| Conflict of interest Isn't it in some way illegal for AT&T to degrade internet service to promote their own television service. I mean regardless of whether the content is pirated or not, the removal of pirated content from a network that was built on the backs of tax payers should be left to proper legal process. I know I'll get a bunch of responses that say, "It's their network," but it's really not. Tax subsidies and monthly bills pay their network bills so technically it's our network. Not to mention the fact that they were a government sanctioned monopoly for the better part of their days. AT&T should be broken up into HSI and television sellers... I think when people start to realize that it is actually our network and that it will be very difficult to build another one (again on our backs) they will understand how critical it is to oppose AT&T. This really makes me angry because while the world moves into the direction of eliminating middle men like the RIAA and MPAA AT&T takes a step backwards. What they are doing is simply illegal. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | LMAO...
Why don't you try commandeering a police car in your town (after all, your tax dollars pay for it so it must be yours!) and let me know how your argument holds up.
What is this, the new "warm fuzzy" socialist movement? |
|
| Actually your police car analogy works perfectly against you. You can't individually commandeer a police car, but collectively you can. That is what this is collective action against a corporation overstepping it's legal bounds. You see the police car also has to abide by laws that the rest of society agrees upon. If the police officer driving the car starts doing illegal things with the car then the car will be commandeered and the officer punished by no less than the government itself. So in that sense the taxpayers are collectively commandeering the car. Same argument applies to AT&T. We paid for their network, (in part) the government gave them right of way and a monopoly. So guess what, when they start abusing their position as a network provider, we will happily commandeer their police car and give it to someone more worthy to drive. |
|
| reply to jester121
Apples and Oranges. |
|
|
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| reply to grandpinaple
Truly a dizzying intellect -- by your logic any company that sells anything belongs to the community at large (after all, if our money hadn't bought their product they wouldn't exist), and therefore we can all just take what we want at any time, all the time.
I don't even know how to categorize this way of thinking -- communist anarchy?
I knew this was going to be fun when I got to the part about police cars having to abide by laws.  |
|
| Ok so first off, you've conceded the police car analogy to work for my model of the corporation (since you didn't choose to answer it in any way). Now onto your second example:
Companies do belong to their respective communities. Companies have to abide by the local laws regarding pollution, right of way, zoning laws, etc... If they break these laws then they will be punished, but they won't necessarily be repossessed. They may however be forced to pack up their toys and leave the factory or whatever other space they are occupying. If it is just one dissatisfied customer not much will happen as usual because the customer is free to take their business elsewhere.
Even though I have basically shown how your analogy works in my favor I must reiterate that we are talking about a company that was built on the backs of taxpayers and was given a government sanctioned monopoly. So we have a completely different situation where the consumers hold even more rights. Not to mention the fact that the company was given right of way (although this is part of the monopoly argument).
All things aside, on the topic of government land seizures, if it weren't for eminent domain a lot of good things would not have come to fruition in this country. |
|
