asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to bicker
Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy...
"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. |
|
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
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!) |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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
·Verizon FIOS
| 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. |
|
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
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!) |
|
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. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to KrK
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. |
|
