bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to DummBonez
Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy...
I think your perspective is incredibly myopic and un-American, DummBonez. It's all about you, isn't it. The business of America is business. Get used to it, because it is the reality you'll have to deal with when you grow up.
Incidentally, I serve REALITY, not business or people. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to RainWind
Competition is not blocked. That's a cop-out business-haters use to distort the issue. Competition is what it is, and it is what it is because that's how much profit there is in offering competing services.
You call it "pro-consumer regulation" but what it really is is Big Brother interfering with business. And look at the REALITY... thirty years and counting of a pro-business perspective in this country and there are still people like you who refuse to acknowledge it. Even the Democrats are pro-business now. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to TScheisskopf
Your personal attacks "evince" no special wisdom or knowledge either. Your message here provides nothing of value. It is just another denial of the reality that I've outlined. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to clickie
You are the first person in this thread to make any valid points, but even then, you're just raising matters for which reasonable people disagree, and both sides can claim that they're "right" and the other side is "wrong".
I don't talk about government guaranteeing securities because I believe it is WRONG.
If you really believe that this should be a utility, consider how much you'll pay in taxes to have the government acquire the assets via eminent domain. If you're not willing to pay that amount, then any kind of mid-range solution to the issue, such as regulation, is just a selfish grab for someone else's assets.
Let it happen to your assets and see how much YOU like it.
Your third-party long distance carriers example is irrelevant. That's not what is happening here. There aren't competing HSI services running on the cable. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
1 edit | reply to bicker
Yeah..
Satellite: Too slow on uploads and latency makes it useless for VOIP.
T-1 Cheapest I can find is 380.00 a month for 1500/1500 service.
Wireless: Yes, there are several wireless providers in LA. The cheapest one is over 100 dollars a month and offers 1500/384 service.
Dial up: Maybe. With all the throttling going on, it might end up being FASTER then cable or DSL!
You sound like you believe that broadband should only be available to the elite that can afford it. BULL$HIT!
Broadband should be available to EVERYONE...and in many countries it is!
If you're an American and so concerned about your country, then consider this: The USA is quickly becoming a third world country technology/Internet wise, and attitudes like yours only make it happen worse and faster! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to bicker
said by bicker  :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. Ya, we should be so lucky to have have a JOB. I know, we should work for free in thanks to the mighty company for employing us, and providing us the benefits of the "healthy economy."
Do you really believe the stuff you shovel?
--
"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!) |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to bicker
"Barriers to entry don't constitute any obligation owed to you."
I don't know why you are accusing me of making such an argument. That isn't my argument.
"There are multiple suppliers in areas where sufficient profit motive is offered"
Again you ignore the way things like network effects and first mover advantage drastically alters the economic calculations for those wishing to enter the market after the first mover is established and impose a quite different set of costs on those trying to compete with the dominant player.
Is "sufficient profit" something that is probable or even possible or is it something absurd?
Of course any barriers can be overcome by an extreme enough set of circumstances(such as if everyone was willing to pay a million dollars a month for an internet connection) but that doesn't mean such things will happen with any set of probable real world parameters. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to bicker
Are we trying to get at truth or are we trying to be pro-american? The two things aren't always the same.
It's interesting that you feel that way because my statements are nothing more than a restatement of your own claims above, namely that one is always free and empowered because one always has the choice of nothing as a substitute for something.
|
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | Oh my gosh, the entitlement mentality just continues to get piled on, higher and higher. "Give me. Give me. Give me. Take from them." Despicable. I've never seen a thicker display of self-absorbed liberalism. Incredible.
No one is adding anything of value to this thread any more -- just saying the same things over and over again in different ways, as if it makes a difference. So many of you are just too caught up in your perspectives to recognize the reality. Nuf Sed. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to LegoPower77
"Were an a lose-lose situation here. I just don't see how some regulatory board is a panacea."
I agree.
It isn't meant to be a panacea. It's meant to provide some counterbalancing force to try to slow the process of things getting worse.
Where I disagree is in the belief that regulation is always worse than the problem it tries to cure.
It's important for anyone who wants to understand the net neutrality issue to understand that no one started out wanting net neutrality regulation. It has never been anyone's ideal solution to anything. Net neutrality is a rear guard action to mitigate against the results of trends that some have been warning against for years, namely that as competition diminished, we abandoned the TA96 framework, and the old regulatory regime(such as common carriage) was dismantled, that the de facto neutrality of the net would be under assault as power was consolidated(over 95% of small business and residential broadband access is controlled by two companies in any given location, the area's telco and cableco).
As a result we now have essentially oligopoly with neither the restraints that would be imposed by a competitive market nor the restraints that were previously imposed by government. This is indeed a mess that it will be very difficult for us to extract ourselves from.
I think we have to weigh the risks of unintended consequences from regulation against the fact that if we impose no boundaries the behavior of these companies is likely to get worse. Frankly companies are much like children testing the boundaries to see how much they will be allowed to get by with. They try something and look up to see if society is going to do anything about it. If society doesn't do anything about it they try something more. If there is no robust competition to reign them in and the society shows no interest in setting limits then what is the likely result going to be?
Net neutrality isn't a fix for anything. I do think, however, it will slow down the ill intentioned and may allow us to avoid the worst consequences of the problems we have brought on ourselves. Hopefully in the meanwhile we will develop other effective longer term solutions. |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Fair enough, with qualifications, of course.
The history of regulation shows that firms lobbied for it when competition reduced their profits. In 1897 the National Electric Light Assn. began lobbying for regulation and for "fair profit" price controls by the various states only after upstart firms had started taking some of their market share.
The same scenario for the telephone industry. Actually, the first states to adopt regulation were the ones that had low profits and high output. The effects of these regulations were to increase price and reduce output.
Another effect of regulation, in every case it seems, is that a company seeking to enter a market has to first get a license from the state. And therein could be the reason for our monopolies/duopolies—in my area, Comcast has exclusive rights. Why?
In a market with no artificial barriers to entry, the "monopoly" firm always always has to guard against upstart competitors seeking a part of the monopoly profit (which is why you'd never see $200/month broadband at this time).
And the natural barriers—the high start-up costs—can be mitigated by the speculative/futures markets. (Perhaps not a panacea, but something to consider.)
Again, it should be stated that the incumbents benefit from heavy regulation because they have the economies of scale to overcome the increased compliance costs.
The problem with price controls is that they create the wrong incentives for the firm. Government pricing is based on historical prices, not the current technology.
If an industry is unregulated, when there are rapid technological advances, the old facilities become obsolete before their historical cost is fully depreciated. Firms abandon obsolete facilities sooner than if there had been no advancement.
But under a planned regime, the older facilities are protected by the averaging of their cost with the cheaper newer facilities into the rate structure. This has two effects that are exactly the opposite of what advocates of regulation say they want.
First, since the older facilities are not abandoned and their cost is averaged with the newer ones, the price does not go down as quickly as it would if the old facility were abandoned altogether (assuming the new technology makes the product cheaper).
Second, because the bargain for the licensee is they're given a government-secured market, firms are more willing to try risky new technologies because they are less sensitive to cost overruns; and since the consumer is made to pay for it anyway. . .
Firms operating under regulation are less motivated to control costs than they would be in a competitive market and they do not abandon their older, inefficient facilities as readily.
The point of all of this is that it's better to live with a temporary monopoly, subject to free entry, then to have Leviathan with threat of force limiting our choices and stifling innovation.
--
"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. |
|
