republican-creole
site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

reply to pnh102

Re: Wireless Industry Is Correct

this is just a big do loop with no escape; I refer you back to Skippy25 ("Somethings you just can't see clearly with such a clouded vision.")

otherwise, I can see we would clearly be here forever.


TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by nasadude:

this is just a big do loop with no escape; I refer you back to Skippy25 ("Somethings you just can't see clearly with such a clouded vision.")

otherwise, I can see we would clearly be here forever.
No it's not because the answer is simple.

If BUYING_USELESS_WIRELESS_SERVICE = True
Then If GUN_TO_HEAD = False
Then Perform HELL_NO_TO_SERVICE

See? No Do-loop there.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

reply to nasadude

said by nasadude:

this is just a big do loop with no escape; I refer you back to Skippy25 ("Somethings you just can't see clearly with such a clouded vision.")
Again... tell me what I am not seeing. Surely if there is more than one thing I am not seeing, it will be very easy for you, or Skippy25, to name one of those things, and show me where I am wrong.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately there are a lot of things wrapped up in this.

clearly, you believe that govt should either not regulate any industry at all or at least very lightly. the undertone seems to be that if industry were regulated, in the absence of meaningful market competition, to be more consumer friendly this is a bad thing and the poor industry would suffer.

you say nobody is putting a gun to consumer's heads and making them buy these services as a way to justify and excuse the actions of the industry.

turn this around: let's say the government imposes consumer friendly conditions (network neutrality, carterphone, reqts to wholesale to competitors - yes, truly a fantasy) on the 700Mhz auction. I presume your position would be (just like ATT, Verizon, etc): why that's horrible! the auction won't make as much money! nobody will bid under those conditions!

guess what my response would be? nobody is holding a gun to these companies head to make them bid; if they don't like the conditions they don't have to participate.

so why can't we have govt regulate for the benefit of consumers? if the industry doesn't like it, they don't have to play - except that's not what they do, they buy legislators and get the rules changed to overwhelmingly benefit themselves at the expense of consumers.

companies are in the business of making money, not being nice to consumers - I understand that. companies are nice to consumers either because of competition or govt regulation or maybe a combination of the two. In the absence of meaningful competition, the government should step in to regulate for the benefit of consumers. That being said, I would much prefer this happen by competition rather than regulation, but sometimes the government chooses not to encourage or even allow competition and sometimes companies are very successful at rent seeking (buying legislators) and are able to distort the market for their benefit.

I would much prefer competition, but when the market won't allow it, the govt should step in to correct the situation.



TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by nasadude:

I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately there are a lot of things wrapped up in this.

clearly, you believe that govt should either not regulate any industry at all or at least very lightly. the undertone seems to be that if industry were regulated, in the absence of meaningful market competition, to be more consumer friendly this is a bad thing and the poor industry would suffer.

you say nobody is putting a gun to consumer's heads and making them buy these services as a way to justify and excuse the actions of the industry.

turn this around: let's say the government imposes consumer friendly conditions (network neutrality, carterphone, reqts to wholesale to competitors - yes, truly a fantasy) on the 700Mhz auction. I presume your position would be (just like ATT, Verizon, etc): why that's horrible! the auction won't make as much money! nobody will bid under those conditions!

guess what my response would be? nobody is holding a gun to these companies head to make them bid; if they don't like the conditions they don't have to participate.

so why can't we have govt regulate for the benefit of consumers? if the industry doesn't like it, they don't have to play - except that's not what they do, they buy legislators and get the rules changed to overwhelmingly benefit themselves at the expense of consumers.

companies are in the business of making money, not being nice to consumers - I understand that. companies are nice to consumers either because of competition or govt regulation or maybe a combination of the two. In the absence of meaningful competition, the government should step in to regulate for the benefit of consumers. That being said, I would much prefer this happen by competition rather than regulation, but sometimes the government chooses not to encourage or even allow competition and sometimes companies are very successful at rent seeking (buying legislators) and are able to distort the market for their benefit.

I would much prefer competition, but when the market won't allow it, the govt should step in to correct the situation.
I see that you are trying to me more open-minded and I don't want to squash that. You are close but not there yet.

Government should not regulate for the benefit of the consumer. Government should not regulate for the sake of business as well. People keep trying to put up this wall between business and the consumer and it does not exist. Neither will exist w/o each other. They govern themselves with their dollars, spending power and goods and services.

Your above example is perfectly valid if no one found profit in those conditions, which has happened before in either no participation or the lack of innovation in a particular area. The forced split of AT&T is a great example of this. After the split the baby-bells did nothing for a long time as their was no incentive or drive to do so. Why should they? The government is just going to beat them down again. Now with competing technologies (cable VOIP, wireless etc) outside of POTS are we seeing innovation (the push to fiber etc.) --- all to compete for voice and data.

People scream monopoly and ask for more government controls. You know who has a Monopoly? The Government does! And what's worse about this monopoly is that we have a very limited way of having it respond to our needs. So why replace one "monopoly" with another?

Tuesday, 29-May 00:35:13 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics