|reply to CXM_Splicer |
Re: And this is different than McDonald's how?
said by CXM_Splicer:It's not justifying it. It's merely pointing out there isn't this huge outrage and "let's sue and let's get the government involved" mantra toward McDonald's. All I ask for is CONSISTANCY and no HYPOCRISY.
"It's no big deal because McDonald's does it too" is not really a great justification for business behavior.
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
I think the outrage is because people consider broadband service a necessary utility that should be regulated. McDonald's certainly is not necessary... and there are many more real options for food then there are for broadband. The options for broadband are not real options since 'they all do it'.
I agree with you on the consistency point though and would advocate stronger consumer protection laws in general.
|reply to 88615298 |
said by 88615298:You are confused. No one is showing any hypocrisy. Your metaphor doesn't fit in a multitude of ways.
It's merely pointing out there isn't this huge outrage and "let's sue and let's get the government involved" mantra toward McDonald's. All I ask for is CONSISTANCY and no HYPOCRISY.
a) you imply that buying a coke in a McDonalds is at or near the same price as a burger, coke, fries meal combination. At my mcdonalds it is 1/4 the price of the combo.
b) broadband regulation is something routinely discussed in political discourse. While not strictly a utility in all aspects, it is effectively a monopoly or duopoly in many areas. It is absolutely valid to discuss or advocate getting the government involved.
It is your position that is hypocritical and inconsistent: These providers lobby the federal state and local in the billions to obtain government involvement laws and rulings in their favor (often creating anti competitive atmospheres) , yet your contention seems to be it is ok for the providers to lobby but not the customers???