morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Painting all opponents of "net neutrality" with sell-out ...
their stance on this issue REEKS of telco astroturf campaigns. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| More accurately, their stance reeks of longing for the days when various "wealth redistribution" programs could be hidden in monopoly utility rates (discount rates for low income, etc., etc.) With the advent of competition, the true cost of these subsidies becomes clear and has to either be fairly spread around the industry (effectively as a fully disclosed "tax") or discontinued.
I think the NAACP, like other liberal groups, is fully aware of the consequences of not having Net Neutrality regulation--the "backroom kickback" culture that develops in such a situation limits new entrants and competition--thereby making it easier for wealth redistribution schemes to be hidden in the rates of one or two players, rather than having to be an explicit surcharge on the rates of 4 or 5 players.
Some of these "consumer and ratepayer groups" are still smarting that they missed the boat and didn't somehow get subsidies for cellular rates to placate their supporters, and they are determined to use any trick they can to hide subsidy schemes in the broadband world.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| said by calvoiper  :More accurately, their stance reeks of longing for the days when various "wealth redistribution" programs could be hidden in monopoly utility rates (discount rates for low income, etc., etc.) With the advent of competition, the true cost of these subsidies becomes clear and has to either be fairly spread around the industry (effectively as a fully disclosed "tax") or discontinued. I think the NAACP, like other liberal groups, is fully aware of the consequences of not having Net Neutrality regulation--the "backroom kickback" culture that develops in such a situation limits new entrants and competition--thereby making it easier for wealth redistribution schemes to be hidden in the rates of one or two players, rather than having to be an explicit surcharge on the rates of 4 or 5 players. Some of these "consumer and ratepayer groups" are still smarting that they missed the boat and didn't somehow get subsidies for cellular rates to placate their supporters, and they are determined to use any trick they can to hide subsidy schemes in the broadband world. calvoiper BBR is playing propaganda machine on this one. Somehow BBR failed to mention the bill passed 117-2. For those of you that aren't math majors, that almost unanimous. Florida legislature isn't made up of 117 black/liberal/democrats members and 2 white/conservative/republicans.
»www.miamiherald.com/458/story/92084.html
Maybe that little tidbit was left out of purpose to inflame members and drive an agenda which is fraking disgusting, if that is the case. Two issues that had nothing to do with each other were combined to make this news(I use that term lightly) story.
No one feels that can fight propaganda with honest reporting, so they turning into propaganda machines themselves. A half-truth is just as bad as a lie. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| I don't see how you think BBR (Karl) was "playing propaganda" on this one--his point WAS the intersection of two stories otherwise not connected in the media. The point was that the NAACP is bashing Bush on Broadband in Washington, but is opposing the traditional consumer groups on a broadband-deployment-related bill in Tallahassee. That's a valid story.
Frankly, the fact that the consumer advocates lost to the NAACP side by a huge margin in one house of the Florida legislature isn't really even news--except for the related fact that the NAACP position gave lots of legislators (particularly Democrats) "cover" to vote against the consumer advocates.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
