tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
edit:
June 29th, @10:23AM
| reply to TK Junk Mail
Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers
I'd say most of the 60 yr old senators understood the issues just fine and voted correctly.
Money over freedom is not "correct." |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by tsu  :Money over freedom is not "correct." Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | And when said things are not available due to lack of regulation, then it is incorrect. Regulation isn't all strangleholds, you know. |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by tsu :Money over freedom is not "correct." Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. Anybody should have the freedom to provide a service to customers over the internet.
--
My pbase gallery |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to TK Junk Mail
I would normally agree with you on this one Tk, but in this case we will have to disagree.
I can't see this move as innovation. I see it as a way of the incumbant broadband pipe holders of saying "we missed out on the first round of content providing, but we now want our piece of the pie." So what they are wanting to do is put the people that really made the net what it is and force them to pay more to use what they really built. AT&T wants to provide that portal and not MSN.. AT&T wants to provide that movie PPV for $2.99 for a day or two, not Netflix who would give it to you for a week or longer. It's their way of getting into a business that they know they can't or won't sell for what the 3rd parties are selling it for now, so this is a way that they can force the 3rd parties to have to raise their rates so that AT&T and the others can sell their own goods at a higher price.
This is very similar to what they did with DSL. Sure, you could get DSL from other providers, but remember, SBC/AT&T et all had the same product for a lower price .. and hey, "you're getting it from the people that provide it in the first place.. oh, and you'll get your installation done in a few days, not in a few weeks from the other guys." And we all know that the incumbants were the reason the 3rd party orders took so long.. it's becuase they would sit on the 3rd party orders on purpose to hurt them.
This is what their tiering of the internet is all about. It's to drive people away from the 3rd party providers on the internet so that people will buy from the incumbants.
In any other case, I would agree with you about innovation. However, these guys do what they do - provide access to the internet. They are trying to turn the internet into AOL - the next gen... ie: and "information service" like AOL was when it started.
What made the internet innovative was when people put out what's out there today. "If you can think it, you can make it happen." - Now, like everything else, you have to baseically jump through several hurdles to get to people again.
It's not the content providers AT&T and the likes have to worry about, it's the customers that aren't going to take this kinda crap.
The AT&T's out there are not wanting to offer internet any more. They are trying to undo what's already been done. They are just being bullies and greedy.
Like I said, we're going to have to disagree on this one. When we are talking about innovations and this issue, it's really about content in the end. AT&T, Verizon, et all, have NEVER been innovative on content. What they ARE good at is fuc**ng up everything they try to "innovate" in the end.
They mess up the internet, and I will go back to a T-1 line and say screw these guys. |
|
Industry_Pro
@comcast.net
| reply to TK Junk Mail
>Innovation and freedom over government regulation is >correct.
I personally agree with this. Yet the truth is that advocates for the Bell monopoly system (being re-formed in front of our eyes) have always craved regulation - mainly those regulations which make it impossible for anyone else to compete. Ted Vail (ATT President who created the monopoly system in concert with the government) basically stated that they were willing to trade more regulation by the government, in return for favorable government regulations that would create and preserve the monopoly. The whole AT&T idea was that the nation's communications system was to be created as a "regulated natural monopoly"
As is quoted in the URL's below -
-------------------------------------------------
His name was Theodore N. Vail. He's the man who built the Bell telephone system in the early years of the last century, who said, "We have to be regulated, so let us think through what form regulations should take."
--------------------------------------------------
Here are some URL's about this:
»www.bellsystemmemorial.com/whatk···ell.html
»72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:WNo···nt=opera
»www.pfdf.org/conferences/drucker01.html
So, in fact, the Bell monopoly apologists are disingenuous in the extreme to claim that they don't want regulation. In fact they only don't want *certain* regulations - the ones that don't benefit them. In trade they offer politicians popularity through selling unprofitable accounts to rural and impoverished or low density constituents, and cash payments in the form of election funds and so forth. It's a scam and has been for over 100 years.
It's also funny to see Bell monopoly apologists claim to be for "freedom" when in fact the whole telecom infrastructure was built using government forces to prevent anyone else from building a similar infrastructure. Remember, AT&T's agreement with the government was that the government would use it's resources to enforce a monopolistic system. It was made criminal to try and offer competing services, or even compatible equipment. *That's* the history of the now supposedly capitalistic, free market Bell system. It was all funded and built on a fascist/socialist government/industry collusion, and that's an indisputable fact of history.
Now they want to claim to be free market, no regulation types - when that's convenient for them. Well that's just "a load" as we say in Texas. *They* eliminated the free market in telecom over 100 years ago and *begged* for government regulation.
All our problems with telecom today are related to the abandonment of the free market to create a socialist ideal called "universal service" - and to buy votes.
- IP |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :The AT&T's out there are not wanting to offer internet any more. They are trying to undo what's already been done. I agree with you 100%. Although I know Congress will fail here (and we are starting to see this, I was so tempted to post a "See I Told You So" msg), I would like to see a law passed that specifically disallows ISPs from downgrading or blocking traffic between their customers and content providers because those content providers didn't pay the bribe fee.
As for ISPs being allowed to build extra pipes so they can offer their own content or services... this isn't a problem at all provided that ISPs don't get away with restricting their customer's ability to access competitors.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. Without competition, there is no need for innovation. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
·Comcast
edit:
June 29th, @12:28PM
| reply to fiberguy
"I see it as a way of the incumbant broadband pipe holders of saying "we missed out on the first round of content providing, but we now want our piece of the pie." So what they are wanting to do is put the people that really made the net what it is and force them to pay more to use what they really built. AT&T wants to provide that portal and not MSN.. AT&T wants to provide that movie PPV for $2.99 for a day or two, not Netflix who would give it to you for a week or longer. It's their way of getting into a business that they know they can't or won't sell for what the 3rd parties are selling it for now, so this is a way that they can force the 3rd parties to have to raise their rates so that AT&T and the others can sell their own goods at a higher price." This is pretty much the stance of any incumbant. We saw what you did, now we want to do it too. Only we will make it more difficult, more costly, and then we pay off a generation of congressmen who still think the Internet was created by Al Gore in his garage. All the while crying poverty when asked why the US continues to slip farther behind the technical forefront. Anything 'their' network touches they want a piece of the pie, hell they will take the whole thing if nobody jabs em with a sharp enough fork.
American infrastructure, the modern day mafia. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to TK Junk Mail
I fail to see how extortion and bribery are innovation and freedom? |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| reply to TK Junk Mail
You'll never convince Tkjunkmail of anything non-pro corporate.. he's got a one track mind.. too bad, because he seems relatively intelligent..
If this was the watered down "compromise" net-neutrality bill that they were talking about, then it's a good thing it was voted down, because it was basically everything the telecom's wanted. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to Industry_Pro
said by Industry_Pro :
So, in fact, the Bell monopoly apologists are disingenuous in the extreme to claim that they don't want regulation. In fact they only don't want *certain* regulations - the ones that don't benefit them. With all respect to Ed McMahon: "You are correct, sir, YES!" |
|
lawrence171
Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24
Canada
·Acanac Inc.
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by tsu :Money over freedom is not "correct." Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. So is unregulated monopoly over essential goods and services.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake? |
|
DSLdewd
join:2004-06-05
Denver, CO | reply to pnh102
This isn't about ISP's (internet service providers); this is about ILEC's (incumbent local exchange carriers). More specifically, this is about AT&T (formerly SBC), Verizon and BellSouth. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY | reply to TK Junk Mail
What's innovative about gouging? |
|
