rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| reply to garagerock
Re: Imagine, if you will...
Instead of griping on BBR, why not write your Senator or Congressman? Also, write the FCC. Deluge your ISPs CEO with letters threatening to cancel if they go this route.
That'll work if enough people do it.
Also, always send a letter NOT an email. Or, instead of spending hours on here bitching, print up a petition and go door-to-door getting signatures. Then, mail them in. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to JSRoman
And your defending this. UGH...
This is money that could be spent to lower costs and increase service..
Instead they give it away to the congress people and senators, for their (*Campaigns*(wink)).
These types of Kick backs should be illegal. Don't fool yourself people.. US Telcom spends 16m and expects nothing in return? Think again.
WE NEED REFORM.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to bbenso1
And when you do decide you want to do it, here's the crap you'll run into.
»www.tricitybroadband.com/mailers.htm
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah  :Again, why should I cancel? I can go before my local cable board, and get comcast in trouble. What are you gonna get them in trouble for? Providing you a best-effort internet connection, that is clearly labeled best-effort in the contract you signed, for a price that the market is obviously willing to bear since people are buying it?
said by G_Poobah :It's in MY best interest to have comcast provide me a TCP/IP connection at a the best speed possible, for the lowest price possible. It's in comcasts best interest to provide me the slowest speed possible, at the highest price possible. Actually, it's in YOUR best interest to have ANYONE (not just comcast) provide you a TCP/IP connection at the best speed possible for the lowest price possible. If comcast isn't providing that, then you should get it somewhere else. Is it comcast's fault that you moved somewhere without a southern exposure, preventing you from getting satellite? Is it comcast's fault that you moved somewhere with too many trees to get wireless internet? Is it comcast's fault that you refuse to get a landline which would allow you to use dial-up?
said by G_Poobah :Read this great article, and you'll understand. It applies perfectly to this situation. To summarize: "I know, people always respond to these articles by saying this is simply capitalism at work -- companies trying to make the most money for their bottom line and their shareholders. Phooey. This is a monopolistic situation, where a captive consumer has no choice but to buy one product from one company. There is no free market in operation here. That's not capitalism." » redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/the_hi···t_o.html Except that article doesn't apply to this situation. You are not a captive consumer and you do have choices, you just don't like them. You could cut down some of those trees (assuming they're on your property) so that wireless is an option. You could move somewhere that has DSL access. You could get a landline and use dial-up. You could get a T-1 to your house. Hell, you could get a T-1 and start up your own ISP in the area to compete with comcast. I'd be willing to bet that would get them to drop their rates. The big downside to every one of these options is this: You don't want to do it. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Xure
Xure, actually the number of people who successfully started with option #1 and still do it. There is nothing preventing this from happening anywhere in the US as long as it doesn't involve the government at any level.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to bbenso1
Again, why should I cancel? I can go before my local cable board, and get comcast in trouble.
It's not in MY best interest to cancel. It's in MY best interest to have comcast provide me a TCP/IP connection at a the best speed possible, for the lowest price possible. It's in comcasts best interest to provide me the slowest speed possible, at the highest price possible.
Read this great article, and you'll understand. It applies perfectly to this situation. To summarize:
"I know, people always respond to these articles by saying this is simply capitalism at work -- companies trying to make the most money for their bottom line and their shareholders. Phooey. This is a monopolistic situation, where a captive consumer has no choice but to buy one product from one company. There is no free market in operation here. That's not capitalism."
»redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/the_hi···t_o.html
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :Why should I CANCEL? They are the ones who are not living up to their end of the bargain. You should CANCEL because you are paying them for a service and you deem the price they're charging for that service to be too high. If the price is too high, don't buy it. If you absolutely MUST have the product, then no price is too high.
I know you say that dial-up isn't an option because you don't have a landline, but I'd bet my year's earnings that you COULD have a landline if you wanted one. So, if you're that upset with Comcast over the service you get from them then cancel it, get a landline installed and buy a modem. Problem solved. You've got internet and you don't have to pay Comcast a dime for the service you don't think is worth what they charge. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Minister
said by Minister :I've also never liked "Move" as a solution to a broadband gap. It goes without saying that if someone chooses to live in the sticks he/she will have to learn to do without certain conveniences. It's like listening to people who move to the country to "get away from it all" but then whine that they have to drive 20 miles to get groceries or that the nearest gas station is far away.
Some places have competition, some don't. If the only ISP which serves your area decides to play the QoS game, the only logical thing you can do is to reward them accordingly by not patronizing them.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :said by pnh102 :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. So you're literally saying your earlier posts are full of BS. Nice, at least now you're admitting it too...  Where did I mention any taxpayer-provided broadband solution?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :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. So you're literally saying your earlier posts are full of BS. Nice, at least now you're admitting it too... |
|
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| reply to G_Poobah
what bargain...where is it printed they are obliged to give us all of these things.
Listen...I am just as mad as the next guy about the telcos/cable companies lack of customer service, overselling of nodes and price jacking...the fact is broadband isn't a utility and they companies are obligated to give us anything. So technically it can't really be a monopoly since there is competition. Telcos were broken up by the government because telephone service is considered a utility and is essential. Broadband does not offer anything essential like 911 service. If you must absolutely have broadband then find a way to get it through leasing a T-1 or just use dial-up. If you feel broadband should be a utility at the tax payers expense and should be more heavily regulated by the government then vote in politicians with these platforms. If none in your existing area share your views, write to them or help start a grassroots program to help encourage municipal broadband growth.
I am certainly no corporate apologist, but these companies don't owe us anything by way of broadband. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to RadioDoc
quote:
In this case, stating that Telecom firms spent 152 million lobbying in the first half of 2005 was clearly not right
The exact sentence:
"Telecom & technology firms spent $152 million in the first half of 2005 alone to lobby Congress as they were preparing the rewrite."
That sentence remains accurate. Users can RTFA to see this is all lobbying expenditures for all issues, and the exact breakdown. I'm not trying to hoodwink anybody. How much of that was dedicated toward the telecom Act re-write or preventing guidelines prohibiting traffic prioritization? Neither of us have those numbers. Lets assume plenty, unless we're naive.
quote:
and the implication of the summary text was that telephone companies and their lobbyists spent the entire amount.
"Telecom & Technology firms" was a tag-line pulled from the article these figures came from. "Telecom" includes cable, in their discourse. "Telecom Act rewrite" includes cable. Should that be "Communications & technology"? Probably. But it's not some evil anti-Rboc cabal.
Compare "Telecom & Technology" expenditures to what major content providers spent on lobbying, with plenty at stake including Chinese trade and net-neutrality: quote:
Yahoo spent $800,000, followed by Amazon.com ($460,000) and eBay ($400,000). Google had $220,000 in lobbying expenses for all of 2005
Is it somehow green pond-fairy magic Congress isn't imposing net-neutrality guidelines then? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :People say "move" like it's a complete non-issue to do so. What a straw man. And you're reading it out of context. I said that if broadband is so critical to your day to day existence that you would absolutely cease to function if you did not have it, that you should take it into consideration when you move.
Starting your own broadband venture is about as easy as moving. If you want it that bad, you'll do either one. If you want to sit on your butt and hope that an ISP will eventually serve you, then you need to realize that it might not happen and there won't be a thing you can do about it.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to pnh102
As usual, you fail to list ANY strategy that benefits the customer, your only worldview encompases that of the megacorps.
Why should I CANCEL? They are the ones who are not living up to their end of the bargain. We gave them a MONOPOLY when they first came here, to wire up the town. It's a two-way street, they still have access to the poles, and wires, and if they want to provide a service to my town, then they have to live under MY rules. And these aren't socialist commie rules, these are rules that benefit ME, the customer. Rules like response time, which we already have. Rules like Local Cable Access Channels, which we already have. And new rules, Like net neutrality, which we WILL have.
So, to summarize, I choose option 3, use politics to force the cable providers to provide what I pay for! If they want to sell it ANYWHERE in this country, then they sell it under our rules, not the other way around. I live in a democracy. I can go to my town cable board, and get it changed! It's not that hard to do!
For those who say it's socialism, I laugh. Maybe it is, but look at all the countries who have surged past us in broadband penetration, speeds, and prices. It happens BECAUSE their governments set standards, and required corporations to live to those standards.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Karl Bode
I didn't say it was.
I merely stated that the point of incendiary headlines is to appeal to those who do not bother to read the entire article before they express their opinion about it (or ever for that matter).
In this case, stating that Telecom firms spent 152 million lobbying in the first half of 2005 was clearly not right (unless you lump Microsoft and Motorola and a manufacturing trade group, among others, in there) and the implication of the summary text was that telephone companies and their lobbyists spent the entire amount.
If it was a mistake, then you may want to slow down and proofread a little bit better, because
National Association of Manufacturers, $8.3 million
National Association of Broadcasters, $7.8 million
Motorola, $7.6 million
IBM, $7.2 million
National Cable and Telecommunications Association, $7.4 million
Comcast and Time Warner, which each spent about $4 million.
alone add up to far more than the telcos spent. Hell, the cable companies and their trade group listed alone coughed up $15.4 million.
U.S. Telecom Association,$16.8 million
Bellsouth, $7 million
And before you point the shill finger at me again, I promised Justin that I would use facts and unemotional logic in responses here, and I expect you do the same.
The Telecom Act rewrite is much bigger than the net neutrality "issue", and the lobbying money spent covers a vast array of issues, the Internet being one small part.
So please quit trying to imply that all the money is being spent to defeat a pet cause.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
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. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to RadioDoc
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. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Karl Bode
Well? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to RadioDoc
Sigh.... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| 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! |
|
