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 qworster
Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy...
said by qworster  :In other words, You're being screwed! How come that doesn't upset you? How come you even DEFEND it? Are you a masochist? I suspect he's more on the side of the SCREWER then the side of the SCREWEE if you get my drift.
--
"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 TScheisskopf
said by TScheisskopf :Now, where do you get those neat "epic fail" pictures? De-regulation and allowing the Big Players to "Self-Govern"...
--
"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!) |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to KrK
Were an a lose-lose situation here. I just don't see how some regulatory board is a panacea. After all, don't you command-and-control people hate the FCC right about now? It's not as if some group of government planners are not susceptible to corruption and greed just the same as corporate profiteers.
While I don't like Comcast throttling content, it's worse to have a government agent with the power of the police dictating the marketplace.
Friedrich Hayek points out in his essay The Meaning of Competition , “Enthusiasm for perfect competition in theory and the support of monopoly in practice are indeed surprisingly often found to live together.” (emphasis added). The reason for this is that people get so caught-up in trying to make everything “competitive” that they end up distorting the market by excessive regulation, which drives high-cost producers out and discourages would-be competitors from entering (not to mention discouraging innovation because of limiting profits).
Regulation makes people beholden to a politically connected commission (evil lobbying), favors large corporations because they can handle the increased compliance costs, and leads us down the road to serfdom. Whatever good the aims of regulation are, it always ends up maintaining the power of the planners themselves. A society that cedes its development to an organized commission will always be limited by what the minds of the planners can grasp.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. |
|
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
| Actually, I'm not a big fan of heavy handed regulation either.
Personally, I'm a fan of open competition and consumer choice.... However, in industries such as these, with such high barriers to entry, there needs to be government leadership to either 1) Allow competition to break into the market (Such as the 1996 Communication Act was doing before it was attacked, rolled back, and finally killed) or 2) Keeping a watchful eye on the incumbents to make sure they don't get out of hand.
We've got neither ATM.
--
"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!) |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to TScheisskopf
said by TScheisskopf :Man, always lots of doctrine and a paucity of factual information from the dereg crowd. Man, there's always a lot of cherry-picking from the government-cures-all crowd.
The 1700s concept of regulation was where the state acts as a traffic cop making sure the rules are enforced. 21st Century regulation is government dictating the shape of the market.
Adam Smith's view of regulation was in the negative sense, i.e., we have only the obligation not to encumber people in their pursuits.
It's quite a twist of logic to pick out his use of the term and say it means that governments need to direct every last aspect of the marketplace (and if you say you're not advocating that, then we agree: there is a point where there is too much government action).
The other logical fallacy of yours is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You have said that if we hadn't repealed Glass-Stegal then there would be no recession. Of course we can't prove a negative.
It's simply not fair to lay every perceived bad occurrence at the feet of deregulation. As with most economic problems, we find the hand of government. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, is a federal law that mandates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers. But of course they were not allowed to charge a higher rate to offset the risk.
The apostles of big government and those who argue for freedom have an impasse. While the pro-regulators say we need to prevent any and all economic downturns, the free market person recognizes that markets correct and that risky/bad decisions have negative consequences and through the reward and punishment machinations of the marketplace, the best outcome is reached over time.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| I would love to point out that I have been following this very closely. Thoughts for you to remember about Smith:
"When the regulation is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable — but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." - Adam Smith
The distinguished American economist John Kenneth Galbraith said about "The Wealth of Nations:" “It is much celebrated by the ministry of the righteous right, few of whom have read it." (Source: Sherrod Brown, The Globalist)
And as far as putting forward the trope that the bad loans that were written were somehow the fault of the people in potentially redlined districts, that is risable. The sins of the very-less-than-optimally-regulated(and even criminal) mortgage industry, in league with a credit derivatives market run amok and crazed caused the collection of situations we now face and there is a direct cause and effect relationship to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Hell, even that noted barotone in the Red Army Chorus, Hank Paulson, admits that much more regulation is needed. I would add that I don't know where you got this idea that the victims are in fact at fault, because that is what the redlining argument intimates, but I would cast a very baleful eye at such transparent sophistry, were I you. It's one thing to redline, another to invest in inner cities and minority communities and what we are now reaping the fruits of has nothing at all to do with either.
And yes, markets correct. Depressions and recessions are market corrections writ all too large. Andrew Mellon, when asked what a depression is, stated "It is when money returns to its rightful owners". Surely, the same can be said of recessions. If we are really lucky, that is all we are in the early days of experiencing, a recession. But I find it hard to believe that anyone other than a doctrinaire corporate lickspittle could look at the lay of the land and say "Hey! I know EXACTLY what will fix things! Less regulation and more Laffer Curve!".
I mean, even Laffer admits he might have gotten things a bit wrong. I hope such honesty is the start of a trend. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to Dan888
What a cop-out Dan. Meanwhile, despite what you've said, other companies have built networks where there was sufficient profit motive to do so.
Folks need to stop blaming others for things that they're not owed... like THIS. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to qworster
There are dozens of ways to get "the Internet". We're talking about high-speed Internet, and there are even several ways to get that these days too... IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR THEM. Your unwillingness to pay does not constitute anything other than what it is.
I defend it because I'm an American. How come you ATTACK it? |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to factchecker
You're blowing smoke. The owners received their money from their employers and their savings. Not "the customers". They earned their money and have inviolable rights to invest as they see fit, and have their investments make money if they offer a desirable service!!!!!
Again, tax breaks and other considerations were offered IN RETURN FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE MUNICIPALITY, not in return for operating as you would have them, as a not-for-profit. That's such "me me me" thinking that it disgusts me. Get over yourself! The world does not exist to serve you.
You clearly are trying to defend your selfish perspective regardless of the reality of the situation, regardless of what our society has determined to be the actuality. Rethink your perspectives, factchecker... you're wrong. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
Your statements are un-American, asdfdfdfdfdf. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
Barriers to entry don't constitute any obligation owed to you. There are multiple suppliers in areas where sufficient profit motive is offered. So the blame for a lack of suppliers of the specific type of Internet service you want, high-speed Internet, rests squarely on CONSUMERS resisting those offerings at the price they're being offered at. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to Skippy25
I'm not a young kid. I'm a baby boomer. I simply refuse to grant selfish perspectives an unrebutted soapbox. So why don't you start trying to defend your perspectives on their merits, and explain why you think business should be cut off at the knees, and how that will improve our economy. :rolleyes: Or don't -- rather recognize that your perspectives are wrong and just give up. Your choice. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to TScheisskopf
I don't get paid anything to post. I do it for leisure. It is interesting to see so many selfish people posting their "I want give me" diatribes, and hopefully my posting will give someone among you the push towards a true American perspective. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to KrK
Blah blah blah. Another "I want give me" perspective. Yet you probably have no qualms about exploiting whatever benefits a healthy economy affords YOU, like JOBS. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to LegoPower77
said by LegoPower77 :While I don't like Comcast throttling content, it's worse to have a government agent with the power of the police dictating the marketplace. 100% correct. People here seem to want everything their way and so are pushing for things that will make THEIR OWN options WORSE. Too many simply don't understand the negative impact such regulation has on business, and how THEY will lose as a result. |
|
ThoughT2010
@sonotechnique.ca
| reply to KrK
cable and dsl companies normally sublease their network to other companies..
Bell Canada here subleases to several other companies, I'm currently using Acanac, which is bell sympatico but without bell's restrictions (port 25 being blocked, and whatever else)
Apparently rogers canada does the same (cable) |
|
DummBonez
join:2005-01-22
Vacaville, CA
| reply to bicker
Why should business be cutoff at the knees?
lol - because the "Business" will have no problem cutting off your head in the name of profit and power.
Because this "business" you talk of already controls everything. There is no regulation. And what little there is, is controled by themselves. They do whatever the hell they want. Whatever makes more profit, reguardless of consequence. They don't care about you, me, or anything except the bottem line.
What you call "Helping the economy", I call "Greed".
So keep letting these businesses regulate themselves, let them do whatever they want in the name of "helping our economy"...I mean "Greed". So that you can live out the rest of what little time you have left feeling good that the the most important thing in life, the economy, is being served.
Then, when this type of "Greed" based economy fails in the future(and I guarantee it will), our grandchildren can wonder what the hell people like you were thinking. Just like I'm wondering now.
What the hell are you thinking?
You serve big business when you should be serving people. And don't think for a moment that these businesses help people; they enslave people, just like you. |
|
RainWind
join:2000-10-20
Van Wert, OH
| reply to bicker
People have no alternative options because competition is blocked. You argument really holds no water, you just seem to like telling people they have a childish "give me now" mentality when that isn't even the case.
We either need more regulation or the government needs to piss off and let other companies move in to compete when and how they please. No more slapping Verizon's hand for offering special deals to customer's who have initiated a port out request. No blocking of new competition. No more regulating what a company can charge. Telco's can't just drop their pricing at will to compete with cable.
All people are asking for is a little pro-consumer regulation because one company is given a monopoly in an specific area and there is no alternate provider because of it.
The blame is not on the consumers. The problem is regulation and the local government pushing away competition. Your argument might have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that the reason competition doesn't move in has to do with government and regulation. Verizon can't just waltz into a town and start laying fiber.
Either competition needs to stop getting cock blocked, or the government needs to go one step further with regulation. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to bicker
Yours is no "true American perspective" by any metric other than those passed back and forth in the dark fever swamps of Internet discourse.
You evince no special wisdom or knowledge here. In fact, you evince an ignorance that is impressive. We are paying for the service. Thus, we have a voice.
And don't trot out that trope about "Well, go to another provider". Over the last 8 years, this administration has gutted the parts of the telecom deregulation act that would have allowed true competition and most areas of the US have to deal with natural monopolies and no choice save one.
Sir, one gets the impression you know very little of which you speak, except for a few shopworn and tired phrases. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to bicker
And Laisez-Faire capitalism is the staunch conservative's answer to everything. One look at the unrestrained nonsense caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall showed how well that works out. We've been given the rewards of the *exact* same crap that caused the Great Depression.
You can't create wealth by selling bags of risk that are comprised of a mixture of mortgage securities written to people who are not likely to pay it back and damned certain not to pay it back. Yet that's exactly what happened and the economy takes another shot in the back because of unrestrained highly leveraged speculation -- things that were hard to do before 2000 because of the risks to everyone else who has to swim in the same pool.
Of course, the solution to this problem is to just let the market sort it out. But the government stepped in and has been guaranteeing these securities -- a decidedly LIBERAL thing to do for a bunch of people who should lose their investments just the same way that people are losing their homes. But you don't talk much about that, do you -- since socialistic assistance is fine as long as it benefits the wealthy.
Back on topic, these services are less and less discretionary and more utility. "Doing without" is, in many cases, becoming harder and harder just as "doing without" was harder and harder as electricity, telephone and natural gas lines made their way into consumer homes. If Comcast can't provide unfettered access, they need to be regulated. Period. And that goes for every other ISP.
Would you tolerate AT&T knocking the volume down on a call you placed through a third-party long distance carrier? I doubt "Well sir, it's our wires, we can do what we want" would be an acceptable answer if you complained. Yet that's exactly the power you're granting to Comcast. It's their pipes, don't like it, don't use them. That's not an acceptable situation because it's no longer just a "service". It's a utility used for online banking, education, communication and entertainment. |
|
