TheRogueX
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO
 ·Mediacom
| reply to KrK
Re: Justified Government Action
Best part is... I wouldn't want a totally 'Free-Market.' Have you ever read stuff about what that would be? I wouldn't want to live in that nightmare.
It's funny, also.. Free Market capitalism is an idea straight out of Liberalism (at least, from the REAL meaning of the term), but the people who espouse is call themselves staunch conservatives.
lol |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
This order will not do what many think it will do
But it is key to understand what it DOES NOT do - and that is force owners of MDUs to provide access to other providers. It allows them to do deals with multiple vendors, but does not force them to deal with more than 1.
Many people are under the impression that this new rule means that owners of apartment buildings will have to provide access to any vendor who wants access. And that isn't true.
This statement by Commissioner Copps explains the above point very well.
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···63A3.pdf
It does not prevent a property owner from negotiating a bulk discount for its residents or bargaining for heightened customer service requirements. Nor does it give any video provider the right to enter an MDU over the objection of the property owner. It simply removes a large obstacle to providing residents of MDUs with the ability to choose among alternative providers serving the surrounding community
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Kearnstd
Re: Justified Government Action
said by Kearnstd  :now all the FCC needs to do is end Exclusive rights to towns for CATV. however the states would never allow their cash cow to be killed(aka Franchise Fees that go directly to the general fund). Um, that was ended 11 years ago.
And a series of lawsuits last year quietly prohibited placing franchise fees in the general fund in many states.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :The problem with the health care debate is that it's framed like "free markets" against "socialism." This is a faulty starting point. The health care system has nothing in common with pure, raw free markets. It is essentially a state-sponsored monopoly. Can you get an Amen! ANYTIME people talk about reforms or regulations immediately the "Socialism!" schtick comes out... As if the health care system, our Energy companies, or Big Telecom etc etc have anything to "Free Market Enterprise".
You always see "Free Market!" used as the "defense" to do nothing to solve the problems.
These aren't "Socialism" vs "Free-Market" issues... yet any suggestion of change and the debate is immediately framed that way by those who want to keep things how they are now.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to jslik
said by jslik :Well, enjoy it while it lasts, because you know a Clinton-appointed FCC will reverse many of these recent decisions. (that wouldn't be necessarily bad in some cases, IMHO) I sure hope so. The FCC under Clinton did a much better job for consumers then the FCC has had for the last 6-7 years.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to EngineerDave
said by EngineerDave :charged $9 for a Tylenol pill you will make a fuss! I have an HSA. I stand in the express lane at the grocery store trying to get $1 off Pseudafed.  "A guy down the street sell's it for $3. Will you take $3.50? Come on, haggle with me! (Monty Python voice)"
I have mixed feelings about HSA. I agree with you that inducing customer revolt (which is really the positive you're pointing out) is good. But, it's like trying to boil the ocean. The medical profession is essentially a monopoly. Only a limited number of people can enter the profession due to the tightly controlled number of medical schools with limited seats. There's no way to freely allow supply to match demand.
I'm not arguing against the level of quality we have socially forced upon this market. Just saying that it *is* socially forced. I don't think most people who repeat partisan comments for and against socialized medicine understand the position we're starting from. It's *far* from a so-called free market.
said by EngineerDave :They just pay the co-pay and go on their way. Worse, they pay amounts above the network-negotiated price. I don't go to the doctor often. But most times they've sent me a bill for what the plan didn't pay. I call and ask why they're exceeding the negotiated price. They quickly say "that was a billing mistake." I bet they only have that repeated billing mistake because a significant percentage of clients pay.
Mark |
|
EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Hattiesburg, MS
| reply to amigo_boy
For Americans who are generally healty (not terminally ill), the HSA (Healthcare Savings Account) will introduce competition into the healthcare industry because people will actually see what they are being charged. When you go to a hospital and get charged $9 for a Tylenol pill you will make a fuss! The current problem is that people aren't aware of what they are really being charged. They just pay the co-pay and go on their way.
.....and the cablco exclusive contracts suck too. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to LowRider
said by LowRider :free health care, you want free health care???? i have to laugh at that, the government will raise taxes Then it won't be free. Just paid for differently. The problem with the health care debate is that it's framed like "free markets" against "socialism." This is a faulty starting point. The health care system has nothing in common with pure, raw free markets. It is essentially a state-sponsored monopoly.
You can't become a doctor without attending medical school. You can't attend a medical school unless it has been certified/accredited by the medical profession. This creates an environment that artificially limits the number of doctors (and competition). It's not like you can open your own medical school to compete with the other medical schools, adding to the supply of doctors.
Same thing for drugs. You don't have a truly free-market choice of the drugs you can buy. It's so socially regulated (for the sake of quality) that it eliminates a huge swath of willing buyers and sellers.
So, we're not really talking about whether medicine should be socialized. It already is. We're just talking about whether the benefit of this socialization should be more equitable, and perhaps paid for differently.
For those who argue against socialization, they should be arguing against the monopoly that exists. What I've observed is that people who can afford the monopoly don't mind it. It's only when they can't afford it that they wish they had more choices which the monopoly prohibits. Or, they wish the monopoly had more responsibility to the society that created the monopoly.
Mark |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Josimars
said by Josimars :Halleujah. If Kevin Martin and his colleagues can pull this off this would be the best thing for poor people and indeed the rest of the econommy since slice bread. How does poor benefit? Article is talking about apartment buildings, developments and MDUs.
Oh wait you are spreading the myth that all people who rent are poor without actually knowing better like most people.
Its a common misconception to associate poor with renting, I would say less than %10 of people who rent from us could not afford a house, the truth is most people rent because they DON'T want a house because renting is easier (insurance, maintenance, higher bills, etc with house) |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to pnh102
now all the FCC needs to do is end Exclusive rights to towns for CATV. however the states would never allow their cash cow to be killed(aka Franchise Fees that go directly to the general fund).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | reply to mglunt
free health care, you want free health care???? i have to laugh at that, the government will raise taxes to cover the so called free health care. Not only that the gov. can't even enforce laws already on the books as it is let alone run itself and you want free health care lololololololol!!!!!!!! |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to nutcr0cker
That's what you learn by just reading the headlines. If you actually read the story (well a non biased one) you would learn that Bush Vetoed an expansion of the current program. An expansion that would make families earning up to 80K eligible for the free health care, and able to cover "children" up to 25 yrs old.
Oh, and I ain't rich, but the Tax cut sure benefited my family. |
|
AlsknSnoBals
join:2007-05-17
Anchorage, AK
·magicjack.com
| reply to pnh102
This is going to be a mess. Instead of allowing consumers to band together and use the power to purchase services in bulk quantity, the FCC will make service so expensive we have to use companies we do not like, namely the telcos. This means that only companies who have the ability to chop the knees out from under their competition in the pricing scheme will benefit, but also deliver a lower grade service because they know customers can't afford to go elsewhere. |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to UncleDirtNap
You do realize this affects only a small percentage of the nation. (I.E. those that live in apartments or small townships that made agreements with cable companies to carry their services.) From what I have heard, the majority are newly built areas and hardly "poor." This ruling has nothing to do with only having one cable company per city or area other that those affected.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Josimars
"Halleujah. If Kevin Martin and his colleagues can pull this off this would be the best thing for poor people and indeed the rest of the econommy since slice bread."
Nah, second best. The best thing would be for them to act on the recommendations to end forced bundling.
That would combined with the end to exclusive contracts would really kick start things. |
|
UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to jslik
"I mentioned that this decision will probably be reversed (and say that this FCC does need to be reversed in some cases) and I get a screed about Iraq."
It's all they have left. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Josimars
said by Josimars :Halleujah. If Kevin Martin and his colleagues can pull this off this would be the best thing for poor people and indeed the rest of the econommy since slice bread. I don't see how the poor benefit. Even if they get access to more broadband providers, I am sure that for many poor, broadband itself is a luxury. Broadband is probably not high on the list of things to buy when compared to food, clothing, medicine, etc. if one is poor.
I support decisions like these because I am against any artificial barriers to broadband or other next-generation information technology deployment. It doesn't matter if these are put up by the government or by private interests, they do nothing but screw us all as long as these barriers exist.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Josimars
join:2001-04-24
Port Chester, NY
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Halleujah. If Kevin Martin and his colleagues can pull this off this would be the best thing for poor people and indeed the rest of the econommy since slice bread. |
|
wvcaver
Premium
join:2005-04-17
Millersburg, OH | reply to jslik
i think nutcr0cker is lost from Digg |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to nutcr0cker
said by nutcr0cker :Why do you feel so bitter? The notion of appartment owners being paid for screwing the renters is similar to the tax cut for the rich. 50 billion for an illegal war and veto for the health benefits of poor American children. Now thats what I call as true CONservative humanitarian values
I'm bitter? 
I mentioned that this decision will probably be reversed (and say that this FCC does need to be reversed in some cases) and I get a screed about Iraq. 
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" |
|
