they got their figures from and why Comcast is not listed. Also Verizon is still making money even with them spending all that $$$ of fiber.

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3

1 recommendation

Conflict of interest? Maybe...

So this guy doesn't exactly have a background that lends credibility to his position, but holding against him the fact that he campaigns against government regulation of commerce is far from a negative. One need not look any further than New York City Rent Control policies of mere decades ago to see the pooch-screwing that is possible when government meddles in the free market.

The notion lately that telecom companies must sign franchise agreements *REQUIRING* them to build out is simply outlandish. We all make trade-offs when we choose to settle in certain parts of the country. If I choose to live in East Jesus, USA, then I should be cognizant of the notion that I may not be able to get high-speed data access.

There's also the opportunity here for small entrepreneurs to capitalize on a moderate risk investment. If the demand truly exists in rural areas, then savvy business persons can do business in those niche markets far more efficiently than Mama Bell and her Timely sibling could ever dream of. Encourage small business to lease lines from the major carriers and resell to rural customers. If rural customers pickup the service, then excellent! If they don't, then the market has spoken.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

2 edits

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

quote:
So this guy doesn't exactly have a background that lends credibility to his position, but holding against him the fact that he campaigns against government regulation of commerce is far from a negative.
It's not the campaigning against regulation that's a problem, it's doing it under the guise of consumer advocacy. Lazy press picks this stuff up as independent and objective research, when it's really political PR.

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
So this guy doesn't exactly have a background that lends credibility to his position, but holding against him the fact that he campaigns against government regulation of commerce is far from a negative.
It's not the campaigning against regulation that's a problem, it's the pretense that it is being done under the guise of consumer advocacy.
No, you assume that it's being done under some guise. I'll grant you that you're probably right and this guy is likely just a sleazeball, but I'm not ready to assassinate his entire argument simply based on his industry affiliation.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

I don't assasinate the argument. I assasinate the pretense of consumer advocacy. And it's no assumption. I spent half of yesterday digging into the site and Pociask, and can promise you they're as much consumer advocates as you are yodeler.

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3

2 edits

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

Oh forget it, I misread that.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
So this guy doesn't exactly have a background that lends credibility to his position, but holding against him the fact that he campaigns against government regulation of commerce is far from a negative.
It's not the campaigning against regulation that's a problem, it's doing it under the guise of consumer advocacy. Lazy press picks this stuff up as independent and objective research, when it's really political PR.
A business environment without onerous government regulation is GOOD for the consumer. So, in effect, it is consumer advocacy.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

2 edits

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

quote:
A business environment without onerous government regulation is GOOD for the consumer. So, in effect, it is consumer advocacy.
Nice try.

However warping reality to fit your financially motivated argument does not actually change reality.
disc

join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC
said by FFH5:

A business environment without onerous government regulation is GOOD for the consumer. So, in effect, it is consumer advocacy.
[Sarcasm]
And who better to advocate for consumers than businesses, no?

Of course, the real risk is that companies will overdo it and forget about their poor stock holders. What a difficult balance they must strike.
[/Sarcasm]
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
said by FFH5:

A business environment without onerous government regulation is GOOD for the consumer. So, in effect, it is consumer advocacy.
doesn't seem to be working too good for broadband.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

You have to wait for the trickle down effect I guess?

I don't know.

The plan:

Step 1: Give corporations everything they want.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Consumer's win!

Sounds utterly fool proof to me.

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3

3 recommendations

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

said by Karl Bode:

You have to wait for the trickle down effect I guess?

I don't know.

The plan:

Step 1: Give corporations everything they want.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Consumer's win!

Sounds utterly fool proof to me.
You have this notion that de-regulating an industry is in some way "giving" corporations something. In fact, you're simply removing roadblocks to profitability. Sure, they'll do business precisely where they want, at what price they want, and that's it...

Doesn't that make perfect sense?

Corporations aren't purveyors of goodwill, they aren't charitable, and they sure as hell aren't looking out for anyone but themselves. Why should they? It's business.

If consumers would work harder to be better informed, and actually act on the disgust they find in the actions of corporate America, then corporate America would feel the penalties for their actions where it matters: their bottom line.

Uncle Sam has no business dictating where I, you, or Verizon does business.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

said by yock:

You have this notion that de-regulating an industry is in some way "giving" corporations something. In fact, you're simply removing roadblocks to profitability. Sure, they'll do business precisely where they want, at what price they want, and that's it...

Doesn't that make perfect sense?

Corporations aren't purveyors of goodwill, they aren't charitable, and they sure as hell aren't looking out for anyone but themselves. Why should they? It's business.

If consumers would work harder to be better informed, and actually act on the disgust they find in the actions of corporate America, then corporate America would feel the penalties for their actions where it matters: their bottom line.

Uncle Sam has no business dictating where I, you, or Verizon does business.
that's the most incredible thing I've ever seen anybody post on this site. You apparently have no knowledge of the history of the ILECs and legislation that has affected the telecom business.

The incumbent telcos and cablecos were government granted monopolies. The 1996 telecom bill wasn't enforced very well (at all? half-heartedly?) and competition couldn't surmount the obstacles the ILECs put in their way. The telecom industry is back to monopoly/duopoly status. In my case, monopoly status - my only choice for broadband is comcast; no dsl, no fiber.

The current environment of deregulation has allowed the incumbents to once again dictate the price of broadband and the pace of progress. Now ranked 13th? or is it 16th? I forget, but it's not very high. That's what our policies of the last 10yrs have gotten us - from #1 in broadband in the world to 13th (or 16th).

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

We've never experienced de-regulated telecom, so I don't know where you're coming from. In fact, you've demonstrated why it is so perilous for government to regulate commerce in this country. Had government-sanctioned monopolies not occurred in telecom then perhaps we would see a more diverse collection of CLECs and a more stable oligopoly of ILECs than what we have now.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA
Damn, man. The government needs to do everything.

There are reasons we're supposedly low on broadband progress (whatever that means). The main one being population density. I guess we could have a massive public works project to give the 10 people who live in Montana 100 mbs like they have in Hong Kong, but is that a good use of federal money?

Like was said before, when you choose to live somewhere, you have costs and benefits. I think, since I live in the Washington Metropolitan Area, that Montanans should subsidize my rent. How about that? Is that a wise use of the Treasury.

Also, there are reasons why most of this stuff is invented here. One being because compared to the rest of the world, we have the free-er markets. Even communist Russia had to piggyback on the free market pricing system to tell the commissars what output to produce.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
quote:
You have this notion that de-regulating an industry is in some way "giving" corporations something. In fact, you're simply removing roadblocks to profitability. Sure, they'll do business precisely where they want, at what price they want, and that's it...

Doesn't that make perfect sense?
No. It sounds like you've had your head filled with rhetoric by someone.

Deregulation absolutely gives Corporations something. The ability to slide on environmental pollution. The ability to lie in advertisements without repercussion. The ability to obscure true prices. The ability to merge without consequence with media companies, allowing undue influence on news. The ability to pass off PR as news segments.

Reasonable regulation is not poison, and total and complete deregulation is not consumer advocacy. Consumer advocacy is accountability and reasonable regulation, not some wishy washy trickle down theory disproven back in the 80's, and spun by think tanks as good for grandma.

That's nonsense.

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
You have this notion that de-regulating an industry is in some way "giving" corporations something. In fact, you're simply removing roadblocks to profitability. Sure, they'll do business precisely where they want, at what price they want, and that's it...

Doesn't that make perfect sense?
Deregulation absolutely gives Corporations something. The ability to slide on environmental pollution. The ability to lie in advertisements without repercussion. The ability to obscure true prices. The ability to merge without consequence with media companies, allowing undue influence on news. The ability to pass off PR as news segments.

Reasonable regulation is not poison, and total and complete deregulation is not consumer advocacy. Consumer advocacy is accountability and reasonable regulation, not some wishy washy trickle down theory disproven back in the 80's, and spun by think tanks as good for grandma.

That's nonsense.
As has been said time and time again, reasonable regulation is fine. the purest forms of any economic system simply do not work. Where I get upset is when I start hearing about all this stuff the government is supposed to be doing to protect us. I don't know where you're coming from, but I don't need nor want a lot of protection. I'm intent upon decisions with my money based on personal observation, simply because I'm smarter than anyone else when it comes to things that directly impact me.

If others have no problem with Verizon or are simply ignorant to their exploits then that's just tough. American consumerism is ravenous and stupid, and it isn't just big business that exploits that on a daily basis. No amount of regulation will produce a smarter consumer and no amount of regulation will correct the market for that stupidity either. Reasonable regulation comes in providing incentives for personal investment, protecting nature and ecosystems, and penalizing monopolistic business practices. Government has no business influencing price or location.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 edit

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

quote:
As has been said time and time again, reasonable regulation is fine.
That hasn't been said time and time again by these groups. They want the elimination of all regulation. They desire a government that is utterly toothless in enforcing laws on all fronts. They believe corporations should have absolute freedom to do as they see fit. They do not desire reasonable regulation, they desire no regulation in order to maximize revenue for shareholders and owners.

My point, again, pretty simply is that this is not consumer advocacy. It's on the completely opposite end of the scale from consumer advocacy. Labeling it such isn't only lying, it's insulting.

Whether you can legislate morality or cure idiocy via regulation is a different argument we probably agree upon. Cultivating competition in the telecom sector via regulation is yet another conversation.
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
said by FFH5:

A business environment without onerous government regulation is GOOD for the consumer. So, in effect, it is consumer advocacy.
Too bad the concept of "onerous government regulation" can't objectively be drawn in the sand. There is no way to factually establish when such a point is reached.

As for opposing "onerous government regulation" being "consumer advocacy," the problem is that people who typically oppose "onerous government regulation" present ideas and solutions that leave business holding all the power and consumers out in the cold. In other words, screwing one pooch to help another.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

Consumers are only powerless when they have no choices and no alternatives. Show your "power" by not buying their products, and if necessary just go without a particular good or service.

If you can't live without internet access, then the market is charging what it will bear.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus

1 recommendation

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

said by yock:

Consumers are only powerless when they have no choices and no alternatives.
No, because even with choices and alternatives, you can have market collusion between players.

Show your "power" by not buying their products, and if necessary just go without a particular good or service.
The providers wouldn't give a shit anyway if you or I walked... Their churn rates would mask the affect of people who elect to take that method and no difference would come from it.

If you can't live without internet access, then the market is charging what it will bear.
Considering how the telecom market works, to say that market forces are determining price points is to be out of touch with the telecom sector.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower

LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA
said by bmn:

Too bad the concept of "onerous government regulation" can't objectively be drawn in the sand. There is no way to factually establish when such a point is reached.
That's what political arguments like this one are for, buck.

said by bmn:

As for opposing "onerous government regulation" being "consumer advocacy," the problem is that people who typically oppose "onerous government regulation" present ideas and solutions that leave business holding all the power and consumers out in the cold. In other words, screwing one pooch to help another.
Ah yes, the eeevil bogeyman business. People get profit from serving people. Also, people are scared of things they don't understand; do I sense fear in your point of view?
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free.
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

said by LegoPower77:

said by bmn:

Too bad the concept of "onerous government regulation" can't objectively be drawn in the sand. There is no way to factually establish when such a point is reached.
That's what political arguments like this one are for, buck.
Yeah, but since politics is bullshit and political discussions are bullshit discussions, nothing of value comes from them.

said by bmn:

As for opposing "onerous government regulation" being "consumer advocacy," the problem is that people who typically oppose "onerous government regulation" present ideas and solutions that leave business holding all the power and consumers out in the cold. In other words, screwing one pooch to help another.
Ah yes, the eeevil bogeyman business. People get profit from serving people. Also, people are scared of things they don't understand; do I sense fear in your point of view?
You sense nothing... You make stuff up. I understand the conflict of interest between for profit groups offer services and those who purchase services. The interests of both parties are contradictory.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
I believe people have attempted to bring services to these areas on thier own but have met with resistance from the dominant telco and cable operators in the area.
--
Mass Transit Sucks!
djeremy

join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA
Encourage small business to lease lines from the major carriers and resell to rural customers. If rural customers pickup the service, then excellent! If they don't, then the market has spoken.
Isn't this exactly what the bells are fighting in court? The do not want to lease their lines.

»www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/192201257
plat2on1

join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

1 recommendation

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

said by djeremy:

Encourage small business to lease lines from the major carriers and resell to rural customers. If rural customers pickup the service, then excellent! If they don't, then the market has spoken.
Isn't this exactly what the bells are fighting in court? The do not want to lease their lines.

»www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/192201257
no..they want to not be forced to lease their lines at BELOW cost
djeremy

join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA

Re: Conflict of interest? Maybe...

you honestly believe that? at&t and verizon have done everything they can to wipe out the competition including merging and acquiring.

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3
said by plat2on1:

said by djeremy:

Encourage small business to lease lines from the major carriers and resell to rural customers. If rural customers pickup the service, then excellent! If they don't, then the market has spoken.
Isn't this exactly what the bells are fighting in court? The do not want to lease their lines.

»www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/192201257
no..they want to not be forced to lease their lines at BELOW cost
Indeed, telecom providers should be allowed to charge a fair price for leased lines. It must be profitable for them to do it, else we're right back where we started.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

richardpor
Fur it up

join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR

1 edit

1 recommendation

Sinking to a New Low

A new Broadband Reports Low! This is a classic Ad hominem attack.
You are attacking The American Consumer Institute for being a Free Market think tank. The argument is:
American Consumer Institute proclaims that the call for net-neutrality regulation was coming from the largest and most profitable Internet firms. (Out of place quotes removed).

American Consumer Institute is a free market thinks tank.
Therefore, it does not represent consumers. Thus, what American Consumer Institute proclaims is false.

I think it is the height of arrogance to think only left wing leaning consumer activist groups that advocate government regulation is the only way to benefit consumers.

I happen to think such consumer activist groups do not represent my interest as a consumer because government regulation often comes with a high price tag in new taxes and degraded services. The free market serves the consumer well.

•••••••

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

What is the hidden agenda?

Broadband Reports had a dog in the fight. Look it up.

•••••••