 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to bmn
Re: No Wonder We're Not Tops 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 | 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. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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 | 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. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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 | 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. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | 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 |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | 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 |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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. |
|
| reply to bmn
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! |
|
