All4Choice
@swbell.net
| reply to bmn
Re: No Wonder We're Not Tops
LMAO...You are arguing with someone who fantasizes about Star Trek!!! I am getting a picture of the guy in MIB, sitting there watching a video about the 'Light of Zartha' or whatever the hell the name was....and "living it".
Awesome!!! Go Klingons! Is that the right spelling? Do they, the Klingons, use the European Alphabet or the Klingon. Sory for any typos! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds  :Guess which one AT&T has been using in CT? Perhaps if the state got out of the way of progress then lawsuits would not be needed.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by bmn :ATT and Verizon are both asking to be treated special. They want to use the regulatory system to give them a competitive advantage over the cable companies, without those changes going to the cable companies. Again... why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things? Cable companies can do the same if they want. Again, we are talking about lawsuits, not lobbying.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Does AT&T not have a right to lobby for a more favorable regulatory environment? There is a significant difference between lobbying and suing.
Guess which one AT&T has been using in CT?
You actually make a great argument for barring AT&T's lawsuit.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by bmn :And ATT isn't in any better a position. Yes, they are. They are offering something that the public might actually be able to use or enjoy. The government simply offers more reasons for AT&T to not be able to offer these services. The former is clearly better than the latter. And if the people don't like what AT&T has to offer, they can make the choice to not buy these services. They don't need the government to make that choice for them. The public might actually enjoy it if AT&T offered tax-free leaded gasoline discounted by using cheaper singled walled underground tanks and vehicles with no catalytic converters, but AT&T can't do that either.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to rit56
Why should AT&T be forced to service areas which are not profitable?
Sounds like your idea of "equal service" is for everyone to get 0 service as is the case now.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| reply to pnh102
you should trying reading before you post. there's really something wrong with you.
"However, the primary goal of the laws is to eliminate build-out requirements so the companies can selectively deploy next-generation technology to only the most profitable (read: not rural) areas. Unfortunately for consumers, a number of the laws are little more than legislative gift baskets that strip away consumer protections, kill off public access TV funding and in some cases, erode local eminent domain rights" |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to S_engineer
'Cable companies pay local municipal franchise taxes'
And AT&T pays federal taxes. The gov't has decided to let cable not be a "telephone service" while claiming that U-Verse is a cable service.
'ATT moves forward not through technological advancements, but through legislative briberys.'
So how many legislators did they bribe to create wireless ethernet, radio astronomy, transistors, and Unix? |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to matrix3D
said by matrix3D :I think even lines that companies like Comcast put down more than 20 years ago should be opened up to competition. After all, such cable companies have OBVIOUSLY made back their cost to build out the lines by now anyway. So, if we're finally going to do away with our antiquated, state-granted cable monopolies, then I say all the cable lines in the country should be opened up to every single cable provider. Right now, Comcast is my only choice where I live. You want some real competition? Let's see Comcast continously raise their rates when I have a choice of Time Warner, Optimum Online or anybody else. And again, I have no problem with that as long as those lines were funded in some way by the local/state/or federal governement. If they weren't then they shouldn't be required to open them up. |
|
matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT
| reply to Neyland
I think even lines that companies like Comcast put down more than 20 years ago should be opened up to competition. After all, such cable companies have OBVIOUSLY made back their cost to build out the lines by now anyway. So, if we're finally going to do away with our antiquated, state-granted cable monopolies, then I say all the cable lines in the country should be opened up to every single cable provider. Right now, Comcast is my only choice where I live. You want some real competition? Let's see Comcast continously raise their rates when I have a choice of Time Warner, Optimum Online or anybody else. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :LOL. Now you're putting up a straw man argument. I never said that the law should give special exemptions to one party over another with regards to enforcement. Sure about that...
I state that ATT and Verizon want to be treated special. You said "why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things?"
In other words, an endorsement that companies should get special treatment under the law if they ask for it.
I simply stated that there is nothing wrong with anyone lobbying to change the law to obtain some sort of benefit. That certainly is not what it appeared based on your response...
Yes, there is nothing wrong with people lobbying for changes in the law (although the current method that prevails is very wrong - money, trips, free stuff, etc.)... There is a problem when the law being lobbied for is unequal in its application - which is the case with the Telco/CATV franchise debate.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :If you don't have a problem with laws giving special treatment to people or organizations, then this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. LOL. Now you're putting up a straw man argument. I never said that the law should give special exemptions to one party over another with regards to enforcement. I simply stated that there is nothing wrong with anyone lobbying to change the law to obtain some sort of benefit.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Again... why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things? Cable companies can do the same if they want. If you don't have a problem with laws giving special treatment to people or organizations, then this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
The law is suppose to blind and apply to everyone equally.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :ATT and Verizon are both asking to be treated special. They want to use the regulatory system to give them a competitive advantage over the cable companies, without those changes going to the cable companies. Again... why is it wrong for any company to lobby for such things? Cable companies can do the same if they want.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :And of course the net effect of the law is that there is now one less provider of advanced communications services. Does AT&T not have a right to lobby for a more favorable regulatory environment? Only if those regulations (a) are applied across the board to them, cable providers and any new entrants into the field and (b) maintain proper oversight and consumer protections.
ATT and Verizon are both asking to be treated special. They want to use the regulatory system to give them a competitive advantage over the cable companies, without those changes going to the cable companies.
They are gaming the system, practicing regulatory capitalism instead of trying to beat the cable companies at their game by trying to offer a better product, service, etc.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :That's a strawman, plain and simple. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that ATT is trying to shortcut their way around THE LAW. And of course the net effect of the law is that there is now one less provider of advanced communications services. Does AT&T not have a right to lobby for a more favorable regulatory environment?
said by bmn :This is another strawman. The government is NOT deciding based on the technical merits of ATT's service offering, the quality of their offering or anything like that. I made no such claim.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by bmn :And ATT isn't in any better a position. Yes, they are. They are offering something that the public might actually be able to use or enjoy. That's a strawman, plain and simple. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that ATT is trying to shortcut their way around THE LAW.
And if the people don't like what AT&T has to offer, they can make the choice to not buy these services. They don't need the government to make that choice for them.
This is another strawman. The government is NOT deciding based on the technical merits of ATT's service offering, the quality of their offering or anything like that. The local and state governments are following the letter of the LAW.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :And ATT isn't in any better a position. Yes, they are. They are offering something that the public might actually be able to use or enjoy. The government simply offers more reasons for AT&T to not be able to offer these services. The former is clearly better than the latter. And if the people don't like what AT&T has to offer, they can make the choice to not buy these services. They don't need the government to make that choice for them.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :But in this situation, the government is clearly and completely in the wrong. And ATT isn't in any better a position. The blame can be spread equally here. ATT knew the video franchise rules, that have existed for years, and doesn't want to play by those rules.
It would be like a Quarterback trying to join the NFL and that he should be able to complete forward passes after crossing the line of scrimmage. The NFL would rightly tell that Quarterback to take a hike.
ATT and these local governments need to sit down and negotiate a deal that works for both of them.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :Its not about negotiating a better deal. The Death star is trying to either circumvent or change law. But why is it wrong for AT&T to lobby to change laws that it finds disagreeable?
said by S_engineer :What incentive does a cableco have to lower their prices when ATT is delivering the same product without paying a franchise tax....none! There is nothing stopping them from lobbying to have the law changed on their behalf either.
said by S_engineer :The Death Star would be better off in the long run to invest in their infrastructure rather than lobbiests.... How can they when the government won't let them do that?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
