FTC Report Contains No Actual Research Uses flawed FCC data and takes industry at its word Public Knowledge has been digging through the FTC's recent report on broadband competition and network neutrality, and frankly, they aren't too impressed: "The staff did no original research on the state of competition in the broadband market. Then they proceeded to accept the arguments from the telephone industry that competition is on the way in the broadband market, citing the emergence of Wi-FI, and looking to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for data on prices and deployment." That data, of course, being dubious at best, something even the FCC admits to. So how valuable is a report on broadband competition whose findings are based on unverified ISP claims and inaccurate FCC penetration data?
|
 |  deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH
 ·Windstream
| Umm "citing the emergence of Wi-FI,"
The emergence of wi-fi is solely based on the willingness and cost effectiveness of what the local telco or ISP will provide.
Wi-fi startups still have to have the assistance of an ISP or telco to do it. I priced a T1 a few years ago and it was in the 2000 dollar a month range.
There are no Wi-Fi providers in my area that I am aware of. Go figure.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
| | | ha! yes I wrote:
FTC Says Internet Must Fail Before It Can Intervene
»hive.jupitermedia.com/ispplanet/···tml#more
The Consumer Affairs article is good. I quoted:
»www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2···net.html
As usual, the federal government's research consisted of asking the phone companies what they thought would be best. S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, complained, "They simply take the incumbents at their word that the U.S. broadband marketplace is competitive -- even though most U.S. consumers have at best two choices for broadband at home." | |
| | | "Competition is on the way"? Oh sure. That's what they said to congress in their testimony back in the runup to the '96 bill.
They were slinging the merde then, as well.
We don't have a prayer of getting any accurate information out of the government until '09, at the very earliest. If even then. | |
|  roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | FTC Report Contains No Actual Research What do you expect from an administration that says that government can do no good. They are out to prove it.
They want to privatize everything that was, up until Reagan took over, and corporatized this country, in the bounds of WE THE PEOPLE.
The argument that business can do a better job at things than government is simply flawed. Government does not have to pay shareholders, large CEO salaries, advertising, and other overhead that simply does not exist if Civil Servants handle the job.
Now they insist on breaking the FTC and FCC as well.
We can not let them do this. | |
|  | Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Re: FTC Report Contains No Actual Research said by roc5955:What do you expect from an administration that says that government can do no good. They are out to prove it. Right on!
I've been saying all along that the Executive Branch agencies suck today because their boss (Bush) doesn't even realize that he's in charge of them. And the real leader of this country (Cheney) is too busy raping and pillaging to spend any time on them. So they're like a schoolyard full of kids with nary a teacher in sight.
The argument that business can do a better job at things than government is simply flawed. Government does not have to pay shareholders, large CEO salaries, advertising, and other overhead that simply does not exist if Civil Servants handle the job. How true. The US government can get more volume discounts than even the largest US companies. As for the argument that "civil servants are all corrupt and lazy", that's nothing but an excuse made by politicians who fail to perform their sworn duty to appoint honest and industrious civil servants (and to make sure they stay that way), and the people who failed to perform their civic duty by not electing better people. | |
|
| | Ah perfect.... I can practice my surprised look!
 | |
| | | If The Government ....Doesn't hire STUPID people,Where will they work? Consider government jobs welfare for the middle class!
Just this morning I caught the garbage collector weighing my trash can and poking around for contraban! He was fit to be tied when he grabbed the shit diaper! The dipshits at the FTC aren't any smarter! | |
| | roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: If The Government said by Ream0 :
....Doesn't hire STUPID people,Where will they work? Consider government jobs welfare for the middle class!
Believe me, the government is not the only organization to hire 'stupid' people.
As a matter of fact, all you have to do is look at any major corporation. Their version of 'welfare for the middle class' is called middle management. After all, they need jobs too.
I would rather have a 'stupid' person collecting my garbage, than managing a group of people. There are stupid people everywhere. Would you rather this 'stupid' garbage collector collect welfare, or have the job that he has?
You don't really think that the government puts its brains into garbage collection, now do you? | |
| | | | | Re: If The Government .. Of course it could be ethical problems masquerading as stupidity and oversight. These are important decisions and ought not be made without substance.
------FTC employment eligibility quiz-------
Your working phone bank at the KKK recruiting office: The person on the other end of the line,Speaking with an EBONICS accent,wants to arrange a personal meeting in a dark alley in the middle of the night.
What do you do?
a: Present yourself with recruiting literature
b: call in some of the boys | |
|
| Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | You might want to locate a copy of the book "The Peter Principle" and read it. The problem lies not in the government, but in the American style of management. | |
|
| | Government controlled, provided Broadband??? Oh puhleeeze enough of the "socialist" government is better than the private sector non-sense. Social Security is bankrupt, the border with Mexico is a one-way super-highway, and you want to Nationalize broadband? I don't think so. I have probably more reason to be pissed than anyone here as I have waited for 10 yrs to get HighSpeed broadband in my rural area. Sprint Local was my phone provider, they got spun off into local provider Embarq when SPRINT/NEXTEL merged under GOVERNMENT mandate to approve the merger for the wireless carriers. So, now I have an under-capitalized local company that will NOT upgrade the 40+ year old switchbox in my rural area at a cost of a Quarter Million dollars so that they can jump in the market and provide DSL to 40 people for 20 bucks a month? Do the math folks, if I were a shareholder and they did that upgrade I would fire the freaking CEO and entire Board of Directors. So, I suffered with 28K dialup for 7 yrs, ISDN at 128K and 80 bucks a month for 3. However, this week I went with Sprint Mobile BB Cards EVDO service through a Kyocera KR1 router (check out 3gstore.com if you don't have wired BB in your area, they can probably hook you up via wireless service) and am getting 1.5mb down 500 up, and am HAPPY to pay $30 bucks a month for the service, ($60 unlmtd min. split with my neighbor hooked up to my wifi). High-speed broadband is a priviledge, or luxury, not a government guaranteed/subsidized/provided right. If the government wanted broader high-speed service, they should put big tax breaks on for providers like a 100% Capital Cost deduction/first year depreciation deduction for Embarq to put the hardware in to bring broadband to an area like mine where it isn't economically justifiable for them. What does the government lose? Nothing. A tax deduction for an expenditure that would never have been made otherwise? AND they gain all the subscription and FCC taxes for service that they would not have gotten otherwise. It's a win, win for everyone. The FREE market will always work, eventually. I found a company in Sprint Wireless that found a way to bring wireless to areas not served by land lines (they have HUGE coverage for EVDOrevA now). So now there is INCENTIVE for the hard-line providers to get busy or lose their potential market, and if not, so be it; somebody else found a way to provide a service where one was wanting. Thank you Sprint Wireless. Thank you Free-Enterprise system. | |
| | roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: Government controlled, provided Broadband??? There is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are setup by governments, to trade goods using the currency of the realm. Without controls for consumer protection, many corporations would, and do run roughshod among the people.
The airwaves which carry your cell service belong to WE THE PEOPLE. The government should be sure that they are properly regulated, so that, for instance, transmitters do not "step on" other, competitor's frequencies.
Your argument that Social Security is bankrupt, and Mexico is a one way freeway, are directly related to the politicians who have people brainwashed into believing that government can do no good. They are out to prove it, so that they can get more kickbacks from big business. Social Security is bankrupt because Reagan stole from the lock box, and so has Bush. These two combined have run up more debt than any other presidents. Debt that has been given, in the form of tax cuts to big business, and the ultra rich. It's about time that these entities started paying their fair share again, and America can prosper, like it did before Reagan.
The Mexican border is a "one way freeway" because there are fewer and fewer unions. One of the things that unions have done in the past, is to make darn sure that their workers are able to work in the US legally.
If we stopped giving the ultra rich a free ride, maybe we could have mandates for telecom companies to upgrade their services, under the law. The law made by WE THE PEOPLE.
Your "Free Enterprise" system is far from free. It's only free for the ultra rich, who want to make the US a country of the ultra rich, and the hyper poor. | |
| | | | Mexico? Haha.
I don't want socialism. I want freedom and a TRUE free market which we don't have.
If cities want to install their own networks then they should.
Have you looked up Europe in your research? | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
color me unsurprised
