dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed


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

3 recommendations

reply to Karl Bode

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
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
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
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
reply to nasadude
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:42
reply to yock
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
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:42

1 edit
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.