ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to SoulStorm
Re: Not All Is Lost
That statement reflects an ill-informed, short-sighted, un-reasoned and myopic viewpoint that belies even the faintest grasp of the issue at hand. It also blatantly ignores the recent moves by the Telcos and Cablecos to block utilities, whether municipal, regional or national from providing broadband services over utility owned infrastructure.
The Telcos and Cablecos are on a dual mission to eliminate state and local regulation of their operations, and all competition present or future. They are confident that they "own" the federal regulating bodies, but desire to remove any possibility that a state may more strictly regulate them.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-28 13:39:27] |
|
Go Chargers7
Fa Shizzle Ma Nizzle
Premium
join:2002-09-24
Huntington Beach, CA
| Talk about ignorance. What utility owned infrastructure. A telco isn't owned by a municipality. Neither is a cable operator. It's the TELCO's money that paid for it. You think your city paid for your DSLAMs? It's the CABLE operators investments they paid for it. Did your city buy the cable modems and the head end? Hell no. But they collect franchise fees and tons of taxes.
If the city wants to offer BB...then let them start diggin'. Otherwise let them eat it.
Instead of insulting people perhaps you should shut up and start taking notes.
--
Nuclear fission: made in America; tested in Japan. |
|
2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI | No the city didn't pay for the DSLAMs but the Federal government did subsidize the who telecom networks that was given to the RBOCs. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to Go Chargers7
You obviously didn't pay any attention to what I said. I responded to the previous post by characterizing it as what it was; a non-responsive reply to the subject under discussion, i.e., the current crusade by the Telcos and Cablecos to eliminate all pretense of regulation by local, state and federal authority, including their recent protests of local municipal governments' efforts to provide broadband services over their own local utility networks. These efforts have shown the Telcos for what they are; monopolists hell bent on squashing all competition by all means necessary, including the blatant extortion of state legislatures to that end. I stand by my statement. Soul Star's statement that s/he doesn't care what some thug does to someone else as long as the thugs don't infringe on their interests is ignoring the fact that their interests will be next to suffer, and in fact, have already come under attack.
Once, and for all, the Telcos began life as a regulated, subsidized monopoly. The monopoly was split asunder by the federal courts for the benefit of competitors and consumers. They asked for access to additional markets and partial de-regulation. They were granted some measure of relief provided they allow competitors to share the infrastructure that rate payers have paid for over, and over again. Their response has been disingenuous and lacking in good faith. This is evidenced most particularly by this petulant demand for complete removal of all but federal regulation, OR ELSE!
State and federal legislatures rolling over for industry lobbyists is not my idea of what representative government is supposed to be about. If the RBOCs and Cablecos can write their own legislation and unduly influence, or extort, lawmakers to pass it, what chance do consumers have at any measure of protection?
Cable companies are no better. They have de facto monopoly access to local and regional markets, are not responsive to local municipal government oversight, and ignore demands of their captive customers for better service at reasonable rates. They have repeatedly failed to provide or maintain the infrastructure they have promised. They do not seem constrained, but, rather, raise rates ever higher while simultaneously ignoring and/or abrogating their contractual obligations.
So, at last we come to your pedantic rant in support of the Telcos, damn the cost to consumer interests in all respects. I am sick and tired of your unquestioned support of even the most egregious violations of the social contract by the Telcos and Cablecos. I do not want the unbridled monopoly of yesteryear to resurrect itself, Terminator II style, and extinguish all hope that advanced telecommunications technology may actually find its' way to United State's consumers. If it weren't for CLEC's and ISP's offering DSL the RBOCs would never have provided it. Now that they have been forced to support it, they want the competitive cat put back in the bag. They want total control, and I cheer for anyone, or anything, that opposes them. Just as you may cheer them on.
I rely on others, like yourself, to take notes, as I am not in need. In fact, why don't you take a little stroll over to the Broadband Politics Forum and enlighten yourself.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-28 22:54:33] |
|
Anon | Subsidized...like a zillion years ago...since then Telcos have spent their own money on billions of dollars in upgrades.
And I don't need to read rants and raves from the teen steam leftist anti-Powell crowd in the BPF. I form my own opinions from facts...not other people's rants or manufactured history.
Cities want to deploy...let them grab their $600 shovels and start diggin'. |
|
Go Chargers7
Fa Shizzle Ma Nizzle
Premium
join:2002-09-24
Huntington Beach, CA
| WTF? My post turned anon with no posting tag. Weird. And social contract? What feel good B.S. They have no social contract. Perhaps you should provide your services at a reduced cost because of your social contract with your employer who was nice enough to provide you with a job.
What feel-good drivel. More proof that there is nothing interesting to be found in the BPF. Just anti-telco, gov't should run the universe, all businesses are evil nonsense.
--
Nuclear fission: made in America; tested in Japan.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-28 23:01:30] |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Apparently, you form most of your opinions despite the historical facts.
I can only presume you are relying on the ability of the Telcos and Cablecos to seize monopoly control of distribution and content, and the concomitant ability to charge ever more, for less and less, to fund YOUR continued employment and golden years? Well, if I were you, I wouldn't be so confident that your loyalty will translate to their honoring their obligations to their employees. They certainly don't pay much mind to their customers. Their attitude towards their customers would have resulted in the demise of the Telcos long ago if they had not been a protected monopoly. In the long run, they will surely fail, despite the enduring resilience of American consumers in the face of repeated abuse, and despite the willingness of government to allow their grasping excess.
Feel good drivel, is it? Well, by contrast, I am not a believer in the "What's good for GM, is good for America" jingoist point of view. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act didn't arise from the mist. It was a reasonable and measured reaction to the excessive abuses, and negative economic impact, of unimpeded naked capitalism. An impact measured by the misery it generated throughout all levels society. The attempt by the state to protect its' citizens from exploitation by oligarchic monopolies, such as the RBOCs represent, should not be allowed to be thwarted by the extortionist tactics being employed by these same entities. |
|
SoulStorm
Don'T Think, Drink
join:2003-01-27
Lincoln, NE | reply to Go Chargers7
What Utility owned infrastructure? The power lines. It has been proven that internet access can be achieved over the power lines. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| SoulStorm, "What Utility owned infrastructure? The power lines. It has been proven that internet access can be achieved over the power lines."
You are correct, and the Telcos and Cablecos immediately made it known that they are opposed to Utility company entry into the data, voice and content distribution industry unless some method is constructed to force Utility companies, and municipal governments with their own utility networks, to artificially inflate their retail pricing for such future services so as not to gain an "unfair" competitive advantage. Truly ironic! |
|
Go Chargers7
Fa Shizzle Ma Nizzle
Premium
join:2002-09-24
Huntington Beach, CA | So what...no company wants competition. Microsoft is opposed to Linux. Ford is opposed to GM. So what. Let them bitch.
--
Nuclear fission: made in America; tested in Japan. |
|
Go Chargers7
Fa Shizzle Ma Nizzle
Premium
join:2002-09-24
Huntington Beach, CA
| reply to ross
What's good for GM is good for America? Well seeing as mega manufacturers like GM and Boeing run the economy, their economic health is essential to every other company in one way or another.
Some anti-business rhetoric is typical of people like you. While you collect your paychecks you wish nothing but ill for the businesses that support your living. I find people like you contemptuous. It's time people like you start showing some gratitude to the businesses that make it possible for you to enjoy such a luxurious living that you can waste time worried about DSL content providers.
--
Nuclear fission: made in America; tested in Japan. |
|
