Has the Free Market Failed Broadband? Deregulation and lack of policy hurting U.S. market Techdirt asks whether the free market has failed when it comes to the United States broadband industry. The piece notes how the world leaders in broadband are all countries with significantly regulated broadband environments; it also points to this America's Network piece points out how the country by and large has no telecom policy. Mike at Techdirt tries to answer the question: "Why does unregulated competition in telecom work so well in theory, but so poorly in practice?"
|
  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Why does it work so poorly in practice? "Why does unregulated competition in telecom work so well in theory, but so poorly in practice?"
One word, well ... ok, two words ...
Corporate Greed
Charge more while providing less = higher profits = happy shareholders = bigger bonuses for execs.
--
I have tried to see things from your point of view, but no matter how hard I try, or what I do, I just can't get my head that far up my ass. | |
|  |  JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Why does it work so poorly in practice? Heh, you beat me to the punch!
I couldn't have said it better myself. | |
| | |  72276539Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA | Re: Why does it work so poorly in practice? How dare a for profit company make money! OH THE HUMANITY!!!
--
RIP Dimebag- August 20, 1966 to December 8th, 2004. | |
| | | | | | Re: Why does it work so poorly in practice? How dare a for profit company forget the reason they are in business for and shortchange their services all in the name of making MORE money. | |
| | | | | 72276539Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA | Re: Why does it work so poorly in practice? said by SRFireside:How dare a for profit company forget the reason they are in business for and shortchange their services all in the name of making MORE money. And here I thought that is what you would want, so your stocks would go up. Isn't that all that matters? If a company was delivering broadband at a huge loss and the stock tanks, and you hold stock in that company you would be whining like a bitch. Luckily for everyone you aren't in control of a company, yours would fail for sure.
--
RIP Dimebag- August 20, 1966 to December 8th, 2004. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why does it work so poorly in practice? no,he just wouldn't make as much money | |
| | | | | | | | In other words a company can either maximize profits or sell at a loss? That's a very lopsided way of looking at it. The problem is business forget they are a business and not a stockholder's proxy. Profit comes from making a good product, not simply getting the most money for stockholders. Just look at the auto industry for proof of that.
If you ask me placating to stockholders the one of the worst things a business can do. Stockholders these days have no vested interest in operating a good business. They just want money for investing. If I owned a business like this I would never listen to what stockholders want unless they can prove they really care about what the company does instead of what money they can get from it. Let the business do what it does, which is provide their services to their clientele. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why does it work so poorly in practice? Stockholders can wreak havoc with the decision making process. You are correct in one fundamental thought though, and that is...BUILD A GOOD PRODUCT AND THEY WILL COME! | |
| | | | | | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Why does it work so poorly in practice? I don't think "GOOD" is the right word.
In most cases, a "BETTER" product/service will do. And since the market isn't truly competitive, a "BETTER" product/service doesn't necessarily mean it's a "GOOD" product/service. | |
|
| | |  woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | obscene amounts for doing little or no upkeep.....or even real regulation....jmt
--
BlooMe | |
| | | | moresuo
join:2001-08-26
Stewartsville, NJ Reviews:
 ·PenTeleData
 ·Service Electric..
| said by 72276539:How dare a for profit company make money! OH THE HUMANITY!!! Why is it that when people suggest that companies play fair with their consumers, employees, etc, someone cries out that something akin to what you stated above.
Good Capitalism is built around QUID PRO QUO.
When companies are allowed to break the standard rules of the marketplace that enforce "innovate or die" and continue to sell products well below the current technology level for top dollar than it isn't truly capitalism anymore. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | because making money hand over fist is more important then customer service and being a respected firm in the community.
ask ExxonMoble, money by the truck load feels better then being a nice company.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| |  Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistolPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA | said by Matt:"Why does unregulated competition in telecom work so well in theory, but so poorly in practice?"One word, well ... ok, two words ... Corporate GreedCharge more while providing less = higher profits = happy shareholders = bigger bonuses for execs. And three letters... FCC...
First, it's unregulated, then it's regulated, then...
My brain will explosively egress my skull soon...Think "Scanners."
Maybe »www.USA.TelCommCorpAmer.gr/eed/fcc/screw/us should be a new domain where those rats can get together and plot and scheme in order to do us up right...
Maybe they already have...
--
"Gimme a 'C'! A bouncy 'C'! There once was a boy from Nantucket whos 'Da Da Da Dee Dee Dee' whatever the hell else you want..." | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | profit simply means making more then operating costs. however the current corperate culture is lets screw the customer and make a huge profit. oil is fine example of this, big oil makes something like half a million a minute in profit you cant say that isnt corrupt.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| |  NyQuil Kid8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ
3 edits | Interesting how you complain about greed, and yet your moniker has "Give Karl a Raise"...I'll leave it to those possessing a three digit IQ to appreciate the irony (and hypocrisy) of your post.
With respect to the general philosophy regarding free markets and broadband - chances are no one here would have broadband without a free market. Are they perfect? Absolutely not - and that's the point. The efficiency of a free market isn't measured in milliseconds, or even a few years. Rather, it is done over a period of decades. Anyone still remember when 56k modems were all the rage? That was _only_ slightly more than 10 years ago. Have a little patience!
Also note that because the size of the US economy is so large and vast, that any technological innovation takes a great deal of time to filter through - this isn't South Korea, where the economy and geographic elements (being much smaller than the US) permits faster adoption of new technology.
Too many ppl here on this forum and elsewhere have this mindset that change is simply "add water and mix". It doesn't work this way, and it never will.
Furthermore, the complaint against free markets implies (whether anyone acknowledges it or not) that a government directed program would be better. Almost every economic study, alongside historical perspective and just common sense, suggests otherwise. There are certainly exceptions to this (the space program for example, or interstate road construction), but what needs to be remembered is that even if a government mandated program were to provide BB, that doesn't mean it would be fast, efficient or unfettered with regulation, bureaucracy and sluggish customer service. It can be reasonably argued that today's BB deployed is stymied because of too much regulation and bureaucratic hassles.
Could the participants in the market do a better job? Yes. And lest we all forget, _we_ as consumers are participants - we can, to some degree, vote with our wallets when we are unhappy. Some of us can't (for example, when they have cable internet and can't get any other service provider) - you know why? Because current municipal regulations prevent deployment of new technologies (look at Verizon's FIOS in terms of attempting to gain a foothold in each town).
Bottom line, it is too easy and intellectually dishonest to simply blame all BB ills on the free market - I personally have no doubt that those ppl who decry the free market system would also bitch about the alternative if it didn't suit their particular needs - and I can almost guarantee that at least in a free market system, those complaints have a greater chance of being addressed.
[8F] The NyQuil Kid
--
[8F] The NyQuil Kid comes into town not looking for trouble...
n00bz gang up, but he ain't seein' double,...
pulls and draws, his deagles two...
n00bz litter the ground you know it's true. | |
|
| | per the article "These extraordinary results were achieved by well regulated monopolies, an alternate strategy to the (often weak) competition in the West."
So, when can we let AT&T merge completely again? | |
| |  tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: per the article Under government control (for all intents and purposes), of course? | |
|
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines
said by JTRockville:Remember, the goal of a corporation is to generate profit, not to provide service. Corporations can generate much more profit by underserving, than by providing state-of-the-art service to everyone. I see we will once again be regaled by the anti-profit crowd in this thread. Profits are bad; government regulation is good. All corporations are evil. Ask those who lived in Communist Russia or Cuba how your socialist paradise theory works in real life.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines Who's anti-profit? I'm for balance. You? | |
| | | |  yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by JTRockville:Who's anti-profit? I'm for balance. You? Define balance. We're all working to maximize our own wealth, why should the goal of any corporation be any different?
Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | |  King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
 ·Vonage
| Maybe said by yock:said by JTRockville:Who's anti-profit? I'm for balance. You? Define balance. We're all working to maximize our own wealth, why should the goal of any corporation be any different? Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas. But that should also be NO reason for the private sector to completely forbid anyone else from servicing areas that are deemed "unprofitable". It then becomes a case of "I don't want you, but no one else can have you".
Look, my business is a corporation. Do we want to make money? Yes of course we do. Do we want to rape the artists that sell their music, or the fans that buy it? No. We strive to work in a BALANCE just like Karl has already stated. Can it be done? Why yes it can. Does it take longer to make more money this way? Sometimes, but at least I can have the satisfaction of knowing that I've done my best to be honest in my dealings.
Businesses are out there to make money, to provide a service that they feel is needed, and to make money at it. This is not inherently evil by any means. How it is accomplished and to what point and purpose is where the line is crossed with a lot of these businesses.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
Independent Music Online | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Maybe said by King P:But that should also be NO reason for the private sector to completely forbid anyone else from servicing areas that are deemed "unprofitable". It then becomes a case of "I don't want you, but no one else can have you". DING DING DING !!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, how long before the cable and VOIP companies cry foul that they get overcharged for telco access. They have to get into the loop somewhere. Or, do they plan on not allowing their "phone" customers to call outside the network.  | |
| | | | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3
1 edit | said by King P:said by yock:said by JTRockville:Who's anti-profit? I'm for balance. You? Define balance. We're all working to maximize our own wealth, why should the goal of any corporation be any different? Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas. But that should also be NO reason for the private sector to completely forbid anyone else from servicing areas that are deemed "unprofitable". It then becomes a case of "I don't want you, but no one else can have you". Look, my business is a corporation. Do we want to make money? Yes of course we do. Do we want to rape the artists that sell their music, or the fans that buy it? No. We strive to work in a BALANCE just like Karl has already stated. Can it be done? Why yes it can. Does it take longer to make more money this way? Sometimes, but at least I can have the satisfaction of knowing that I've done my best to be honest in my dealings. Businesses are out there to make money, to provide a service that they feel is needed, and to make money at it. This is not inherently evil by any means. How it is accomplished and to what point and purpose is where the line is crossed with a lot of these businesses. I utterly agree. It is still the entrepreneurial gusto that fills in service gaps for all industries in this nation. Get out of the city some time and see how many no-name gas stations, hardware stores, restaurants, and grocers there are. These businesses thrive because it simply too expensive to run a Home Depot in the middle of nowhere. The real problem with broadband in America isn't capitalism, as implied by the article, it's monopoly.
Okay, now I know my economist colleagues here want to pull out the term "oligopoly" because we're talking about a large industry with a few major players, and in some respects this is correct; however, when these few large firms operate in independent markets and share very little competition, most areas operate as a monopoly. This is where regulation has failed us all. If government would address the central issue of monopolistic business practices, then we'd see many more small broadband providers popping up around the country filling the gaps. Much like that Ace Hardware that sits on the edge of town. Instead, we get all uppity about franchising, forcing these huge ISPs to do unprofitable business in East Jesus USA just so we can have 5Mb DSL to our three-room bungalows in the big city.
Forget franchising, it doesn't work. Embrace sensible pricing for small resale business and less the gutsy small business owner fill the broadband gaps. Forcing Comcast to wire a rural town of thirty doesn't make any more sense than forcing Home Depot to open a superstore there.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Maybe said by yock:I utterly agree. It is still the entrepreneurial gusto that fills in service gaps for all industries in this nation. Get out of the city some time and see how many no-name gas stations, hardware stores, restaurants, and grocers there are. These businesses thrive because it simply too expensive to run a Home Depot in the middle of nowhere. The real problem with broadband in America isn't capitalism, as implied by the article, it's monopoly. ...If government would address the central issue of monopolistic business practices, then we'd see many more small broadband providers popping up around the country filling the gaps... Cracking down on monopolistic practices would be a good start. It would be refreshing to see some of that "entrepreneurial gusto" prevail in underserved areas - which aren't always rural. Sadly, the regulatory environment seems to be shifting in the opposite direction. | |
| | | | | | | | | This is where regulation has failed us all. If government would address the central issue of monopolistic business practices,
Unfortunately, with limited technology but accelerated government interference/subsidization in foreign countries, there is no alternative to some relative form of monopoly for the time being in order to spark "forced" penetration (no pun intended). | |
|
| | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by yock:said by JTRockville:Who's anti-profit? I'm for balance. You? Define balance. We're all working to maximize our own wealth, why should the goal of any corporation be any different? Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas. So people shouldn't be allowed to provide services for themselves if they choose to? Is buying services from corporations and providing profit to corporations the only reason the citizenry exists?
Speak for yourself about your personal goal of maximizing wealth. While having enough money is important to me, maximizing wealth does not consume my life, as I have many personal goals. | |
| | | | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by JTRockville:said by yock:said by JTRockville:Who's anti-profit? I'm for balance. You? Define balance. We're all working to maximize our own wealth, why should the goal of any corporation be any different? Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas. So people shouldn't be allowed to provide services for themselves if they choose to? Is buying services from corporations and providing profit to corporations the only reason the citizenry exists? Speak for yourself about your personal goal of maximizing wealth. While having enough money is important to me, maximizing wealth does not consume my life, as I have many personal goals. Wealth comes in many forms, don't equate it only to financial ends. Whatever your desire, you wish to maximize it.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by yock:Wealth comes in many forms, don't equate it only to financial ends. Whatever your desire, you wish to maximize it. That may be true in our lives, but it doesn't apply to a for-profit corporation.
I have nothing against profit, but I don't think that the corporation who is best at reaping profit (in terms of money) is necessarily and automatically the best provider. When I choose a provider, I rarely never use their ability to reap profits as criteria. | |
| | | | | | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by JTRockville:said by yock:Wealth comes in many forms, don't equate it only to financial ends. Whatever your desire, you wish to maximize it. That may be true in our lives, but it doesn't apply to a for-profit corporation. I have nothing against profit, but I don't think that the corporation who is best at reaping profit (in terms of money) is necessarily and automatically the best provider. When I choose a provider, I rarely never use their ability to reap profits as criteria. One thing has nothing to do with the other. The point is that corporations, much like people, are most interested in maximizing their wealth. In your case that isn't always financial, but in the commercial world it invariably is. your comment about not seeking wealth was inaccurate in my view because you do actively seek things that make you happy. It's merely a matter of semantics. I can select a word other than "wealth" if that makes you more comfortable, but the context doesn't change.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | | | | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by yock:It's merely a matter of semantics. I can select a word other than "wealth" if that makes you more comfortable, but the context doesn't change. I disagree. It's more than semantics. I do not seek any one thing above all others. There is balance in my life.
In the corporate world, there is no balance. It's all about money. Pure and simple. Profits above all else. Quality, performance, value... and yes, universal coverage... all of these are costs so the corporate goal is to minimize them. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | The point is that corporations, much like people, are most interested in maximizing their wealth.
Yes, but in theory, they should be inept at doing so past a certain age in a given (particular) market. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines A certain age and a certain size....like the big hipped bloated beasts in Walmart.  | |
|
| | | |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by yock:said by JTRockville:Who's anti-profit? I'm for balance. You? Define balance. We're all working to maximize our own wealth, why should the goal of any corporation be any different? Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas. Nicely said! That pretty much sums it up. You should right one of those books, "The Idiots Guide to Business" I bet it would be a best seller!!
--
я люблю медведей! | |
| | | | | wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | said by yock:Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas. So -- in your words government should not have any say on things like
- Mandating safe foods and medical supplies (FDA, USDA)
- Creating and enforcing clean air and water regulations
- Creating a framework of laws clarifying how business is conducted (Uniform Commercial Code).
- Creating and enforcing banking and securities regulations (Minimum capital standards, SEC oversight)
Sorry, there are many, many instances where a free market will not provide the best bargain for the consumer, and for society at large. Unless or until [insert deity of your choice here] returns to Earth and assumes responsibility for running businesses world-wide, I think it's safe to assume that someone will try to cut corners in order to maximize profits and minimize expenses, whether or not those shortcuts adversely affect the rest of us. I'll take my chances with balanced regulation, thanks!
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | | | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by wtansill:said by yock:Government has no business mandating where and under what conditions a company does business. If it is not profitable to operate in a market, then there should be no expectation of services in those areas. So -- in your words government should not have any say on things like
- Mandating safe foods and medical supplies (FDA, USDA)
- Creating and enforcing clean air and water regulations
- Creating a framework of laws clarifying how business is conducted (Uniform Commercial Code).
- Creating and enforcing banking and securities regulations (Minimum capital standards, SEC oversight)
Sorry, there are many, many instances where a free market will not provide the best bargain for the consumer, and for society at large. Unless or until [insert deity of your choice here] returns to Earth and assumes responsibility for running businesses world-wide, I think it's safe to assume that someone will try to cut corners in order to maximize profits and minimize expenses, whether or not those shortcuts adversely affect the rest of us. I'll take my chances with balanced regulation, thanks! No, that isn't at all what I said. Not one of your four points relate at all to the physical area in which a company does business. In fact, the four points you bring up are all things that have proved very worthwhile.
I think you missed the point.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
|
| | | | Surely there's a nice middle ground between the absence of regulation and an utterly whorish FCC, and AK-47 wielding revolutionaries wandering the streets with fiber-optic cable clenched in their fists.... | |
| | | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Romney2012:I see we will once again be regaled by the anti-profit crowd in this thread. Profits are bad; government regulation is good. Nonsense. The question we are discussing is "why is broadband in the USA so lousy?".
If the answer is that companies are intent on making profit rather than improving infrastructure, for example, then that does not mean "profits are bad per se" but merely that "the profit motive does not encourage technical excellence".
It is the business-above-all-else crowd which makes a religion of this. The rest of us think that what is good for General Motors is not automatically good for the country; we prefer to think of the two categories separately. Sometimes the two interests may align and sometimes they may not; let's not pretend that the two are exactly the same thing. | |
| | | | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: Once again - the "making a profit" is bad crowd opines said by dave:said by Romney2012:I see we will once again be regaled by the anti-profit crowd in this thread. Profits are bad; government regulation is good. Nonsense. The question we are discussing is "why is broadband in the USA so lousy?". Broadband isn't lousy in the US. I'm too busy to search thru BBR but there was I beleive a PC MAg or some other publication that compared broadband options around the word. When compared to those listed, the US wasn't bad at all. I'm not saying things couldn't be better but have you ever taken a plane and gone from one coast to the other in the US? There is a lot of green spaces. You go for 100's of miles and don't see anything but trees. It doesn't make economical sense for some areas to get wired.
--
A shotgun blast to the head will clear that right up. | |
|
| | | | I do not see why you should disagree with the statement "Remember, the goal of a corporation is to generate profit, not to provide service." Speaking as a pro-corporate individual, this statement is correct. "Provide services" is the mantra of socialist government agencies; the goal of the corporation is to serve its stockholders, employees, and customers, in that order. People do not go into business to provide service. People go into business to make money.
So long as there is no evidence that laws are transgressed, I see nothing unethical about the whole matter. | |
| | | |
See 19 replies to this post | |
| | | | Making a profit is not bad- it's "the LOVE of money"(written 2000 years ago) that is not in the best interest for man. | |
| | |  Netbum
join:2002-04-08
Oakley, CA | said by Romney2012:. Ask those who lived in Communist Russia or Cuba how your socialist paradise theory works in real life. Don't forget China. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Q: Why are results so poor in practice? A: Corporate Greed! Profits are important but companies can also serve us better and still make a profit. pay less to your execs for example, VPs and such dont need 7 figure pay heck give them 150k a year and they will do just fine and leave the company with more money to spend on important things like faster speeds and in country tech support.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | Re: Q: Why are results so poor in practice? A: Corporate Greed! If you were an well educated executive that was looking for a job. You are a master at turning companies around. Think if you had a few offers from similar companies. Company A offers $150,000 with moderate benefits the other, company B is offering $1,000,000. Along with the 1 mil. salary they are offering you a Mercedes Benz and use of a 5000 square foot home. Which do you choose? Company B feels you are totally worth it to their company | |
| | | tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Screw the salaries (though they are heavily bloated). Ditch the goddamned bonuses the higher-ups earn, even when they're being fired for defrauding the company and other ridiculous things. It makes precious little sense to grant multimillion dollar "awards" to departing employees (no matter the office) when they are being dismissed for various forms of incompetence prior to the ending term of their contract.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
| | | | | | Re: Q: Why are results so poor in practice? A: Corporate Greed! Screw the salaries (though they are heavily bloated). Ditch the goddamned bonuses the higher-ups earn, even when they're being fired for defrauding the company and other ridiculous things.
I hope we all realize by now that these "bonus dismissals" are pretty much a form of hush money, so high-ups who are in the know feel obligated not to squeal about certain uncomfortable information after they've left. | |
|
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Not enough players When you have effective monopolies in the delivery of broadband, and an FCC that insists BPL is the Third leg of broadband delivery what do you expect. Not even Viagra would help this "third leg".
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | | | | yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: The Social Responsibility of Business I read some Friedman as part of my degree program at school. Enlightened stuff. | |
|
| | duh Cause deregulation and the free market do not work with utilities. That is a fact that has been proven with the electric/water/gas/cable deregulation debacle in the USA.... | |
| | | BroadBLAND offerings It should not be long before the likes of Tkjunkmail and the other "corporate apologists" masquerading as pro free market revisionists come and tell us that things are "the best right now, was and ever will be" with broadband. People like that believe in their own ideas and philosphies so much they could not see the truth if it hit them on the head. To often this is why the status quo keeps going on in
America in that people fit and mold the truth around a philosophy instead of a philosophy and truth and facts.
I support and love free market, hate socialism, but it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that competition and innovation WILL NOT HAPPEN without SOME regulation of any industry. Remember what happened (if history teaches us anything) when government tried a complete "hands off" approach to business in the early part of the 20th century?
(I think it was some French phrase or something) Companies and corporations wasted no time in establishing monopolies,
with corrupt and anticompetitive practices in nearly every industry from oil, steel, even the food industry until they were exposed by the muckrakers, then government had to step in and regulate those companies and industries. I think it is said best that history teaches that man learns NOTHING from history. | |
| |  lovswr
join:2001-09-15
Smyrna, GA | Re: BroadBLAND offerings Are you looking for "laisez faire"?
--
lovswr = good hivswr = bad | |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Best bet for now? Do NOTHING. The author of this article does an excellent job of presenting both sides of the issue. On one side, the regulate it all crowd, government control, blah blah blah. On the other side, the wild wild West folks, who think there should be no regulation.
I'm really leery of any new regulation of the internet at this time. Regulations and laws are written by mostly "know nothing about the subject" politicians, and partially by the entities that roll up wheelbarrows full of cash to Capitol Hill. Any regulation we get, we may be very unhappy with, as you KNOW it would be riddled with loopholes that would be endless fodder for pissing and moaning (and probably rightfully so) on these very message boards.
The author also draws a good parallel in so much as the HDTV argument of the last decade. Everyone was screaming we were behind, and the Japanese were going to eat our lunch. Turned out it was chicken little all over again.
IMHO, our best bet right now? Do nothing. Sure, the US might not be "#1" in broadband penetration. SO WHAT? What says we have to be the best at everything all the time, no matter what. Some times I think we're still living the cold war, and I'm hearing about the non existent "missile gap" of the 60's. IMHO, I think we'll see multiple providers offering FTTH (cable & Bell's) to many parts of the country in the next 10 years.
This might be a good time for everyone to take a breather. Let Congress "punt", and look at the issue again in a few years.
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
| | | Mergers, acquisitions, and corruption... Oh my. Its either all or nothing. By introducing even one piece of regulation into our economy, we are no longer truly free (snowball effect). However, it would be impossible to implement a reasonable broadband plan without regulation.
Pick a side and stay there:
If the government is going to regulate even a little bit, it needs to go ahead and go the distance. | |
| | | Wasn't there a reason we gave them a monoply to begin with If i remember correctly they were given a monoply of the phone company but part of the deal was to connect everyone. Now if internet becomes a ulity than like phones they will have to connect everyone. | |
|  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| unregulated free market? I want to know who is spreading the bs about this being a free market that isn't regulated?
In Washington state a law was passed that only allows municipal broadband networks to be wholesale providers. They are not allowed to provide network access to their customers or citizens (power utilities, cities, counties), but only to private retailers. What this mostly does is provide a $20 a month revenue stream to the municipality that pays for all the infrastructure and sometimes even the ISP's customer equipment, and then about another $20 to the ISP for an installation (if necessary) and a www.myeasytomakemoneyisp.com home page and email.
It isn't that bad of an arrangement but the part that makes it unlawful for the government entity to provide a dumb pipe to the internet or even a simple public ISP is just dumb and is nothing more than removing the efficient competition AND funneling the public funds into private hands.
--
Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00" | |
| |
See 18 replies to this post | |
DolganPremium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI Reviews:
·Charter
2 edits | Some people here don't get it The RBOC's have sold off a majority of their rural areas to the likes of Century Tel, Frontier, Valor, and etc. Those companies, and the hundreds of smaller ILECs have not been providing broadband solutions due to the fact it is not profitable for them...just as it is not for the RBOCs or Cable Cos.
Once there is a proven return on investment companies will do the build outs necessary--untill that times it just is not going to happen without Government intervention. It is much easier for governments of smaller countries to subsidize the broadband buildouts in their countries. Furthermore, these buildouts are subsidized by a much higher tax rate than we pay in the US. Some of the posters talk about the Corporations sacrificing... I wonder if they are willing to sacrifice by paying 50%+ income tax rates and higher sales taxes so we can have Universal Broadband in the States? | |
| | | regulation I think de reg is working.
What pisses me off is I work for a ISP we own all of our own pipe and we compete agaist QWORST that get a 54.00 per loop per month subsidy so they can sell Slow piece of sh*t DSL under cost.
This is hard for us we can compete on price but it hurts build out and upkeep and I don't think they should get help we can't get.
So I say kill all USF let tech fix the problem.
We live in the boonies I can give you 10/10 to your house for $50 or 1/.5 for $19 where do see the need for regulation in that.
??????????
Regulation is for commies which most people seem to be becoming these days.
If you don't remember communism failed.... | |
| | | easy solution You can easily improve the situation simply by cancelling your broadband connection (I did). A loud and clear message to those companies by the masses will fix this in a hurry. | |
| | nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC | Re: easy solution It's amazing how much hate for corporations there are... don't forget, they only exist because of the customer. I'm glad to see someone knows the proper way to operate their person when confronted by a company who treats them poorly. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | No Free Market How can anyone claim there is a "free market" in broadband when each time a private company wants to deploy new service (like Project Lightspeed or FIOS), you have some backwards-thinking, third-world-esque local or state government put some inane roadblock in the path of this deployment. This is about as far from a free market approach as one can get.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | Americian is not a Free Telecom Market. America is not a free telecom market. The Wall Street journal reports that much of our broadband stagnation is not due to the board room but regulation starting with the 1996 telecom act. I would also include local franchising, line sharing, to USF and other government subsidies. In a way the FCC want to tell us we are for deregulations but refuse to let go of the reigns.
It should be noted that except for China which is a separate creature, broadband dominance was resulted in losing regulations i.e. privatizing state owned telecommunication infrastructure.
As centralized planned broadband policy dictated by government will be a failure. The world of techdirt would be one of universal services (especially in unprofitable areas), price controls and massive government own bureaucracies which designed to drive out private competition except the competition for government contacts. Broadband competition will be stunted either we can not get innovative technology or at the same time many of us will be on the hook for technology we do not want. I resent the idea that I need 100mbs fiber to my home or wifi . I am very happy with Comcast and many I know are happy with dial-up or slow DSL. I want to be on the hook for high speed fiber I do not want or need. | |
| | | The mega profit boys Anytime there is talk of regulation of MONOPOLIES and Robber Barons like the OIL companies there is always the inevitable replies from the cliche crowd of comparing that to what happens in Russia and Cuba.
What spin.
If we don't have gov. projects then major infrastructure NEVER gets built - Hoover dam - Major Highways, bridges and military.
Cost of regular telephone service.
»www.oreillynet.com/etel/blog/200···ice.html | |
| Test99Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
kudos:1 | This is a joke, right? Telecommunications in America:
- Telephone service was a government-mandated monopoly for almost a century.
- Cable companies are granted exclusive franchises by most local governments.
- The radio frequency spectrum is hopelessly misallocated by the FCC.
- After spending a trillion dollars of taxpayers' money over forty years, NASA can't even put satellites 500 miles into space reliably.
Which part of this market does Techdirt claim is free? Carrier pigeons, perhaps? If this is Techdirt's idea of a free market, one wonders what a non-free market would look like.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
| nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC | It's a failure of the informed consumer I've had broadband since 1998. The price back then was $49.95 per month for a 1.5 mbps connection. Today I have a 5 mbps connections for $44.95 in the same area, and in Japan it's $20 for 15 mbps+ ...
There's an old cliche that talks about people are happy with what they have if they don't know there is anything better. I think in this case, it holds true. Broadband has just recently started to catch on in the USA, relatively speaking compared to Europe/Asia. People are uninformed or just don't care.
So, until people become more aware of what's out there, they won't start demanding more or complaining. A company is in business to make money, and therefore, the motivation to succeed and to thrive is based on making money. If people are satisfied with the service, then what incentive do they have for improvement.
Normally I don't fall into the anti-corporation crowd, but now these companies are fighting against people setting up their own muni-wifi, privatized services, etc. The sad part is that people don't realize it. These type of actions are not in the spirit of the free market.
In a free market, companies will adapt to the demands of the market. If you want better service, then spread the word that their is a "better life" in terms of broadband. | |
| | | its simple Broadband does not obey free market rules because it requires competitors work together, which, unless the country already has most of the infrastructure created and can then allows multiple service providers to work on that infrastructure, drives up prices (collusion rather than competition). Since it is very difficult and not practical to lay more than a handful of lines to the home, it is difficult to provoke private competition. Investment instead gets hoarded to the precious few ISPs that do exist. Unfortunately, investment and smart stockplay becomes the company's centerplay rather than products and services.
There are certain industries in which rapid acceleration of penetration may be desirable enough to provoke revolutions (transportation and energy being prime subjects). After enough penetration and alternative means of service provision develop, deregulation can commence, resulting in an initial price increase, but eventual competitive frenzy (in theory of course). Satellite broadband and other yet-thought-of wireless solutions may eventually spark that deregulation. However, for now, I, who am a fiscal conservative and a Republican, believe a national vision is needed in this particular market at this particular moment. | |
| | | Just answer the question YES. | |
| wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | The electric company has it right.... We need an open dumb network that ANY telco or Cable CO can connect to to provide service. Just like the electric company.
You can choose to pay more for cleaner fuel, but it is delivered over the same network as less clean options. You can choose from literally HUNDREDS of suppliers.
Build a network capable of supporting TOMORROW's needs, and let these idiots compete for the real service. This is the only way to ensure that all people are treated equally. That there is no discrimination because or percieved lack of ROI. Give everyone an equal shot at having an adequate connection to the internet just like your dollars pay to ensure that evgeryone's house is connected to a road.
Are you bitching and whining because YOUR precious money built a road to my house? My road is longer than yours? I don't deserve blacktop because I'm "too far away" from where the blacktop is. Granted the roads may not be as well kept further out, but at least they are there.
Are you bitching and whining because your precious money is used to provide electricity, sewer, water, etc?? All of these services are subsidized by EVERYONE so that ALL people can have them at a fair price. And nobody is bitching about it being unfair to any of these companies bottom lines.
Sometimes it is better to do the right thing for your fellow man instead of taking advantage of him.
Try caring about someone else less fortunate than yourself for a change. Fuck the companies. They have made enough moeny without giving back. 95% of the money in the country is held by 5% of the population. That is completely sick. When do the ret of us get a shot?
puritan | |
|
| |
|
|
Q: Why are results so poor in practice? A: Corporate Greed!
