| |
batman
Anon
2014-Jul-17 3:42 pm
Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitorsComcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states. Why should they want to fund a competitor thru their own taxes. They have the same rights as any taxpayer - to lobby politicians to see things their way. And unless lobbying laws and election laws are changed to stop contributions to political candidates, they have to play by the laws as they exist. |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
1 recommendation |
n2jtx
Member
2014-Jul-17 3:52 pm
said by batman :Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states. Why stop there? There are plenty of things our taxes are used to fund that many people will disagree with. There are times I wish I had a choice, like with United Way, where I can decide how my "contribution" is used. |
|
| |
to batman
First off, they could pull out of the state and stop paying taxes there now couldnt they? I would also be willing to bet that they are receiving some "incentives" in the way of taxes as well so they can leave those at the door when they leave.
Second, regardless of how they feel, if the community wants it and they vote for it. Then the community provides it. It is their money and their desire which trumps any businesses' desires. If they don't like that, then see point #1.
Lastly, if they were doing such a bang up job there, why would communities want/need to build a competitor? Certainly if they were providing a great service for a great price then there wouldn't even be anyone in the community talking about this. Clearly they are not so again, see point #1 and follow that up with point #2. |
|
| |
batman to n2jtx
Anon
2014-Jul-17 4:03 pm
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:said by batman :Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states. Why stop there? There are plenty of things our taxes are used to fund that many people will disagree with. There are times I wish I had a choice, like with United Way, where I can decide how my "contribution" is used. One very big difference. Stop paying taxes because you don't like how they are spending it - they can lock you up; take your assets. Don't like Comcast service - drop the service. |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL |
to batman
If communities were spending money to bring brawndo (idiocracy reference) to my tap you'd have more of a point. Communities suffer when they lack viable broadband. Like it or not, the internet is a necessity, and with no private interest or options, what are communities supposed to do?
Just like I don't want Nestle serving up what comes out of my tap, I don't think it's a waste for communities to build their own, when no good options exist. |
|
 keithps
Premium Member
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN |
to batman
Yea, it's not like you need internet to do anything in the world today. Also, Comcast has no issue taking handouts and subsidies from the government, to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars a year. |
|
1 recommendation |
to batman
Well being there is pretty much no competition your "drop the service" suggestion is a false choice. I guess your next suggestion would be to move and the next one after that would be to start your own ISP.
The community didn't like Comcast service, so the community decided to do something about it. If Comcast doesnt like it, then they should stop pushing their user's to want to do such a thing.
In addition, being you are hiding and posting anonymously with a Comcast address, you are more than likely an employee thus your words mean nothing. Surely if you were just a consumer you would want them to have this or any competition so that they stay on their toes and keep improving your service. |
|
| |
batman
Anon
2014-Jul-17 5:07 pm
said by Skippy25:In addition, being you are hiding and posting anonymously with a Comcast address, you are more than likely an employee thus your words mean nothing. Not an employee; no relatives are employees; no friends are employees. But I am a customer. But more importantly, I believe in the capitalist system, and I think government should be MUCH smaller and not continually getting larger and larger as they are already doing. |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
to keithps
said by keithps:Comcast has no issue taking handouts and subsidies from the government, to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars a year. Can you please provide documentation/proof of this claim? I don't believe Comcast receives ANY gov't handouts or subsides. Quite to the contrary, the pay out millions, possibly billions of dollars in taxes, franchise fees, RoW and pole attachment fees, to local, and state gov'ts. It is my understanding that EPB (your ISP I believe?) owes it's existence to and is tied to the public coffers and taxpayers credit worthiness so perhaps you were confused. |
|
| |
to batman
I believe that a capitalist system has failed when you have a monopoly situation as we do here. You can praise and bow down to the all mighty dollar all you want but that doesnt change anything.
I also believe that when the people of said government speak, that government is to provide for them. The people have spoke thus the government needs to provide. |
|
1 recommendation |
to tshirt
Comcast, effective tax Rate over the last year: .4% Quandl(That's right, less than 1%). You're telling me they aren't getting MASSIVE subsidies and handouts? Guess what, you're WRONG. So WRONG on so many levels, it's scary. Sure, their INCOME tax rate is closer to 20%, BUT, with subsidies and government handouts, it's EFFECTIVELY less than 1% |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
1 edit |
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:why would communities want/need to build a competitor? Do communities really WANT to pay the price of overbuilding functional private systems? I know you do, and some other, but in many situations if TAXPAYERS are given the entire TRUE cost of completing a competive (OR better) system then an existing cable or other HSI network, and the TRUE risks incurred (iProvo and many others) you probably wouldn't see a thumbs up vote. Not that I support a total ban, but requiring public entities to do a full transparent and complete due diligence process BEFORE commiting to a USF like indenturing of public funds and bonding authority for an unknown benefit. |
|
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC |
to Skippy25
I have no problem with a co-op but not paid for by taxes of people that do not take the service.
I would support a government dark fiber network if it was region or at least covered an entire county. The customers would contact content providers and ISPs for internet they would lease the dark fiber and do the hookup. With that type of arrangement the network would be a utility that only provided transport but no content and be at arms length from the customer.
The utility fiber network if the content providers buy into it would give much more competition then a muni like the cable companies that gives you one choice. |
|
 Cal
join:2014-04-23
1 recommendation |
to batman
said by batman :said by n2jtx:said by batman :Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states. Why stop there? There are plenty of things our taxes are used to fund that many people will disagree with. There are times I wish I had a choice, like with United Way, where I can decide how my "contribution" is used. One very big difference. Stop paying taxes because you don't like how they are spending it - they can lock you up; take your assets. Don't like Comcast service - drop the service. This analogy is flawed if we can get locked up and our assets seized for not paying our taxes why should comcast not get locked up for not paying their taxes? Doesn't matter if it is because they do not want taxpayer funded competition. The analogy is about comcast as a company having "rights" like an individual. If we as individuals have no say in how our taxes are used neither should comcast. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
to batman
Neither do the taxpayers. |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
to karlmarx
Any tax breaks were granted by the Gov't generally with the intent of steering a corporation towards public goal A, B, C, (energy efficiency, hiring of "disadvantaged" workers, relocation, and a zillion other well meaning but sometimes over-reaching policy goals) if you don't like tax breaks tell your representatives ASAP.
I'm all for a very flat tax system with ONLY a bottom end MINIMAL per person deduction. and while very low/ near zero corporate rates are the international standard, as long as US corporations (and those operating here) choose to act like people that can pay people like rates on US earnings. |
|
| |
to WhatNow
Jesus Christ it's not paid for by taxes. The utility issued bonds for the initial capital outlay and then pays for expenses through customer revenue. |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
to batman
Of course they want to continue to have a monopoly or a near-monopoly. That doesn't make it right. Just another sign of a totally broken political system that can be so easily bribed to make incredibly stupid legislation. |
|
| |
to tshirt
said by tshirt:said by Skippy25:why would communities want/need to build a competitor? Do communities really WANT to pay the price of overbuilding functional private systems? I know you do, and some other, but in many situations if TAXPAYERS are given the entire TRUE cost of completing a competive (OR better) system then an existing cable or other HSI network, and the TRUE risks incurred (iProvo and many others) you probably wouldn't see a thumbs up vote. Not that I support a total ban, but requiring public entities to do a full transparent and complete due diligence process BEFORE commiting to a USF like indenturing of public funds and bonding authority for an unknown benefit. You're trying to claim you know better than the communities that majority voted for these systems to be built. That they're just ignorant and stupid and don't know what they're getting into. They're just being fooled... By who? How patronizing and condescending can you possibly be? Concern troll much? |
|
| |
batman to Skippy25
Anon
2014-Jul-17 7:44 pm
to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:I also believe that when the people of said government speak, that government is to provide for them. The people have spoke thus the government needs to provide. And that attitude is EXACTLY why this country is in the mess it is in today. Quote:A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. |
|
1 recommendation |
to tshirt
I believe people have been complaining for a while now that the ridiculous tax breaks companies get are ridiculous. Yet, no representative seems to care what the people they're "officially" listening to are saying.
Many companies, mostly the big, international ones, are using well-known tax tricks, accepting millions in subsidies (Universal Service Fund, anyone?), abusing regulations (Common Carrier when it suits them, anyone?) to get untold amounts of money from the government.
You know this. The politicians and people running the companies know this. Don't tell me you don't and do not tell me it's not true because you would be flat out lying and I would call you a shill. |
|
Raides
1 recommendation |
to batman
And this is exactly what's happening. The big companies have discovered that if they dump enough money, they can own government. Regulatory capture. When you make billions in profit, $30,000 to buy off a few people is couch change. They are writing laws that benefit them, buying policy and watching their profits grow, while returning none of that money back into the economy. Comcast's ass gets fatter by the minute.
You can't deny the growing unrest with the wealth gap in the United States. |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
1 edit |
to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:you know better than the communities that majority voted for these systems to be built. NAME 3 that actually had an informed MAJORITY vote and were blocked. now go back and read the last line of my previous post. |
|
1 recommendation |
to tshirt
I would LOVE to tell my representative. The only problem is, I don't have a $60,000 check (well, donation), which would allow them to listen to me. The problem is very simple, and I DON'T blame the representatives. They are people, and people are at the core greedy. Everyone is greedy to some extent, but the elected officials are so hooked on the corporate teet, that they don't CARE what the people want, they only care about the corporations. The solution, is very easy, yet I'm enough of a realist to know it would never happen.
Step #1: Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. PERIOD. They don't have 'speech' or 'religious' rights, they exist ONLY to collect money and spend money.
Step #2: No lobbyist. Period. Stop the flow of money, and you severely limit the corruption.
Step #3: Term limits. One term as senator, 3 terms as Representative.
Step #4: When you ARE elected, ALL your ASSETS are put in a government fund, if the government MAKES money, you MAKE money, if the government spends more than it makes, then you LOSE money. I guarantee you ALL corporate tax breaks, all pork spending would disappear overnight. |
|
 cork1958Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26 |
cork1958
Premium Member
2014-Jul-18 7:13 am
Step #2: No lobbyist. Period. Stop the flow of money, and you severely limit the corruption. Step #3: Term limits. One term as senator, 3 terms as Representative. Step #4: When you ARE elected, ALL your ASSETS are put in a government fund, if the government MAKES money, you MAKE money, if the government spends more than it makes, then you LOSE money. I guarantee you ALL corporate tax breaks, all pork spending would disappear overnight Right on!! Especially #2  |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX |
to batman
Yes, I'm sure he can just drop the service and go with one of the multiple competitors. |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
2 edits |
to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:I would LOVE to tell my representative. The only problem is, I am lazy Contact is easy, being persistent, polite, informed and consistent takes a little work. said by karlmarx:Step #1: Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. PERIOD. I agree, and as I've said before YOU get a vote, something they don't, and that offers you ALL the power. said by karlmarx:Step #2: No lobbyist.... but you speaking to your rep for your own interests IS lobbying too, as is have someone in DC paid to lobby on behalf of you, your union, your organization, your charity, even your business. They need the input and face time from all sides to really understand the depth of many issues, the problems come when the fund raising and questionable ethics distract from their job, REPRESENTING YOU 24/7 said by karlmarx:Step #3: Term limits. One term as senator, 3 terms as Representative. Making the congress, the newbie in DC, while surrounded by seasoned lobbyists is part of the problem, perhaps "No paid lobbyists in DC" (let them stand in line at the local meet and greets just like the rest of us) would be better, one term would hardly let them learn where the restrooms are let alone be effective on issues covering generations of people, and reps already spend all their time fund raising (the real problem) said by karlmarx:Step #4: When you ARE elected, ALL your ASSETS are put in a government fund, if the government MAKES money, you MAKE money, if the government spends more than it makes, then you LOSE money. I guarantee you ALL corporate tax breaks, all pork spending would disappear overnight. NO, The problem is already that they are profit driven for them. We know our form of gov't isn't all that efficient, so turning over many problems to a bunch of mindless bean counters won't give them long term vision take broadband you would never see the long term investment needed if you make them even more beholden to short term five year, two year, next quarter return. Maybe withholding a chunk of their wealth for 20-30 years to see where the economy is then, how have they helped the long term picture. |
|
| |
to batman
said by batman :Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states. Why should they want to fund a competitor thru their own taxes. They have the same rights as any taxpayer - to lobby politicians to see things their way. And unless lobbying laws and election laws are changed to stop contributions to political candidates, they have to play by the laws as they exist. said by batman :Comcast doesn't want taxpayer funded competitors and I can't blame them. They pay taxes in all these states; their employees pay taxes in all these states. Why should they want to fund a competitor thru their own taxes. They have the same rights as any taxpayer - to lobby politicians to see things their way. And unless lobbying laws and election laws are changed to stop contributions to political candidates, they have to play by the laws as they exist. Can't say I'm to worried about what greedy ass rich as heck Comcast wants |
|
| |
to tshirt
tshirt, I like how you completely ignore my post. No reply? Is it true? |
|
dra6o0n
join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON |
to batman
Isn't it easier to say that the system is corrupted?
I'm sure people can't frankly come out and start accusing your sanity for that, because that would be suspicious. |
|
