how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
1 edit | reply to raye
Re: I am fine with minimal regulation said by raye:I am fine with minimal regulationBut how about defining broadband as something resonable, like minimum 10 Mbps download, 2 Mbps upload? Sorry, but "minimal regulation" means that Big Business decides for you what constitutes "broadband". Don't like that? Then you're un-American, and invited to leave the country.
After 27 years of broken promises regarding "smaller government" and "letting the fox guard the hen house really does work", when will Americans wake up and realize that they have never been able to have their cake and eat it too? It's either one or the other, take your pick. With history as a guide, if you want minimal regulation, don't expect that to benefit you as a consumer. (Don't expect that to shrink government or lower your taxes, either.) If you want to have good broadband, then elect someone who will institute reform, and make your tax dollars work for you once more. | | |
|
| Where do you get 27 years from, this was been a clusterf*** before Reagan. It just wasn't that well known. And if you're looking at the Carter years as a prosperous time, well then your blind.
While I agree that minimal regulation will spawn greed, as it has in the telecom industry, too much regulation has an equally stifling effect by having this already intrusive government bear down on land and business owners with tax and compliance burdens.
I think the only true way to initiate reform is to mandate the employment requirements for FCC employees to include knowledge of the industry, not the lobbyist | |
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by S_engineer:Where do you get 27 years from, this was been a clusterf*** before Reagan. Before Reagan/Bush (we all know who really ran that show) any clusterf*** was a regulated one. It was during the 80s that the agencies charged with consumer protection had all of their teeth pulled. And it didn't save a single taxpayer dime. The size of these agencies didn't shrink, and new bureaucracies like the RTC caused government in DC to blow up like a balloon. The Reagan Palace cost a pretty penny too.
And if you're looking at the Carter years as a prosperous time, well then your blind. Since that's O/T, I assume that you threw it in as misdirection. But since you did bring it up, it was Jimmy Carter and Paul Volcker who brought the country out of the Nixon-era stagflation. Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" buttons didn't seem to do the trick. 
While I agree that minimal regulation will spawn greed, as it has in the telecom industry, too much regulation has an equally stifling effect by having this already intrusive government bear down on land and business owners with tax and compliance burdens. That sounds like it came straight from a GOP list of talking points. Let's examine it a little closer: Why is "this already intrusive government" so intrusive? The first so-called "Patriot" Act, and its super-secret Patriot II law, for the most part. Those two laws alone are the most intrusive in US history. They make the Reagan-era "war on drugs" laws that legitimized illegal search and seizure seem minor in comparison. And then there's Cheney's personal White House, that's operating entirely outside of the law. And then there's the NSA, the DHS, etc. etc. etc. Don't think for a minute that I'd trust those who broke their promises to fix their own misdeeds!
I myself, and nobody else that I know of is proposing too much regulation. So why even bring it up in the first place? For FUD? Sorry, but I'm not chasing any paper tigers when there are real Carnivores on the prowl.
And what about "tax and compliance burdens"? As a private citizen, I must pay my taxes, and stay in compliance with a host of governmental demands. My small business has even more. Why should Big Business get a pass? Because "it stimulates the economy"? We know how that ploy ended up! The biggest recession since the Great Depression. And since the trouble came from excessive borrowing, it appears that the tax breaks weren't the main stimulus after all.
I think the only true way to initiate reform is to mandate the employment requirements for FCC employees to include knowledge of the industry, not the lobbyist(.) At one time that was the case. I still remember when the Communications Act of 1934 (so forward-looking that it didn't need amendment for over 60 years) was actively practiced and enforced. Back then you would see actual FCC agents in the field, conducting oversight of broadcasters, and driving around town proactively looking for sources of RF interference. That can happen again, but the only true way to initiate that reform is by keeping the White House occupied by reformers for a long time to come.
Unfortunately matters like communications reform will have to take a back seat to the multi-trillion-dollar debt that our Treasury Department must pay back ASAP, so we don't end up becoming a province of Communist China. When America finally wakes up after the spree, the hangover will be long and painful. No getting around that one; we're at the bitter end of our rope now. | |
| KO!
 *applause* | |
|
