dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1238
share rss forum feed

rileyjam514
There You Go Again...

join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ

1 recommendation

Seriously?

Are we surprised?

Karl, I gotta say I disagree with you a lot of the time but when it comes to Mr. Martin and the current state of affairs with the FCC, I can't say there's any way to disagree with you.

Frankly, I'll tell you exactly what's happening here:

1) Kevin Martin is preparing himself for a nice cushy job at the end of his term, and the way things are going he's locked in a pretty fat salary and a nice retirement package for himself.

2) Prior to starting as the FCC chair, he most likely approached both sides of the table - the cablecos and the telcos. Here's the deal they probably worked out: promise me everything a man could desire in this world after my term is over and I'll give your company whatever you want as FCC chair. The cablecos probably balked at his offer or felt another candidate for the chairmanship would get the post and backed them instead. Either way, theirs was the wrong answer and he chose the telcos in the end.

3) Probably due to some clandestine method that he used to communicate his offer (unable to prove that he ever said anything) to the cablecos or due to some other major dirt he's got on them (ex.: a la carte is not only feasible, it's available and working in the system that's in place now), the cablecos are unable or unwilling to out him.

4) Media outlets are not concerned with Mr. Martin's activities, not because it is not significant news or because they really like him, but because it is very easy for him to make one phone call and make life difficult for them (cut their broadcasting license based on some out-of-context remark, for example, with plenty of trumped-up demographics to support the charge). Internet broadcasters / bloggers are not taken seriously by Mr. Martin because they cannot impact the average American in nearly as incredible a way as the Big Four broadcast channels can, and because he has no recourse due to the lack of regulation on the internet. Please note that I am not trying to slight internet broadcasters or bloggers with this statement - I am simply pointing out how Martin views this situation.

What do you think?
--
Abortion is murder, Reagan was a hero, Clinton was a sleazeball, Iraq is much better off without Saddam, and the telcos are not trustworthy with American tax dollars. There! I've managed to offend a significant portion of BBR!



Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

I agree Riley that government agencies are in the pockets of the very industries they are supposed to reform. Just like Congress/Senate members have to wait a few years before becoming lobbyist, rule should change to do something similar for heads of the FCC, SEC, FDA, by keeping them away from the very industry they were just whoring for.


dogo88

join:2001-09-24
Old Bridge, NJ
reply to rileyjam514

Well, here's my take:

In his earlier years, Kevin had cable. Got tired of the rate increases, piss poor service, arrogant and stupid CSRs and decided, like the rest of us who think cable sucks, that when given a chance, stick it to them hard.



Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks

join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO

The Feds just need to get out of the way and let MaBell compete with Cable and Satellite.


Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA

How are the feds in the way of MaBell competing? Besides, you know, crippling MaBell's competitors...


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to dogo88

said by dogo88:

... that when given a chance, stick it to them hard.
So tell me if this is what you're saying.. it's ok to be in government to take out personal issues of your own and not take the job to do the business of the people, right?

Right or wrong in his outcome, it's the mentality behind the reasons that bothers me.

There's something that you and everyone else here has to remember - be it cable, phone, cellular, ISP, what have you, congress can't regulate "arrogant and stupid CSRs" or the likes. It's not government's job to legislate morality. On the flip side, it can be said that there are plenty consumers out there with piss poor attitudes, and who also are arrogant and stupid.

The scope in which government needs to be involved in the workings of any part of society needs to be limited. You can't make people love anything and you can't force anyone to smile at you over the phone.

Before you go on to the surface of my post, read into it to see what I'm saying... IOW, remove your emotion from this post.. just as I'm saying you have to do when you look at society as a whole.

There are just certain things that only government is big enough to do, and then there are things that society will take care on it's own. (ie: Gov can't always force non-arrogance with in a company, but they CAN allow and make it easier for someone else to come in and compete with the, and that doesn't always mean to put chains on the one guy putting them at a disadvantage to favor someone else)
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to Ahrenl

It's not competition when something is handed to you. It's more like Robin hood only this time he's taking from the rich to give to the favored or friend.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."



adisor19

join:2004-10-11
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to Topmounter

said by Topmounter:

The Feds just need to get out of the way and let MaBell compete with Cable and Satellite.
LOL you meant that as a joke.. Right ?!

Adi