| hypocrites Let me get this straight, it is bad for Microsoft to bundle IE into THEIR OS that THEY PAYED for.
Yet it is okay for Cable and Telcos to have a monopoly and deny access?
So far the cable and telcos in the US have shown that they can get broadband to users on their own.... Oh wait from what I call the US has one of the worst coverages of all first rate nations...
Its okay though because they are look at bringing everyone fibre!!!! Riiiight because they were so succesful running DSL and cable to everyone..
Of course you can play they "we are bigger" card but here in Canada, the SECOND largest country land mass wise in the world, has far better coverage, higher speeds at lower prices, then the states not to mention europe and japan are so far ahead technology wise its scary....
Whats the new execuse? |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | said by electric_dsl:Yet it is okay for Cable and Telcos to have a monopoly and deny access? But there are no laws here which state that a company which wants to run its own network cannot do so. The FCC has made it clear that state and municipal governments cannot lock out other companies which want to run wires.
This decision is about private property. Cable companies' networks are private property and as such, the companies are free to share or not share their property in any way that they please. If the government does not like that, then it can always exercise eminent domain and buy the networks from the companies at a fair price. Just because one company is too cheap to invest in its own infrastructure does not mean that the government cannot legally force any entity in this country to share their private property with anyone.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
|
|
| Right. I agree with you on that.
However is Windows OS not Microsoft's property?
Yet didn'y the Government try and force MS to share? Not to mention a whole ton of other things. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by electric_dsl:However is Windows OS not Microsoft's property? Yet didn'y the Government try and force MS to share? Not to mention a whole ton of other things. Yes, it did. And it was also wrong to do this as well. But keep in mind it was a different government (Clinton) than the current administration which tried to force Microsoft to do this. I agree with you that both actions are bad. But with regards to the Microsoft case in particular, I don't understand how they could be considered a monopoly, even in the mid-90s there were other operating systems that people could have used if they had bothered to make the effort to learn how to use them. Saying that Microsoft is a monopoly on operating systems is like saying GM is a monopoly on cars because people are too lazy to learn how to go to the Honda dealership.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | reply to pnh102
You're missing the point of the government stepping in to force sharing in the first place, in all of your posts.
It's to foster competition, keep company's honest, and keep prices down in a market ripe with geographical monopolies.
Time Warner was charging broadband cable users who didn't bundle, $55-$60 for their standard connection. Under rules of the AOL merger, they had to share their network with Earthlink.
Earthlink's lower prices forced TWC to lower the unbundled price, and most users can now get that same tier for $45 from TWC.
Consumers won, and TWC is arguably the most stable and successful MSO out there.
"Go build your own" is a logical sentiment, except at this point it's like shoving a pencil necked Slashdot reader into a boxing ring with Tyson and saying: "go compete, champ."
As a Tyson fan, you're saying it knowing the outcome of the fight....which is why I have a hard time taking that statement seriously. |
|
| reread my post karl. think sarcasm.
I probably didnt make my point clear enough. feeling a bit under the weather,what?
I think denying access is the wrong way for you guys to move forward in the broadband industry. The US is so far behind right now it isn't funny yet your government insists on keeping it that way by enforcing out dated modes of operation.
I was also trying to point out the double standards. the gov. has no problem trying to force ms to share yet when it comes to telcos shareing is bad monopoly is good??
How does that work |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | I was really talking to pnh102, which the "reply-to" indicates.....I agreed with your post.
I particularly agree with you on the double standards. You'll see them in the geek community too. People rant endlessly about Microsoft, yet pay no attention to things Verizon or EA does that are easily as bad.... |
|
| fair enough. I just followed the line and figure you were replying to both of us. |
|
| reply to electric_dsl
said by electric_dsl:Let me get this straight, it is bad for Microsoft to bundle IE into THEIR OS that THEY PAYED for. Yet it is okay for Cable and Telcos to have a monopoly and deny access? So far the cable and telcos in the US have shown that they can get broadband to users on their own.... Oh wait from what I call the US has one of the worst coverages of all first rate nations... Its okay though because they are look at bringing everyone fibre!!!! Riiiight because they were so succesful running DSL and cable to everyone.. Of course you can play they "we are bigger" card but here in Canada, the SECOND largest country land mass wise in the world, has far better coverage, higher speeds at lower prices, then the states not to mention europe and japan are so far ahead technology wise its scary.... Whats the new execuse? It's really too bad Canada can't seem to do anything with that land mass (which is 40% friggin' ice...nice try though).
Prove that Canada has better coverage than the United States. Go ahead. You can't. Like most of your posts on here, your reply will be inflammatory yet useless. You almost went so far as to blame poor Karl because you couldn't follow the thread structure on the reply.
--
Jeremy can shove his attitude and his Microsoft sodomizing tendencies up his ass. |
|
 ameniteThe Soylent - It's PeoplePremium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to pnh102
The Microsoft case wasn't about Microsoft being a monopoly, wether a natural monopoly or one driven by consumer preferences. It was about weilding power gained from being a monopoly in an unfair and anti-competitve manner. But most of all it was about manipulating the legal system to delay resolution of the case, which is what most big corporate litigation seems to be all about.
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
Force a business to give away its product. Yeah great idea Karl.... Maybe it would be better if the government forced my nebhiors to share their car with me to. We should force McDonald's to sell whoppers for burgerking, so they don't have to build any new stores. We already see the lefties will not stop with the telcos, they are attacking any successful business. If I owned the lines I would shut them down before giving them away. I would cut them. It is stealing plain and simple.
You are trying to make it sound like a start up can not run lines, that is FALSE. But why would they when they get a free ride, line sharing has destroyed any real competition. It has done nothing but hurt the consumers by limiting choices and keeping the cost high. Big government stepped in again and screwed the people. democrats hate the people, they stopped any plans for competition with higher business taxs and regulations that take away the very products and services a business was founded on. I really think they did this so they could push muni ran telco/cable systems of their own. Where they can push porn and crush the free speech we see on the internet today. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
Force a business to give away its product.
It's not given, there is money exchanged.
And I'm not advocating it as some end-all-be-all solution to be applied everywhere (as you do with blanket deregulation).
I'm saying the current geographical monopolies are why it was applied in the first-place. To keep companies from price-gouging in particular.
quote:
democrats hate the people
You really expect me to take you seriously when you say something like that? |
|
| I provided sound reasoning to back up the claim democrats hate the people. Most people have very little idea exactly how much a company pays in taxes.
As for the line sharing, they forced them to lease the lines at what was it $2.50 to $6.00 per line to earthlink, earthlink then charged $30.00 for DSL.
Where is the incentive for earthlink to lay lines?
The forced line sharing kept company's from laying lines, it kept the prices high, it keeps start ups from offering real competition. Anyway you look at it, it is a very bad idea and only hurts the consumers. American growth in the data transfer arena is stagnated from this move. It is very clear to see we are falling behind the world, and the root cause is simple to see. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
Anyway you look at it, it is a very bad idea and only hurts the consumers.
Any way you look at it from your perspective as someone who doesn't want to share their lines. Is objectivity really that impossible for you?
Democrats hate people. That's pretty funny....I guess objectivity is that impossible for you. |
|
| I used covad a few years ago, I was thinking it was a good deal, I paid a little less and got good service. I watched and hoped they would reinvest the massive profits in infrastructure,,, umm nope. Why should they? They get the infrastructure for basically free, they just resale it. Compare that to a used car, and they sell the used car for the same price as a new one. Instead of putting the used cars out there with the ford/gm/honda emblems on them, they knock them off and put their own emblems on them.
The point is, if covad had been a serious contender they would have laid the pipes and offered a real service. Now with fiber being laid they are doomed. Unless they steal it like they are doing now.
As for being objective about democrats, I saw what they did in waco, I saw what they did in kosovo, I watched as manufacturing jobs by the millions ran from this country, I watched as taxes went up and then the money given to other countrys, so in my conclusion it is very clear that the left hate the people of this country and are only about destroying this country. The damage from the clinton years is still taking its toll on us. Certain manufacturing jobs I fear are gone for good, no more textile plants, no more steel mills. Thanks to the democrats, poor high speed internet thanks to the democrats, the list goes on and on.
Now Karl, why not debate the points I make instead of trying to defame me. Show my flaws in the logic. Show how line sharing has benefitted the consumer, and I will counter your cost decrease with the fact that cable brought down the prices for line shared DSL, I will go even further and say cost has very little to do with peoples choice for internet, AOL cost more than most other DSL providers, yet they are chosen by more people. The choice to pay $5.00 less is still not much of a choice, I would much rather have a choice of 5 different lines, I have only 2 right now, TWC or SBC, they own the lines. It would be better if 3 other lines were trying to get my money. Why hold me to only 2 choices Karl? and Karl, why do you hate the kids?  jk |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | quote:
The point is, if covad had been a serious contender they would have laid the pipes and offered a real service.
Ooooh. The "let's put a 108 pound girl in with Mike Tyson in a ring with a bought off referee and see who wins" argument. That never gets old.
No, the point is, if incumbent MSO's and Telcos had deployed decent, inexpensive options without being predatory and gouging the crap out of customers and competitors, you wouldn't have Uncle Sam climbing up your backside trying to figure out new ways to bring competition to a sector that lacks it.....
I'm not going to play "pro-line sharing" advocate for you, because I believe there's a regulatory middle-ground between giving incumbents everything they ever wanted (you), and regulating them to death (the position you'd like me to take). |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:This decision is about private property. Cable companies' networks are private property and as such, the companies are free to share or not share their property in any way that they please. Well, except the fact that they are not, of course. |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102: said by electric_dsl:However is Windows OS not Microsoft's property? Yet didn'y the Government try and force MS to share? Not to mention a whole ton of other things. Yes, it did. And it was also wrong to do this as well. But *only* as a proposed effective remedy, as a punishment for a company that had already been found guilty of violating the law.
The legal system and society already have a number of well-established trends, for "taking" from criminals. They are not afforded the same sets of rights and priviledges as non-criminal citizens are. You clearly are forgetting that.
It wasn't as if the gov't suddenly walked in, and said, "Hey, we're taking that property of yours!". It was more like the gov't went undercover, found MS involved in a drug deal, took the case to court, got a decision, and then confiscated the porsche and the miami beach house that was bought with drug money.
said by pnh102:But with regards to the Microsoft case in particular, I don't understand how they could be considered a monopoly, even in the mid-90s there were other operating systems that people could have used if they had bothered to make the effort to learn how to use them. Saying that Microsoft is a monopoly on operating systems is like saying GM is a monopoly on cars because people are too lazy to learn how to go to the Honda dealership. No, it's more like, if any GM dealer also wanted to open a Honda dealership, the GM company threatened to completely cut off that dealers supply of inventory, which is a clearly dirty and anti-competitive move. MS did the same thing with OEM computer makers. BeOS (remember them?), at one point offered to sell their OS to OEM makers, for free, in a dual-boot configuration that would let the end-user choose, in order to attempt to establish some market-share. But those contracts that MS had with their OEMs forced them to refuse that deal with BeOS. It would be like if Honda offered to give any new car dealer, a free supply of inventory for a year, just to get their name out in the market, and GM *still* threatened to totally cut off their dealers if they accepted Honda's offer.
In a free society that (supposedly) values open markets and competition - such dealings are illegal. |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
Karl have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
I off till next year,,, debate is good, keep it up! |
|
| reply to justncredible
said by justncredible:
Force a business to give away its product. Yeah great idea Karl.... Maybe it would be better if the government forced my nebhiors to share their car with me to. We should force McDonald's to sell whoppers for burgerking, so they don't have to build any new stores. Actually, it would be more like, McDonalds owning the entire plaza complex, including a small McD's - in fact, most of the plaza's in the area - so that BK has no opportunity to open their own small store in the plaza, and break into the market.
A pro-linesharing decision would be like, McD's forced to operate as two seperate companies, one managing the plazas, and one operating the individual stores in them, much like franchises, and being forced to allow BK to also open a store in those plazas, as long as they paid a fair price to the plaza management for rent, upkeep, etc.
"Build your own damn plaza" is a nice retort, but what if all of the real-estate is bought up already, and there is no physical room to do so? (Physical infrastructure limitations.) That's really the issue here, as I see it.
Btw, the two-tier structure between physical-infrastructure provider, and data-network provider, is already in place and working in several other countries. There's no reason that model couldn't work here too, and both the infrastructure-provider and the data-network company making a profit.
See, the idea behind a "free market" is to prevent those sorts of pure monopoly situations that allow the holder of the monopoly to gouge prices at the detriment to society. (In fact, corporations are chartered "for the public good" - if they are not serving their charter by doing so - and it could be easily argued that an abusive monopoly is not - then those charters should be revoked, and the corporation dissolved IMHO. That has happened to local cable system franchises in some areas in the past, too, when the customers were so dissatisfied with the pricing and services that they took it to the attention of the local gov't.)
said by justncredible:
We already see the lefties will not stop with the telcos, they are attacking any successful business. If I owned the lines I would shut them down before giving them away. I would cut them. It is stealing plain and simple. And being an abusive corporate monopoly that does not serve the benefit of society is abusing the public trust, and should be dissolved. There is no inherent right for corporations to have a monopoly, and then abuse citizens with it. Anyone who thinks that is a madman, who forgets the basic rules of the society in which they live.
said by justncredible:
line sharing has destroyed any real competition. It has done nothing but hurt the consumers by limiting choices and keeping the cost high. Big government stepped in again and screwed the people. That's complete BS. By breaking up monopoly vertically-integrated physical-infrastructure and data-provider companies, it prevents them from charging "monopoly rent" prices, by forcing the competition issue.
said by justncredible:
democrats hate the people, they stopped any plans for competition with higher business taxs and regulations that take away the very products and services a business was founded on. I really think they did this so they could push muni ran telco/cable systems of their own. Where they can push porn and crush the free speech we see on the internet today. Political party arguments aside, I thought that the stereotypical sentiment was that it was the Republican religious conservatives that were the ones "crushing free speech", like Powell himself and the whole Stern thing.
Face it, it doesn't matter which political party is in office, when those in power, and by extension, everyone else that idolizes them, only care for enriching themselves at the expense of others - society is doomed. Plain and simple. |
|
