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 bicker
Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy...
said by bicker  :You pay them good money for what they promise you, They keep changing the rules. The put in a clause saying "We can do whatever we want."
Than later on, they add in throttling, shaping, blocking, filtering, Caps, overage charges, etc etc. Oh they know you'll be pissed, but they know as long as the other choice (be it DSL or cable) does it too that you are screwed.
Personally, consumers should not just take this crap. They *need* to raise holy hell about it, because the companies sure aren't going to act in their best interests just out of the goodness of their hearts. It's quite simple, either we have real competition, and many choices, OR WE NEED HEAVY REGULATION. Period. Right now we get the WORST of both worlds: Almost total deregulation, hands-off attitude, AND a lack of competition. This is the perfect recipe for abuse, and that's what's happening.... Abuse.
--
"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!) |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| If you don't like the terms and conditions, then don't patronize them. Find a better supplier. If there aren't any, than ACCEPT what they're offering is the best any supplier is willing to provide you.
Consumers have the ultimate control: Don't purchase the service. That'll communicate your dissatisfaction better than anything else you can possibly do or say. It is THE manner in which consumers affect the market.
More competition will come from there being a GREATER profit motive, not a LESSER profit motive.
Heavy regulation is the liberals solution to everything.  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :Personally, consumers should not just take this crap. They *need* to raise holy hell about it, because the companies sure aren't going to act in their best interests just out of the goodness of their hearts. Then take your business elsewhere. You don't need the government to be your nanny. Or do you?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
 from:
wtansill
| reply to bicker
"what they're offering is the best any supplier is willing to provide you."
You completely ignore the effects of market power and the way that such conditions can lock out competitors. There can be enormous barriers to entry for new businesses. This has nothing to do with what a supplier is willing to do and everything to do with whether one has any chance of overcoming the advantages that previous entrants have in the market. |
|
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 bicker
Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy...
said by bicker :Heavy regulation is the liberals solution to everything. Riding roughshod over the public good and consumers and granted unregulated monopolies all in the interests of GREED and MONEY seem to be the conservatives answer to everything... and what does it get us... crashing economy, out of control energy prices, wars, pollution, corruption, scandal, and the downfall of our nation. Yeah yeah, I know, I should just fork over my money and shut up.... but I'm not going to. Screw that. You can't have it both ways... Either allow open competition, or face regulation....
--
"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 TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Then take your business elsewhere. Ok I had DSL. I took my business elsewhere, to Cable. Next? Wireless? Not available? Satellite? Not feasible or economical. Other option, "Do without?" Yeah, ok. Nope. Bring on the Government. Real competition, or regulation. Enough of this non-competition unregulated BS.
--
"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!) |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Even Adam Smith said that Capitalism requires regulation to mitigate the baser instinct of men and their greed. Adam Smith. You know, The Big Kahuna of Capitalism? Surely, you have heard of him?
Besides, look around, like at the mortgage market and petroleum prices and their effects on the economy at large: deregulation really worked out swimmingly there, didn't it? Deregulation like the repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act, wherein the taxpayers are picking up the tab for the "unintended effects" and the complete lack of regulation on the hedge funds and credit markets..
Man, always lots of doctrine and a paucity of factual information from the dereg crowd.
Now, where do you get those neat "epic fail" pictures? |
|
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
| 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 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 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) |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| 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. |
|
