AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | Never gonna happen
That is for sure. |
|
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | "competitive harm" to us.
It's all talk with nothing to say.  |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | haven't read the article, but
can't they request the info through the freedom of information act?
edit: ok they did. is it really the FCC's responsibility to say that it would cause competitive harm? that kind of talk is straight from the mouth of telco and cableco lobbyists.
so what does this stall tactic tell us about the FCC?
about the information they are trying to protect?
about why incumbents are scared? |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Competitive harm
Competitive harm, as in our monopolies will be harmed by competition. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Exactly. Forbid that cableco X find out that telco Y is serving an area they are not and decide to offer service there.
Oh no, the FCC needs to make sure that the telcos and cablecos can serve areas without competition and get guaranteed revenue.
As they say... "America... Best government (corporate) money can buy."
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
1 edit | reply to morbo
Re: haven't read the article, but
said by morbo  :can't they request the info through the freedom of information act? They can, but since the American people signed away their freedom in a cowardly reaction to 9-11, it's not going to accomplish anything.
so what does this stall tactic tell us about the FCC?
That the FCC, just like all Executive Branch agencies, is only as good as their chief.
about why [sic] incumbents are scared? I dunno...maybe Adelphia wasn't the only communications company with criminally corrupt management. They could be afraid of going to jail, and losing their fortunes and empires. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| Dog bless them guys from CPI.
Apparently, our present government does not want the American people to have good and accurate information on the matters that affect them. No matter. It will be harder and it will take longer, but that information WILL come out, Kevin Martin and the people he works for be damned.
Oh, and to the incumbent apologistas here: That information on BB penetration is the property of the citizens of the US. our tax dollars paid for it and it does not affect any plausible national security interests. Only the financial well-being of incumbents who can't seem to keep themselves from lying.
I hope, before I pass on, we get to see a government that cares about the welfare of ALL the people, again, and not just the few and the monied. That's not too much to ask, is it? |
|
tpac_man
join:2007-02-27
Riverbank, CA | reply to ARGONAUT
Re: "competitive harm" to us.
Actually it does do harm to the provider but who cares.
This information should be available to us anyway.
Not that I need it, but it would be nice to know. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to bmn
Re: Competitive harm
said by bmn :Exactly. Forbid that cableco X find out that telco Y is serving an area they are not and decide to offer service there. Oh no, the FCC needs to make sure that the telcos and cablecos can serve areas without competition and get guaranteed revenue. Oh no, the FCC needs to make that potential competitors cant find out areas without any broadband to keep options opened for telcos and cablecos.
Dog in a manger. |
|
59126125
Premium
join:2006-01-21
clubs: | Just trying to save face
IMO, the FCC is using the excuse of "competitive harm" because the data they actually have is probably laughable at best. |
|
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
1 edit | ...
sure it will cause "competitive harm" but isnt that what we need? |
|
B_DuB
NOT a city boy
join:2007-05-10
New Caney, TX
1 edit | Corperate profits -vis- an informed public.
The way I see it.Most people just want a True and Accurate account of available service's in their area. While it's true that in a sense competition may hurt some profits, Large companies with big investors also have an advantage of
premium services i.e. more repair men, more staff for customer support.Smaller co's would offer a lower costing service, as in less support.This has always been common in dial-up as people understood that they didn't need all the EXTRAS from a Big ISP just to get on-line. 10$ vis 25$.As stated above big corps. don't want you to know who's where or who's not, because of competition, But without it you Loose Quality of Service period !. They can fix your problem or not.Companies that know they are the only source for a particular service really don't have to worry about it. The priority being more lines for more customers >thus > bigger profits. I want it released so I know ALL
the Companies and their Services that they offer in my area so it's not a big fiasco trying to find out or putting up with someone saying:
"We'll get on it right now". We all know how that goes! Competition is Democracy at its finest! I even went so far as to send them e-mail, and I will track down my congressional senators and reps associated with this and get them vigil about releasing this information.
Procrastination is a condition not an excuse.
The Law suit »www.publicintegrity.org/about/re···x?aid=64
The FCC -»www.fcc.gov/ |
|
ddpardue
Premium
join:2007-01-07
Hattiesburg, MS
|  Yes, it would cause "competitive harm to the incumbents.
Of course it would cause competitive harm. The FCC would have to admit, hopefully, that there truly is a broadband access problem in rural America. This might mean they would have to change current policies which solely support the incumbents' business model. God Forbid, they might even have to create a real competitive market, which would be good for the economy and consumers, but certainly not in the best economic interests of the "BIG 3". So yes, I agree with the statement that fully disclosing their current incorrect, inadequate, shamelessly incumbent suportive data would cause "competitive harm", but only to the incumbents. To the rest of us, it would be a breath of fresh air.!! |
|
