garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
 ·Insight Communicat..
| Imagine, if you will...
quote:
Telecom firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite
How many upgrades to their own infrastructure could have been completed with that kind of money? I guess it's cheaper in these United States to lobby to kill your competitor than actually compete against them. Jay Gould, Andrew Carneige, and J.P. Morgan would be so very proud of this new class of Robber Barons. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| 152 million is the executive lunch budget for the large telcos and cable MSOs. It means nothing in the larger scheme.
What I would like to see is both sides get out there and actually provide the service they advertise.
Cable wants telco's slice, telco wants cable's slice, and guess who is in the pie? Yup.
The FCC is where this should be decided, but that also requires rewiring the FCC. Now THAT would be a worthwhile Congressional project.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to garagerock
said by garagerock  :I guess it's cheaper in these United States to lobby to kill your competitor than actually compete against them. The only thing left for content providers to do now is to preemptively block access to customers who use ISPs which engage in this practice. You know, someone from a BS line goes to Google but instead of seeing the Google page, they see a message saying that BS wants to restrict their access to Google, and that they should switch ISPs.
Such a move has to be swift and decisive so that other ISPs don't start to think that this is a good idea.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to garagerock
"Companies and associations in the communications and technology sectors spent $152.4 million on federal lobbying during the first half of 2005, according to new information compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine.. "
That number is total by all communications and tech companies not just Rbocs.
"The biggest communications spender for all of 2005 was the U.S. Telecom Association, whose members include the former regional Bell operating companies. That group devoted $16.8 million to Washington lobbying. Microsoft ranked second ($8.7 million), and the National Association of Manufacturers was third ($8.3 million). Other heavy hitters in 2005 were: National Association of Broadcasters, $7.8 million; Motorola, $7.6 million; BellSouth, $7.4 million; IBM, $7.2 million; Cingular Wireless, $7.1 million; National Cable and Telecommunications Association, $7 million; and Comcast and Time Warner, which each spent about $4 million." |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Yeah, but by misrepresenting the number as 10 times larger it makes those nasty telco folks sound so much more evil. Like they need help in that regard.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| said by RadioDoc :Yeah, but by misrepresenting the number as 10 times larger it makes those nasty telco folks sound so much more evil. Like they need help in that regard. I don't think it was intentional but someone please fix.
"Telecom firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite...."
This statement is not accurate and is just being repeated by those who didn't bother to read the article. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to pnh102
"instead of seeing the Google page, they see a message saying that BS wants to restrict their access to Google, and that they should switch ISPs."
And, umm, please tell me WHERE I can find another ISP? See, I don't have a choice. I have comcrap, because that's my only choice. I don't have line of sight, so I can't get satellite. I don't have a land line, so no modem. Too far from CO for DSL, no FIOS or other technologies in the area. Can't do wireless, too many trees around. My ONLY choice is cable.
I'm a 'captive consumer'. I get screwed because, well bluntly, I get screwed because THEY CAN. That's their nature (the megacorps). They work very hard to make sure they are the only provider, then they keep jacking up the rates, putting in new tolls, new rules, and use their monopoly status and big purses to purchase the FCC and ensure there is no competition, like muni's.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to JSRoman
I've fleshed it out in the summary for the RTFA brigades. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :And, umm, please tell me WHERE I can find another ISP? See, I don't have a choice. I have comcrap, because that's my only choice. I don't have line of sight, so I can't get satellite. I don't have a land line, so no modem. Too far from CO for DSL, no FIOS or other technologies in the area. Can't do wireless, too many trees around. My ONLY choice is cable. Where exactly is this place that doesn't even have the option of a landline? Your argument is emotional not factual. I believe everywhere in the continental United State landline service is available.
I understand the point your trying to make but the market is open to those with the capital to enter it. No one is stopping Mr. Entrepreneur from taking the steps to provide a better service. |
|
GhostFreeman
join:2004-06-04
Rising Fawn, GA
| reply to G_Poobah
"And, umm, please tell me WHERE I can find another ISP? See, I don't have a choice."
It's not a matter of choice, it's about making the public aware of the benefits of net neutrality. If people catch wind of what the Baby Bells wanted to pull and how devastating it would be to their public image, do you think they would go through with it? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :And, umm, please tell me WHERE I can find another ISP? See, I don't have a choice. You can CANCEL.
If my ISP in any way shape or form blocked access to my favorite websites, then why would I continue to pay them for something I cannot use? My money is valuable, I worked very hard to earn it. I expect that the things on which I spend that money work equally as hard. That includes not wasting said money on things that I cannot use, including a selected-site network connection.
And besides, this is America, you always have choices. If broadband Internet is that important to you, you can:
•Convince your neighbors to create a non-profit venture which can share the cost of a T1 or other such "high end" access.
•Move to someplace with more choices.
The bottom line is if your ISP does this and you continue to pay them for service, then what incentive do they have to change their ways? Not patronizing their service is the only way you will get any business' attention.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | reply to JSRoman
His analogy is similar to boasting that you don't have a car but then complaining that the bus doesn't run by your house. Doesn't pass the sniff test.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to JSRoman
said by JSRoman :This statement is not accurate and is just being repeated by those who didn't bother to read the article. Ah, but that's the point of incendiary headlines, isn't it?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Xure
join:2003-11-14
Beverly Hills, CA
edit:
March 28th, @01:43PM
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by G_Poobah :And, umm, please tell me WHERE I can find another ISP? See, I don't have a choice. You can CANCEL. And besides, this is America, you always have choices. If broadband Internet is that important to you, you can:
•Convince your neighbors to create a non-profit venture which can share the cost of a T1 or other such "high end" access.
•Move to someplace with more choices.
The bottom line is if your ISP does this and you continue to pay them for service, then what incentive do they have to change their ways? Not patronizing their service is the only way you will get any business' attention. Yeah... I remember a few news items where people tried #1...
Hmmm I wonder what happened? Ohh, I remember, they got sued and dragged through the courts until they could not afford it any more and also they lobbied again and again untill laws were passed to prohibit your proposal under #1 there.
As for #2. Maybe we all should move to Virginia, where the lobbied ones live. Ahh to be the lobbied one. No better way to show off broadband that a small, niche market of DC so they can claim how good BB in USA is. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | I agree.
I've also never liked "Move" as a solution to a broadband gap. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to Xure
said by Xure :Yeah... I remember a few news items where people tried #1... If someone tried using my tax money to build their network I would sue them too. But there are locations where competing cable companies and phone companies have set up shop using their own money without interference from the incumbents.
said by Xure :As for #2. Maybe we all should move to Virginia, where the lobbied ones live. Ahh to be the lobbied one. No better way to show off broadband that a small, niche market of DC so they can claim how good BB in USA is. Well, if you absolutely cannot possibly live without broadband, then whose fault is it if you don't ensure that its available at your location before you move?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to RadioDoc
Sigh.... |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Well? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well what?
"Net Neutrality Advocates Losing DC Battle" isn't an "incendiary headline" because net-neutrality provisions have been yanked after those who benefit out-spent those who don't.
The original line:
"Telecom firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite."
was a mistake and was corrected to read:
"Telecom & technology firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite."
It wasn't an intentional misrepresentation of anything. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to pnh102
People say "move" like it's a complete non-issue to do so. What a straw man. |
|
