dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
590
share rss forum feed


Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.

join:2006-07-23

I'll be the odd one out

And completely disagree with this legislation. Not a popular opinion here, for sure, and one that will, no doubt, be criticized. Heck, it'll probably get me labeled as some evil Capitalist or corporate whore...something to that effect....but in any case.

I disagree with this law on principle, mainly based on private property rights and contractual agreements.

never the less, I see the whole mess with telecom in a slightly different way that a lot of people. *shrugs*.

just my 2 cents.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

said by Fox McCloud:

I disagree with this law on principle, mainly based on private property rights and contractual agreements.
These are public airwaves that are licensed for use under "reasonable charges" conditions.

If you protest, protest because the regulator isn't doing its job in enforcing reasonable charges and instead is throwing in the towel and capping the total of outrageous fees, instead.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords


yongar

join:2000-12-08
Virginia Beach, VA
very well put instead of bashing comment.
--
Action Yongar


ReformCRTC
Support Your Independent ISP

join:2004-03-07
Canada
reply to Fox McCloud
Stop being a corporatist.

chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
reply to funchords
Yep, public property means public oversight.


asdfdfdfdfdf

@opera-mini.net
reply to Fox McCloud
Why should all the power to shape contractual agreements be on one side? What about contract law requires that all the power rest with one side? In fact such an arrangement wasn't historically viewed as a legitimate contractual arrangement.

It isn't like both parties sit down and negotiate the terms of the arrangement. Companies write the contract THEY want and the other side is supposed to take it or piss off.

You seem to be offended by the idea that the customer has some limited power to shape the terms of the contract so it can't financially damage him with open ended costs.

I think the reason why this offends you isn't because of concern about contract or property rights but because of an unspoken belief that corporate power should be absolute and all else should be reduced to one choice: submit or rot.