dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed
« InaneDo it yourself »
page: 1 · 2
This is a sub-selection from Interesting

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to FFH

Re: Interesting

said by FFH:

said by hello123454:

100 Mbps service by 2015 is pretty impressive. I mean it's comparing apples to oranges looking at what the US has and this smaller country..but look at what West Virginia is supposed to get out of the Verizon deal by 2015...

I have FiOS and i'm sure it will be a lot faster in 5 years but it definitely won't be a 'right' to have it.
Nor should it be a right.
Yes it should. Corporations don't have a right to drain money from their consumers while providing service worse than Estonian citizens receive.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

2 recommendations

Luckily, you have the right not to pay corporations for those services


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by openbox9:

Luckily, you have the right not to pay corporations for those services
Yours is a worthless bottom of the barrel argument. Why make anything a requirement? You don't actually need AC or heating, zoning laws, food quality standards. You have a right to research everything on your own before making a decision. Why have consumer protections at all?

No, corporations don't have the right to take your money while providing bare minimum service in return. They only exist because in a competitive market innovation flows freely. There is little to no innovation to be had in providing infrastructure.

Your endless defense of corporations is completely illogical.


DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
reply to sonicmerlin

said by sonicmerlin:

said by FFH:

said by hello123454:

100 Mbps service by 2015 is pretty impressive. I mean it's comparing apples to oranges looking at what the US has and this smaller country..but look at what West Virginia is supposed to get out of the Verizon deal by 2015...

I have FiOS and i'm sure it will be a lot faster in 5 years but it definitely won't be a 'right' to have it.
Nor should it be a right.
Yes it should. Corporations don't have a right to drain money from their consumers while providing service worse than Estonian citizens receive.
Corporations have a right to drain as much money as they want from the customers that stick to them...

They just don't have a right to no competition. Which is the problem atm. They have no real competition so you are stuck paying their ridiculous prices and using their crappy service.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

2 recommendations

reply to sonicmerlin

So based on your argument, everything should be run by the government?

I have to agree with the previous poster. If someone don't like the type of service he receives from a business or said service does not meet his needs and yet continues to buy it anyway then that person is a complete and total fool, and deserves to be separated from his money.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.



DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat

said by pnh102:

If someone don't like the type of service he receives from a business or said service does not meet his needs and yet continues to buy it anyway then that person is a complete and total fool, and deserves to be separated from his money.
That's a stupid argument as far as US broadband goes. The only option you have to "leave" is to ditch internet/phone/tv service altogether, which is more unreasonable than paying the price. There are no other options to run to.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by DrModem:

That's a stupid argument as far as US broadband goes. The only option you have to "leave" is to ditch internet/phone/tv service altogether, which is more unreasonable than paying the price. There are no other options to run to.
And if you continue to reward companies with your business while they provide you with something that doesn't meet your needs, then where is their incentive to improve?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to sonicmerlin

You're very quick to dismiss "worthless arguments" today.

said by sonicmerlin:

You have a right to research everything on your own before making a decision. Why have consumer protections at all?
Now you're talking. Way to take something out of context to attempt to strengthen your viewpoint
said by sonicmerlin:

No, corporations don't have the right to take your money while providing bare minimum service in return. They only exist because in a competitive market innovation flows freely.
No, corporations exist to provide a product or service that someone is willing to take in exchange for a good or service or some sort of compensation. And to make money for its shareholders
said by sonicmerlin:

Your endless defense of corporations is completely illogical.
How so? Because I don't always agree with your opinion? Because I don't automatically assume corporations are the devil? Because I believe for profit corporations can be more efficient than governments? Because I'm a satisfied customer of corporations that I do business with?


DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by DrModem:

That's a stupid argument as far as US broadband goes. The only option you have to "leave" is to ditch internet/phone/tv service altogether, which is more unreasonable than paying the price. There are no other options to run to.
And if you continue to reward companies with your business while they provide you with something that doesn't meet your needs, then where is their incentive to improve?
Perhaps you need the connection for some reason and there are no other provider options, or the options that are there are pretty much the same as what you are currently on.

What are you supposed to do then? Go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to move somewhere that you can get a different broadband provider?

No, you are stuck.

Such is the reality of US ISPs.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit
reply to DrModem

said by DrModem:

said by pnh102:

If someone don't like the type of service he receives from a business or said service does not meet his needs and yet continues to buy it anyway then that person is a complete and total fool, and deserves to be separated from his money.
That's a stupid argument as far as US broadband goes. The only option you have to "leave" is to ditch internet/phone/tv service altogether, which is more unreasonable than paying the price. There are no other options to run to.
You are lumping in phone & TV service with broadband as if you reject broadband you have no other choices for phone & TV. That isn't true - re sat TV, OTA TV, landline phone, cell phone, etc.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC?


DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ViaTalk
reply to sonicmerlin

said by sonicmerlin:

said by FFH:

said by hello123454:

100 Mbps service by 2015 is pretty impressive. I mean it's comparing apples to oranges looking at what the US has and this smaller country..but look at what West Virginia is supposed to get out of the Verizon deal by 2015...

I have FiOS and i'm sure it will be a lot faster in 5 years but it definitely won't be a 'right' to have it.
Nor should it be a right.
Yes it should. Corporations don't have a right to drain money from their consumers while providing service worse than Estonian citizens receive.
Wait now your talking about the new government taxes, on health care, cap and tax, etc etc. I think your confused.
--
They Live... We Sleep...

“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.



DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

You are lumping in phone & TV service with broadband as if you reject broadband you have no other choices for phone & TV. That isn't true - re sat TV, OTA TV, landline phone, cell phone, etc.
I never said that. The pricing schemes on all 3 are generally regarded as ridiculous, and the service(except for maybe landline phone service) is generally regarded as crappy. And for TV I was referring to cable.

That's why I have them in a group.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by DrModem:

said by FFH:

You are lumping in phone & TV service with broadband as if you reject broadband you have no other choices for phone & TV. That isn't true - re sat TV, OTA TV, landline phone, cell phone, etc.
I never said that. The pricing schemes on all 3 are generally regarded as ridiculous, and the service(except for maybe landline phone service) is generally regarded as crappy. And for TV I was referring to cable.

That's why I have them in a group.
That is EXACTLY what you said{only option you have to "leave" is to ditch internet/phone/tv service altogether}, but maybe not what you meant.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC?


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to DrModem

said by DrModem:

Perhaps you need the connection for some reason and there are no other provider options, or the options that are there are pretty much the same as what you are currently on.
And if the connection satisfying that reason then how can you claim it "sucks?"
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
reply to FFH

Yea



DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by DrModem:

Perhaps you need the connection for some reason and there are no other provider options, or the options that are there are pretty much the same as what you are currently on.
And if the connection satisfying that reason then how can you claim it "sucks?"
Where did I say it was satisfying any reasons?

You can use 28k dialup for the same stuff that you can use 25mb cable for, but whether one is feasible or not is a different matter.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by DrModem:

You can use 28k dialup for the same stuff that you can use 25mb cable for, but whether one is feasible or not is a different matter.
Maybe you could, I know I couldn't. I would definitely not be paying for 28k dialup if that was the only option.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.
Expand your moderator at work

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

Re: Interesting

quote:
Now you're talking. Way to take something out of context to attempt to strengthen your viewpoint.
I laugh at your complete lack of common sense. You want to research everything without government involvement? Go to Somalia. You simply don't understand how bad things used to be.

The period between 1890 and 1930 is considered the "Progressive Era" of the United States because of the various consumer protections put into place by government. Massive muckraking efforts were undertaken to expose the horrible practices of various industries. I highly recommend you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, a 1906 muckraking novel that exposed the disgusting conditions of the meat packing industry. The uproar over the novel led to the passage a few months later of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.

You're spoiled by modern government protections, and simply have no idea what it means to live in a country without your elected representatives looking out for your well-being. You need to spend some time in a 3rd world country to understand how corrupt corporate executives can ruin people's lives.

quote:
No, corporations exist to provide a product or service that someone is willing to take in exchange for a good or service or some sort of compensation. And to make money for its shareholders
Corporations exist because of the capitalistic market, a form of financial activity we as a nation chose because of the benefits it has. Competition leads to innovation. Companies are not meant to simply funnel money to shareholders. They exist to compete and innovate, leading to overall benefit of the entire society.

quote:
How so? Because I don't always agree with your opinion? Because I don't automatically assume corporations are the devil? Because I believe for profit corporations can be more efficient than governments? Because I'm a satisfied customer of corporations that I do business with?
I don't have a problem with someone who is ignorant. It's annoying however when someone chooses to remain ignorant. There is an endless amount of data pointing to how uncompetitive the broadband market is. Data also demonstrates how the '96 Telecom Act and its line-sharing requirements spurred investment. European broadband markets repeatedly demonstrate better service with lower prices with government intervention.

The concept of "natural monopoly" is also well-defined and taught in the most basic of economic classes. You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

said by sonicmerlin:

You want to research everything without government involvement?
Apparently I do need to include a sarcasm tag...
said by sonicmerlin:

You need to spend some time in a 3rd world country
I've seen one more than I cared to, and I choose to continue living in the US. What's your point?
said by sonicmerlin:

Corporations exist because of the capitalistic market
....
Companies are not meant to simply funnel money to shareholders.
Actually, corporations exist as a legal structure. Anyway, once again, you're taking my comments out of context. I did not state corporations exist "simply to funnel money to shareholders". However, corporations do have a fiduciary responsibility to work in their shareholders' best interests.
said by sonicmerlin:

I don't have a problem with someone who is ignorant.
A solid tactic in debating a topic is to leave the name calling at the door. It does nothing to add to your position and only serves to undermine your credibility.
said by sonicmerlin:

There is an endless amount of data pointing to how uncompetitive the broadband market is.
Did I suggest otherwise?
said by sonicmerlin:

Data also demonstrates how the '96 Telecom Act and its line-sharing requirements spurred investment.
Investment happened because of the tech bubble. Did the Telecom Act spur that too?
said by sonicmerlin:

You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
I understand the concept of natural monopoly. I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make with your comment though.
Expand your moderator at work

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

Re: Interesting

said by pnh102:

So based on your argument, everything should be run by the government?
The fallacy of the false choice. If nothing should be run by the government, what is government doing in the business if easements and rights of ways? And, worse, giving access to that public property to further corporate interests?

It's reasonable to question whether such monopolistic use of public property deserves greater regulation to ensure that property is being used with the public's interests in mind.

It's not an either/or, as if doing so will lead to government takeover of your local Sears store.

If done right, it wouldn't even require a takeover of the ISP. Just the last-mile infrastructure from which residents could gateway to any ISP they wish. More competition, not less.

said by pnh102:

If someone don't like the type of service he receives from a business or said service does not meet his needs and yet continues to buy it anyway then that person is a complete and total fool, and deserves to be separated from his money.
The problem is that we're not talking about something like your local 20-50 auto mechanics. We're talking about monopolies and duopolies that exist largely due to their use of public property to avoid negotiating (free-market style) property access with each individual property owner.

That's hardly "competition" in the sense of, "if you don't like it, switch to something else." It's that lack of competition that justified giving them access to public rights of way and easements (so they wouldn't be held over a barrel by 3-4 property owners who could set their price to use their property at astronomical prices.).


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

The fallacy of the false choice. If nothing should be run by the government ...
How is it a false choice when the previous poster was advocating it? And where did I suggest that nothing should be run by the government?
said by amigo_boy:

The problem is that we're not talking about something like your local 20-50 auto mechanics. We're talking about monopolies and duopolies that exist largely due to their use of public property to avoid negotiating (free-market style) property access with each individual property owner.
True, but how is that related to people paying money for services that do not meet their needs? As another poster pointed out with the example of 28.8k dialup being the only internet option in town, if that was unable to fill my needs as an internet user, I'd skip it.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by pnh102:

True, but how is that related to people paying money for services that do not meet their needs? As another poster pointed out with the example of 28.8k dialup being the only internet option in town, if that was unable to fill my needs as an internet user, I'd skip it.
If it's the only choice in town, you'll be more willing to settle for something that doesn't meet your needs. It's not like you have a choice. Nor does the seller of that inferior service have much incentive (competing sellers) to provide a better service, or to learn what the true "market" will bear.

For someone who claims to advocate a market-based philosophy, your arguments imply that you have the slightest idea what markets are.

Your arguments neither take your own position seriously (applying the philosophy to its nature conclusion, as you insist others must do). Nor does it allow others to be pragmatic (i.e., more oversight of what is a socialized market) because you insist that a philosophical principle is more important. (One which you don't apply as consistently as you expect others.).

It's like you're just intentionally antagonizing people rather than taking your own philosophy seriously. It doesn't really promote free-market economics. It just seems to be disingenuous entertainment to you.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

If it's the only choice in town, you'll be more willing to settle for something that doesn't meet your needs.
Why would I do that? It would be a waste of money.
said by amigo_boy:

It's not like you have a choice. Nor does the seller of that inferior service have much incentive (competing sellers) to provide a better service, or to learn what the true "market" will bear.
That is indeed true. But I am not making the choice not to use something because I want to make a social statement, I just see it as a waste of money that I wish to avoid.
said by amigo_boy:

For someone who claims to be an advocate of market-based philosophy, your arguments imply that you have the slightest idea what markets are.
Really? So a market requires people to make purchases of things they do not need or want against their will? That wasn't in any economics theory I ever learned.

I know that there are some people who are perfectly content to waste their money on things they do not need or want. I'm not one of them. If all of the choices presented to me are not to my liking, or not going to help me solve a problem, then I always have the last choice, not participating.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

said by pnh102:

Really? So a market requires people to make purchases of things they do not need or want against their will? That wasn't in any economics theory I ever learned.
You never learned Maslov's wants and needs?

Willing buyers and sellers weigh a variety of criteria, including the lack of variety and how that affects their negotiating position with the seller who holds all the cards (so to speak).

The choice to go without, or move (due to lack of choice as a result of a socially-created monopoly) is not a factor. If it is a factor, it was surprisingly absent from your arguments against socialized healthcare.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

You never learned Maslov's wants and needs?
No. I just learned that if something doesn't meet my needs, I won't buy it.
said by amigo_boy:

The choice to go without, or move (due to lack of choice as a result of a socially-created monopoly) is not a factor. If it is a factor, it was surprisingly absent from your arguments against socialized healthcare.
Actually, a lot of people choose to go without health insurance because they believe they do not need it. Most of these people are young. I don't believe they should be forced to buy something they do not want, and if they are willing to be on the hook for an expensive medical bill, then why keep that choice from them.

My main argument against socialized health care is its efficacy. I keep hearing all the time in many countries that have such systems people are routinely denied care and because there is no private alternative, people there have to do without. While our system has its faults and quite honestly, does need some level of fixing, I do think that the option to go into debt, even a lot of debt, to get a procedure you need privately is a very important one that still needs to remain in place. I'd rather the option to obtain a service at a very high cost be on the table than not having that choice available at any cost.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

You never learned Maslov's wants and needs?
No. I just learned that if something doesn't meet my needs, I won't buy it.
If you never learned Maslow's "Wants and Needs," you must not have spent much time learning economics and the psychology of the consumer.

Just because a consumer needs something very badly doesn't excuse a monopolistic seller that exists largely due to "helps" from society. That is a form of coercion, not a consumer choosing a generic brand peanut butter over six other varieties through the weighing of his wants and needs (settling for less tasty PB in order to get the dozen eggs he wants).

After natural disasters we typically don't excuse "price gougers" (water, food, gasoline) under the premise that, if the consumer doesn't find value in a $10-loaf of bread, they shouldn't buy it.

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:
The choice to go without, or move (due to lack of choice as a result of a socially-created monopoly) is not a factor. If it is a factor, it was surprisingly absent from your arguments against socialized healthcare.
Actually, a lot of people choose to go without health insurance because they believe they do not need it.
However, when something went horribly wrong, they became a burden on society. Their needs met in the Emergency Room, and the costs passed on to others.

said by pnh102:

I don't believe they should be forced to buy something they do not want,
Fortunately, that ship's already set sale. Now you are forced to purchase healthcare from a monopolized industry which exists largely due to "helps" (coercion).

If you choose to not move to another country, we can deduce that you are a willing participant in what is a "free market."

We don't need to get into how those forced to pay for the opt-out people weren't really operating in a "free market" either. That's just handwaving on your part.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

If you never learned Maslow's "Wants and Needs," you must not have spent much time learning economics and the psychology of the consumer.
If it contradicts the premise of a buyer making an informed decision to not purchase something because it doesn't meet his wants or needs, it can't be that ideal. You could make the same argument about other theories of economics, such as Keynesian economics, and they too would fall apart.
said by amigo_boy:

After natural disasters we typically don't excuse "price gougers" (water, food, gasoline) under the premise that, if the consumer doesn't find value in a $10-loaf of bread, they shouldn't buy it.
This isn't exactly the same situation. Most people who are looking to buy broadband are not in that boat.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.