Only problem is people in general do not have long memory.
By the time election comes around back to business as usual.
I used to vote all the time but not any more. What's the use?
They only listen to you at the best only during election time
until next election time. In the mean time nay body cares.
People are screwed no matter what. How about bloody revolution?
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:21:37 AM UTC-7, Tony Hwang wrote:
n on the Internet.
ousands of constituents flood a Congress-critter's office with demand/prote
st/whatever, he/she IS wet their pants worrying about re-election (except i
n "safe" districts. Believe it or not, there still IS strength in unity.
YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN!!!
THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! HIT THEM WHEN THEY'RE VULNERABLE.
In the mean time nay body cares.
Yeah, sometimes I wonder... problem is, revolutions fought with the best in
tentions tend to go sour when some high-testosterone type takes over and he
re we go again.
Wish you would go back to voting, if only to honor the millions of people a
ll over the world who put their ass on the line and DIED and are STILL dyin
g for the right to voteI
Also: Think again about voting not making a difference. Maybe you're thin
king, as many do, on a macro level -- Presidential elections. BUT you woul
d be amazed to learn how many House/Senate seats from State X were won or l
ost by just Tony's vote and a few others. They make the laws that govern yo
u & me.
Not to mention LOCAL elections, which I wish more people would study up on.
If you have a majority of buttholes on City Council, which we do right no
w, SOMEBODY voted for them -- or DIDN'T vote for good people running to rep
lace them. Result: Some really stupid deci$ion$, which have the whole city
up in arms. You can bet your "I voted" sticker that a couple of these B.H
.'s will be looking for work at McDonald's come November!
Now promise me you'll think about studying the issues & voting. If a confi
rmed cynic like me can still get it up, so can you.
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 6:25:09 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
That is a very good point. It's not a trivial subject. And I doubt the OP
even understands the first level of the onion. If she did, then I doubt she
would be posting this:
"We have ONE DAY to tell the FCC that the Internet belongs to us too, not just to corporations that want to get faster speed than just us regular users."
Business users of various kinds not only need higher speed than a typical
residential internet user, but they've also been getting it since day one and
it's not at the core of the net neutrality issue. Apparently HB thinks that
both Ebay and grandma need the same capacity. And even with regard to
residential service, many internet providers are offering higher speed for
higher pricing. If you want 15MBits it's $50 a month. Want, 30Mbits, it's
$60. That's how it's worked with Cablevision for a long time and there is
nothing illegal or unethical about it.
And I also don't see that there is anything wrong with charging those that
put the heaviest bandwith on the network, eg streaming video, a higher rate.
If you have to spend more on network resources to support that, why shouldn't
the internet companies recover it from those that actually use the service?
There are all kinds of potential net neutrality issues, but when you lead
off with and try to make your case by saying that it's about businesses and
consumers having the same speed, clearly you're clueless.
I've noticed some of the most passionate
calls for action come from the most
Stamp out clueless! You need to contact your
elected rep TODAY!!!! and DEMAND the Stormin
Mormon American Restrictions on Tiddlywinks
(S.M.A.R.T.) bill. The window of oportunity
is closing rapidly. Act in the next five minutes
and get the free potato dicer as seen on TV!!!
| Business users of various kinds not only need higher speed than a typical
| residential internet user, but they've also been getting it since day one
| it's not at the core of the net neutrality issue. Apparently HB thinks
| both Ebay and grandma need the same capacity. And even with regard to
| residential service, many internet providers are offering higher speed for
| higher pricing. If you want 15MBits it's $50 a month. Want, 30Mbits,
| $60. That's how it's worked with Cablevision for a long time and there is
| nothing illegal or unethical about it.
That would be a good example of Net neutrality. The only
way it can work is if people pay for the bandwidth they want,
as we do with phones. If they do it the way you describe I
think that would be ideal. We can't honestly expect ISPs to
foot the bill for streaming movies.
The main question is whether ISPs will be utilities -- like a phone
company -- or services. If they're utilities that's Net neutrality, as
you describe above. If they're services that can control what/who
can come down the wire then the Internet will be turned into a
commercial service rather than a public communication medium.
It then becomes something like cable TV. The essence of the
Net neutrality position is that ISPs should have no more right to
affect content than the phone company can control your
telephone conversations. If the person who wants to stream
movies pays for that bandwidth themselves then we have fairness
*and* Net neutrality.
It is kind of funny everyone is screaming about the speed they are
paying for. Every ISP agreement (ATT, Verizon, Charter and Comcast) I
have seen says up to some Mb rate. So, whatever speed you get, the ISP
is covered. Not to mention that many sites can't or won't deliver
content at the speed you think you are paying for.
| It is kind of funny everyone is screaming about the speed they are
| paying for. Every ISP agreement (ATT, Verizon, Charter and Comcast) I
| have seen says up to some Mb rate. So, whatever speed you get, the ISP
| is covered. Not to mention that many sites can't or won't deliver
| content at the speed you think you are paying for.
That's an interesting point. I was thinking the whole
thing could be solved if people who download over
x number of GB just pay more. But I suppose for that
to work they also have to be ensured that they'll have
adequate speed for the download, if it's video. I guess
it would be more fair if the ISPs sold minimum speed
rather than maximum speed, then had to provide some
kind of rebate if the speed dropped below the promised
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:23:38 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
That alone is enough to show that like HB, you're here pontificating
about issues about which you don't have a clue. Net neutrality is about
a lot more than just that narrow issue. So, before getting your shorts
all in a knot, bashing former FCC commissioners over their lineage,
dragging Bush and the Iraq war into it,
maybe you should figure out what it's all about, so you could have
an opinion that's worth something? But then that's why you libs have
to drag Bush and the Iraq war into it, because it's all you have.
Your download speed is much like having really really fast sports car in the
driveway. While the car CAN go like hell local cops can slow you and
everyone else down to creep speed.
It's no real hill for any ISP to slow your feed down as a function of the
source, the content or both. And the determination can be made in advance
and applied dynamically.
Our (you me the folk behind the tree) best chance is to send emails to the
FCC and every politican we can. Sames applies to the TPP.
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:47:43 PM UTC-4, NotMe wrote:
Let's say we have two consumers that have a high speed internet connection
to their house. Guy A uses it all day long, plays realtime video on multiple
TVs, downloads movies, etc. Guy B uses it for accessing Ebay, weather forecast, about 20 mins a day. What inherent right or rational is there
that both should pay the same amount and have totally unlimited access
for their very different usage?
| Net neutrality is about
| a lot more than just that narrow issue. ....
| maybe you should figure out what it's all about
I haven't seen you actually voice an opinion yet
on this topic. You're only criticizing others. Do you
have an opinion? Do you favor your ISP having
control over what uyou can access? If so, why?
Do you expect to get lower fees with no significant
restriction by letting your ISP do that?
For the sake of anyone who may find this a
confusing issue, *the gist of it is whether ISPs
are going to be utilities or services. Do they just
rent you a wire, like the phone company, or can
they control content, like a cable TV service*.
Issues of download speed and end-user volume
allotments are things that can be ironed out. Netflix
can't just keep creating 20% of Internet traffic without
someone paying for it. But the main thing is to get
ISPs regulated as utilities. That's the "neutrality" part.
They should just be carrying data, no controlling it.
To see the difference, imagine phone companies
regulated as information services. In that scenario
they would be able to refuse to connect you to
competing services. That actually already happens with
CallerID: CallerID works through small fees. If someone
on Ace Phone Co calls someone on Acme Phone Co,
Acme pays a small fee to Ace to know who that caller
is, and vice versa. Small telcos have to pay big companies
in order to provide usable CallerID, but big companies
sometimes just refuse to pay the smaller companies.
If you're on Verizon and a friend calls who's on a
small rural service in Texas, Verizon may not be willing
to pay that company, so you don't get CallerID. You
get "out of area" or "unknown caller" reported on your
If phone service were regulated as an information
service, the same could happen with your phone calls.
If large ISPs are allowed to treat different data differently,
under the assumption that Internet data is not a critical
utility that every citizen should have free access to,
then in the long run it's likely that they'll gradually strike
deals with large "content" companies and the Internet
could be reduced to something like the AOL walled garden.
Large, commercial companies like Netflix will pay to get
through, while small companies and non-commercial sites
may just get dropped. That would also mean unfairness
similar to today's cable TV. For instance, someone who
doesn't watch sports nevertheless has to indirectly
pay the fees for sports networks. In the same way, without
Net neutrality we could all pay for things like Netflix, whether
we stream movies or not.
Here are two links that provide somewhat of a synopsis
of the utility vs service issue. One of them is from
former FCC commisioner Michael Copps:
This one is about how the Internet got regulated as
an "information service" by Michael Powell while he was at
the FCC, thus preventing the FCC from having real
Powell's view was that the Internet would thrive best
"watered by private capital and a light regulatory touch".
It's essentially the Libertarian/plutocratic view that
business is good and government is usually bad:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:53:52 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
You're only criticizing others. Do you
That isn't even on the FCC agenda, never has been. No one is
suggeting that an ISP be allowed to block access. Show us one
FCC commissioner that is of that opinion or one rule they are
proposing. Why are you making stuff up?
Do you expect they guy who uses the internet 20 mins a day for the weather
and Ebay to pay for the infrastructure to support
folks who use the internet to stream live video, download movies all
If that is the gist of it, then you've already lost. Nobody
expects the FCC to issue rules that turn the ISPs into utilities.
Where do you think the internet would be today if it was
regulated like Ma Bell was or the water company is today?
Or take a look at a cable companies, which are highly regulated.
I suppose you're going to tell us that you're very happy with
the cable companies? If you took an opinion poll on how well cable TV
service is liked versus internet, what do you think you'd find?
Which is precisely part of what the current rule making is all
about. So, what's your beef? And note that "ironed out" is not
an answer. They are ironing it out, it's just that you don't like how.
Then you've lost, because no one expects the FCC to regulate
ISPs like cable companies. And you have to define "control".
If by control, you mean they shouldn't be able to block you from
going to some website, they aren't doing that, no one on the FCC
is in favor of that, so no need to write letters. If you're talking
about prioritizing certain traffic, treating VOIP differently, that's
an essential part of being an ISP.
Nonsense. No one is suggesting that ISPs would ever be allowed
to just refuse to connect you. Why do you make up strawmen?
That actually already happens with
The smaller companies don't have a lawyer? If they believe
they are owed money, they have a remedy, so I find it hard to
believe this is actually going on and they are indeed owed the
Well, if the company wants $$ and Verizon won't pay it, I
guess that's Verizon's right. Sounds like the solution isn't to
force Verizon to pay it. The obvious, simple, free market solution
is for Verizon to offer that
additional service to it's customers who really want it for an
additional cost. See how easy that was?
You painting extreme hypotheticals that don't exist. The problem
is that some content providers, eg Netflix, are responsible for a huge
portion of the bandwith consumed. The ISP want to charge Netflix for
higher speed, priority that their material requires, etc. That then
pays for the infrastructure to support it.
That would also mean unfairness
WHAT? Unfairness in the highly regulated, govt controlled cable
TV business? How about that......
For instance, someone who
Good grief! You actually have it totally BACKWARD. Right now,
you *are* paying for the infrastructure to support Netflix, whether
you use it or not. The ISPs want to charge Netflix and treat them
differently for the content they deliver. That would place the cost
burden on Netflix, which would pass it on to it's customers who are
using Netflix. That part of net neutrality is exactly what's before
the FCC now.
And of course it's been proven to be the right approach. Just look
at the huge innovation that's occured in the internet over the past
couple of decades. Compare that to any utility, highly regulated market.
I'm quite happy with how the internet has served me.
In the end, both father and son turned out to be someone else's tools. The
Internet is a pipeline/transporter if only because much of the terminology
relates to such endeavors. Data pipes, packets, hubs, gateways, tunnels,
What almost has to happen is what the telcos did in big cities with message
units for POTS. Metered service. Want a big data pipe? Pay for it. Part
of the problem is that there's really still very little real competition
between ISPs so there's little incentive for them to do anything
I think more importantly, wireless internet access needs strong regulation
because that's where it's all going to end up. No one wants to be tethered
when they can roam free. Local wifi hotspots are a poor substitute for
real-time wireless internet access from anywhere in the service area (or,
eventually, the world).
What's really sad is that despite inventing the internet, we place very,
VERY poorly when it comes to connectivity compared to other countries:
<<Not only do we have a turtle-like internet connection when compared to
places like Japan and Korea, we also seem to have one of the more expensive
mbps (megabytes per second) rate at $3.33.>>
I think what ever Comcast and the other big ISP's want is *exactly* what we
shouldn't do. It sounds a lot like they're whining that they didn't build
their "highways" to actually carry real cars during rush hour traffic. Got
enough money to buy Time-Warner while providing zero customer service?
Spend it on building out your network. They'd have to if there was real
competition, but there isn't, so they don't.
They really want to get paid for both ends of their pipelines. The ultimate
irony is that those ISPs would have very little demand for high speed
internet access if *somebody* like Netflix didn't offer something people
would pay $ to watch. It's a naked power grab likely to be blessed by a
regulatory agency long ago captured by the industry it's supposed to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:48:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
What exactly are you suffering from that Powell was responsible for when
he was at the FCC? I asked a similar question of M, and she admits
she doesn't know WTF he did or didn't do. She just knows, Bush, Colin Powe
Iraq War suck, so Michael Powell sucks too.
The wikepedia description doesn't sound like he was anti-consumer:
"As the chairman of the FCC, Powell led the charge to open up markets in Vo
IP, Wi-Fi, and Broadband over Powerline (BPL). His approach believed that t
hese new communications technologies would allow small companies to take on
established corporations, and that regulations often stood in the way of p
His deregulatory policy coincided with a period of significant consolidatio
n in the communications market. He advocated an updating of media ownership
rules to reflect new communications technologies such as the Internet, a m
ove that critics derided as increasing rampant media consolidation. He oppo
sed applying telephone-era regulations to new Internet technologies, a move
critics charged would deny open access to communications facilities. He ar
ticulated a policy of network neutrality, and in March 2005 fined Madison R
iver Communications for blocking voice over IP applications, the first-ever
government action of its kind. Powell worked so consumers could keep ph
one numbers when switching wireless carriers and championed the National Do
Not Call Registry."
And if he was a "tool", then he must have been Clinton's tool, because
Clinton is who put him on the FCC.
Why exactly does that "have to happen"? Ain't it working fine right now?
Why do you want to fix what isn't broken?
I have that here right now. Internet starts at 15MBits. If you want
50 or 100, it's available for a little more.
That may be true, but they sure have done a hell of an outstanding job
of rolling out technology and supporting the consumer. In the later 90s
all I had available was dial-up. By 2000, DSL became available and just
a few years later, cable modem. I have a 15mbit connection, it works for
me and I'm happy. I can get 100mbit if I want it. That's an increase
in speed of 1800x over 15 years. Why is it that libs always want more regu
lation and to complain about businesses that are working perfectly fine
and that they have little knowledge about? It's like the pope telling
people how to have sex.
No it isn't because there isn't the bandwith to support it. I can get
15 to 100 Mbits into my house right now. No way you're going to support
that for everyone connecting wirelessly. Nor is there the compelling need.
No one wants to be tethered
That should make Obama and you libs happy. You don't believe in American
exceptionalism, that we should be #1. So, why the fuss because our interne
isn't the fastest in the world? You hurting for speed? I'm not.
Right. Instead of listening to those that are actually in the business,
those that know the issues, the technology, I guess we should listen to
It sounds a lot like they're whining that they didn't build
They've provided a leap in bandwith from 56K to 100Mbits to me.
And yet you're bitching.
Which may not be a bad idea. If you're Netflix, you pay and pass it on
to your customers. A few paragraphs ago you were lobbying for metered
service. This is a similar concept, ie making those that suck up the
bandwith pay for it.
High bandwith video is all the internet is about now? News to me.
It's a naked power grab likely to be blessed by a
Sigh, first you lobby for metered internet service. Then you bitch
because the USA isn't number one in speed, nor do we have the cheapest
service. NExt you complain because ISP want to charge companies like
Netflix that put huge traffic on the internet, which is very similar
to metered service. Now it's about a
"naked power grab"? Good grief, you're all over the map.
If you look at this thread, those that want the most regulation, know the l
about the issue. I mean look at who started this thread:
"tell the FCC that the Internet belongs to us too, not just to corporations
that want to get faster speed than just us regular users."
She's writing letters when she clearly doesn't understand what net
neutrality is about, because it sure isn't that.
"For instance, someone who doesn't watch (cable) sports nevertheless has to
indirectly pay the fees for sports networks. In the same way, without
Net neutrality we could all pay for things like Netflix, whether
we stream movies or not. "
We *are* paying those costs today.
It's precisely the problem of trying to get those that consume the most
bandwith, eg Netflix to pay for it, that the ISPs want to do that's
part of the net neutrality discussion. Yet she wants you to write a
letter to the FCC telling them apparently not to allow the ISPs to fix it.
In short, if you don't understand it, why the hell do you think you
know what, if anything, is wrong with it, how to fix it, how to regulate it
? Good grief.
What I see playing out long-term is that as my ISP (Verizon) gets more
and more into providing content, they will throttle the competition in
order to make their versions more attractive to me - either by being
faster or cheaper. From a competitive business thinking perspective
this seems inevitable to me. I would certainly do it if the rules
It seems particularly insidious in that the most efficient provider is
now hidden to me. The free-market ideology being based on an informed
consumer and all that....
Sort of like going to the supermarket to find that milk from Soprano
Brothers Dairy is cheaper than milk form ABC Dairy... except that what I
don't know is that ABC's production costs are much lower than Sopranos
but they have to pay much, much higher turnpike tolls to get the milk to
<<Not only do we have a turtle-like internet connection when compared to
places like Japan and Korea, we also seem to have one of the more expensive
mbps (megabytes per second) rate at $3.33.>>
There you go with your anti-Obama obsession. Who the F ever said that Obama
or anyone else doesn't believe in American being a world leader or being
exceptional? Because he doesn't do what YOU want him to do? That's hardly
a test of anything except your personal unhappiness.
There IS a difference between types of leadership. We can choose to be the
most aggressive nation on earth, engaging in two huge and mostly pointless 4
trillion dollar wars. Or we could choose to be a leader in science,
medicine, education, engineering, etc.
I don't know about Obama or the liberal views on "exceptionalism" but I want
to be number one where it counts. That DOESN'T mean I want to pay dearly in
American blood and treasure to protect foreign lands on the other side of
the world or to keep Muslim fanatics from killing each other.
I most certainly don't care to claim the ambiguous and often hypocritical
title "Leader of the Free World" if that's what you mean by "American
Exceptionalism." That and $5 will get you a Starbuck's latte. Leadership
in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) will create wealth and
respect where it matters.
No country on earth can best us militarily. Probably no coalition of
countries can. But that, apparently, isn't exceptional enough for some
people. It's good enough for me. Got a problem with your fanatical
neighbors? Call the UN, not Uncle Sam, *former* head of the "World's Free
Police." I'm tired of footing the bill for military excursions whose
benefits are very hard to quantify but whose costs are very, VERY real.
Not just not the fastest. It's not the cheapest or the most reliable or the
most accessible. It's certainly not the best by ANY measure whatsoever even
though the net was born here. I say that's pretty plain proof the FCC fell
down flat on its face. And that surge in mediocrity came at least partly
under Powell's pro-industry watch. The problem now is that Comcast wants to
enhance its bottom line by tacking on "fast lane" fees that will eventually
come out of my pocket.
Spoken like a true "I got mine, eff the people in Montana" sort of guy. The
people outside of huge metro/suburban markets will probably never have much
better than dial-up if *only* the not-very-free market gets to decide what
the critical infrastructure backbone of the nation looks like. I say it's
madness to give them that sort of power because they've got very short terms
goals and they rarely coincide with what's best for the nation.
Comcast offshores its tech support (AFAICT) and that's not helping the
economy. Tell us how well things are working in the internet world after
reading some of these:
<<Right. Instead of listening to those that are actually in the business,
those that know the issues, the technology, I guess we should listen to
Hippies? Is this another obsession showing?
I suppose in your world near monopolies like Comcast are *never*
self-serving and they ALWAYS care about how the strategic infrastructure of
the nation is being built. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell
Monopolies buy out the competition to *eliminate* competition. What you
euphemistically call "consolidation." Comcast is scooping up TimeWarner, a
move that's sure to decrease competition in the cable area, another place
where the FCC has fallen flat.
Comcast has one of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any American
company. The FCC could fix that the way the Public Service Commissions have
forced telcos to provide minimum service levels. But the former lobbyist
and industry shill Powell chose the "light touch" which I am sure delights
companies that don't want ANY regulation at all.
<<They've provided a leap in bandwith from 56K to 100Mbits to me.
And yet you're bitching.>>
100Mbits to YOUR house, probably in a wealthy suburban neighborhood. Lucky
you. Lots of people all across the US are not so lucky because the free
market model leaves them out of broadband almost entirely. They're too far
out in the boonies to make connecting to them at high speed profitable. So
they'll languish with 56Kbps dial-up or DSL and perhaps never stream one
frame of video.
That is unless the FCC does what the Feds did with power and phone service
way back when to make sure they were accessible nationwide. Want to enjoy a
virtual monopoly? Pay the piper and provide for the unprofitable segments
that need access, too. It worked for the telcos and it would work for the
ISPs. Unfortunately an ex-industry lobbyist like Powell is very unlikely to
see things from a consumer's perspective and his tenure proved that premise.
We pay more for crappy service than a *lot* of other countries do.
Exceptionalism my a$$.
The internet is the equivalent of the country's critical nervous system.
Everyone has a stake in everyone else being connected. Just like it was
important to get everyone connected to phone and electricity in the past.
This chart shows how poorly we fare when compared to other nations.
How can we expect to be world leaders in STEM or anything else when our
internet access is so damn mediocre? It's that way because a few giants
dominate the market and basically dictate terms to regulators. Worse than
that, the direction is "consolidation" of the few big players making
monopolistic practices even more likely. Our health care system is almost
identically crippled. We're no world leader there, either, in cost,
outcomes or virtually any other measure.
<<Which may not be a bad idea>>
Sure. What a great idea. I am certain consumers would love to pay Comcast
et. al. twice for the same thing. I suppose you would be just as happy if
UPS decided Amazon should pay them to ship your package and you should pay
UPS as well to receive it. Not me. Double-dipping is nice work if you can
get it but I am an old-fashioned Republican that a) wants value for my
money, b) hates to pay again for something I already paid for and c)
believes in a robust, well-designed critical infrastructure that doesn't
devolve into a mess like our current health care system has.
Yeah. There's very little you can do to be an "informed consumer" when your
market is served by just one or two providers, as is the case with much of
the nation. If there was true competition, we might not have to sign our
Constitutional rights to sue. There isn't a single provider out there that
doesn't insist on binding arbitration which typically favors companies over
consumers. But it's a take it or leave it situation for monopolistic
vendors and the consumer usually takes it - in the shorts.
I'd know it was a fraud because as far as I remember, there weren't any
Sopranos left with a brother. Isn't it about time for Sopranos - The Next
Edition with dopey Anthony Jr. now running the organization? That's of
course if he survived that family trip to the diner. We know big Tony isn't
coming back except the way Livia did - as a CGI creation.
| I remember Rush Limbaugh commenting on this. They deregulated wholesale
| prices, so the power co spent a lot more for power,
| but the power co was prohibited by law from charging fair
| market price. As such, the power co got squeezed badly. And
| people screamed "not in my back yard" about power plants.
You really listen to Rush Limbaugh? Shouldn't you
at least check into what he says before accepting it?
He's primarily an entertainer, with an audience to hold.
There's a fairly simple issue happening now with the Internet.
Telcos are hoping to take over the medium. (Though Apple,
Amazon, Microsoft and Google are also attempting that, from
another angle.) No one is talking about making life difficult
for those companies. The idea of Net neutrality is simply to
ensure that the Internet itself stays open and that no company
is allowed to control what you can access for their own profit.
| But of course, you libs don't care about the free market?
| Just punish the achievers with high taxes, and try to force
| the evil corporate giants to sell at "fair" prices?
I've been very curious about this point of view. There
seems to be a growing libertarian/plutocratic segment of
the US population who see all regulation as bad. I don't
understand the logic. Is the feeling that trusting basic
human drives of greed and ambition is the most dependable
way to get things done? I can see why a rich person might
be plutocratic out of selfishness. But the current libertarian/
plutocratic trend seems to be almost religious in nature. No
matter what the issue, regulation is seen as wrong. And it's
not confined to the rich.
I've found it
virtually impossible to actually find out what my bill would
be if I got a smartphone. Likewise with Cable TV. My landline
phone bill went up about 25% last year with no notice and no
explanation. I tried to find some official government oversight
board to complain to and was told that there's no law
restricting the phone company from raising prices as they like.
My ladyfriend recently got a smartphone from T-Mobile. There
wasn't a single printed word in the store about plans and terms.
She accepted a contract based on what the clerk told her. (There
was far too much legalese to actually sit down and read what
she was asked to sign on the spot.) As it turned out, her bill is
about 20% higher than she was told the total, including taxes
and fees, would be. Is it unreasonable to ask that these companies
should be required to clearly spell out their contractual terms
in advance? (I'm thinking something similar to supermarket unit-
pricing stickers. Let the companies market and charge as they
like if there's true competition, but how about also making sure
the customer can know what the actual product and price are?)
You have a phone, I assume? Maybe you have cable TV.
You clearly use the Internet. I honestly don't understand
why you would be so adamantly against controlling how those
companies can do business when it comes to public services.
Do you own stock in them? Do you perhaps hope to win a lottery
and want to make sure you can enjoy as much of the money
as possible, in case you become a billionaire? Do you believe that
it was wrong to break up Bell Telephone in the first place? You'd
rather still be paying to rent your phone at whatever rate Bell might
Do you really believe that
government itself is the only problem? Isn't there some kind
of rational middle ground between Rush Limbaugh and Grover
Norquist on one side, and politically correct control freaks on
the other side? It seems to me that society without government
is basically a game of King of the Hill, which ends up taking
the form of autocratic warlords, simply because there are
always people who want power and will stop at nothing to
get it. And there are also always a lot of follower types who want
some kind of hierarchy that they can be part of. They support
the warlords. In modern America it's taking the form of what might
be called an oligarchic plutocracy, ruled by corporate leaders and
rubber-stamped by the Scalia cartel. Is that really what you want?
Isn't that what failed early in the 20th century? Could you explain
what the core reasoning is behind your view?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.