| well If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it. |
|
| said by brianiscool:If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it? There are many who think that that is a very good idea. But thankfully, the US has not YET devolved in to a state controlled economy like Cuba or like Venezuela is turning in to or the old Soviet Union was like. That just sends the economy in to the toilet on the express route. |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
1 edit | reply to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it. And while they are at it, why not also make it a law that you cannot earn more than a set amount, no matter how much you work or produce?
They could also make a law that limits the amount of times you can travel more than 50 miles too... You know, to make it fair to those who can't afford to travel as often. |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| reply to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it. Because then basicaly , there is a set production limit, and instead of serving 1000's of people, then can only serve 100. Check out economies of scale. Check out what happen when they set prices for food what happened, it wasnt good. |
|
|
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| reply to R4M0N
 Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service. |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | reply to brianiscool
Sure, we'll put it in the same bill slashing telecom union wages. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it. Houses are way more expensive than broadband but what do you suppose would happen if the price of houses were capped by law? Fewer houses would be built because there would be little or no profit in building them. Sounds a lot like a recession doesn't it except one that would never end until the law was changed. |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | I'd be all for capping ISP billing the day after we PERMANENTLY cap Congressional spending (since they have a cap and just vote to up it every quarter). Their patriotic sacrifice would not be in vain. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it. No they they get rid of laws that PREVENT competition. FACT if you have one gas station for 20 miles in any direction they are going to charge more than the average price for gas because they are the only source for gas. If there are 20 gas stations within 20 miles that station will have no choice but to LOWER it's price. |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service. Then, in that case, they already do: dialup. |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| reply to Sammer
Oh god.
First of all, excess population would lead to murders to take over homes. If the police allowed this, then that would become the norm, and any birth level would be absorbed by the murders, and demographic changes would be about 50 times faster than now (think: high-birthrate low-quality people would murder all the low-birthrate high-quality people, and then they'd be the only ones repopulating, rather than the current system where such activity is tempered to a slower rate).
However, if the police did not allow such homeowner-murder-takeovering, then there would be a disincentive to murdering existing homeowners so great that some would simply choose to learn not to have so many and early children, and others that had the option would avoid the country one way or another (illegal aliens leaving to their rightful country, others not becoming illegal aliens). In this scenario, after a few decades, equilibrium would probably go into a sort of malaise of lack of growth, but one which was coupled with sane policies of energy, quality, and self preservation, and things would improve over the current hell of cast systems and high-rapid-birthrate low-quality populations and such. But, just about any intrinsic improvement, however slight, is better than the current situation, so that's not much of a compliment to that means of achieving that. There are lots of better ways to make improvements to our lives, not the least of which is nuclear energy, which just by itself would fix most of our current ills.
Limiting the sale price of homes would therefore not necessarily be a good thing. |
|
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service. What the heck are you talking about? The break-up of Ma Bell was a Godsend for US telecommunications. The rate of outpouring of innovation has yet to be seen again in the industry. |
|
| reply to Ulmo
said by Ulmo:said by Mr Matt: Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service. Then, in that case, they already do: dialup. Not good enough for the most advanced economy in the world. |
|
| reply to Z80A
said by Z80A:Sure, we'll put it in the same bill slashing telecom union wages. I think we should slash CEO wages, and put a cap on their bonuses. At the same time we should raise minimum wage, provide more support for unions, and limit the financial contributions of corporations to campaigns. |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service. Apparently you weren't around before the breakup. It was nowhere close to a good value, especially if you made a long distance call. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
We already have state controlled media and education. Soon they'll be telling you if you qualify for medical procedures. This is where we're headed thanks to the ignorance of the American public.
--
GIT R DONE |
|
| reply to Z80A
said by Z80A:I'd be all for capping ISP billing the day after we PERMANENTLY cap Congressional spending (since they have a cap and just vote to up it every quarter). Their patriotic sacrifice would not be in vain. AMEN Brother.
--
GIT R DONE |
|
| reply to BF69
How bout we give Washington a permanent vacation. Better yet.. an EVICTION.
--
GIT R DONE |
|
