|
FRINGE posted:Mind actually giving an opinion or making an argument instead of just posting articles with one liners? A big flaming stink posted:correct me if I'm wrong fishmech, but the main thrust of your argument is that telecoms' lovely behavior is not notably lovely, but rather lovely in the banal way that almost all corporations in a capitalistic system are, right? Yes they are only behaving as lovely as any other capitalist enterprise, and furthermore they're behaving in the same ways as telcoms worldwide. And you're right, it is a lot like Monsanto in that particular companies are made boogeymen and have a bunch of lies assigned to them. And incidentally we're showing yet another year of reliable data that the access and speeds have improved once again, countering lies certain people like to tout in this thread about nothing improving.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2014 22:58 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
I don't get it. If you're arguing they're acting lovely like company's in capitalist systems do then why are you opposed to strong regulation, aka the only thing that can rein in capitalist excesses. It seems like the most logical outcome of your argument is that they should be subjected to full Title II rules with no Forbearance, and probably broken up in anti-trust actions as well.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2014 23:34 |
|
Valhawk posted:I don't get it. If you're arguing they're acting lovely like company's in capitalist systems do then why are you opposed to strong regulation, aka the only thing that can rein in capitalist excesses. It seems like the most logical outcome of your argument is that they should be subjected to full Title II rules with no Forbearance, and probably broken up in anti-trust actions as well. How do you know these particular regulations will actually be effective? For example, a rebuttal of instituting Title II regulations to ISPs: Kalman posted:One reason - because they don't want to have to submit service changes (including adding service lines) for approval by the FCC ahead of time, like they would if Title II applied. If a major problem in the US is building out the service to people, would requiring all additions for FCC approval make the speed of buildout better or worse?
|
# ? Jun 22, 2014 23:41 |
|
Valhawk posted:I don't get it. If you're arguing they're acting lovely like company's in capitalist systems do then why are you opposed to strong regulation, aka the only thing that can rein in capitalist excesses. It seems like the most logical outcome of your argument is that they should be subjected to full Title II rules with no Forbearance, and probably broken up in anti-trust actions as well. The strong regulations you keep talking about do not do anything to achieve anything useful. Making cable internet split up among more regional companies again isn't going to give us any better internet service, for instance. Title II rules do not give any increase in service quality. Quite simply, just slapping a vaguely related regulation framework on something is no guarantee it'll achieve anything useful. You wouldn't regulate restaurants the same way you regulate retail stores, after all. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jun 23, 2014 |
# ? Jun 22, 2014 23:52 |
|
FCC's website is slow as gently caress, you would think with all these ties so company's they would be getting free hosting or something.
|
# ? Jul 14, 2014 23:26 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-own-broadband/ Shame Comcast is spending millions here on elections when they could have just upgraded their networks.
|
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 01:18 |
|
down with slavery posted:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-own-broadband/ Cite your "never upgraded networks" allegation.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 01:40 |
Nintendo Kid posted:Cite your "never upgraded networks" allegation. I never said they didn't upgrade the networks. Vote's over, all I'm saying is they(CenturyLink/Comcast) would have been better off spending their political contributions over the past decade on their networks instead. Maybe they'd still have the contract.
|
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 01:42 |
|
down with slavery posted:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-own-broadband/ quote:Comcast, the state's largest cable provider, did not fight the referendum
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:02 |
|
down with slavery posted:I never said they didn't upgrade the networks. Vote's over, all I'm saying is they(CenturyLink/Comcast) would have been better off spending their political contributions over the past decade on their networks instead. Maybe they'd still have the contract. Well they didn't spend it on the thing you're whining at so...
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:03 |
Nintendo Kid posted:Well they didn't spend it on the thing you're whining at so... Whining at? It's awesome, we're kicking them out to bring in locally run fiber. No whining here, just celebration. down with slavery posted:I never said they didn't upgrade the networks. Vote's over, all I'm saying is they(CenturyLink/Comcast) would have been better off spending their political contributions over the past decade on their networks instead. Maybe they'd still have the contract. Local politics kinda owns tbqh, way more fun than national level bullshit. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:06 |
|
down with slavery posted:Whining at? It's awesome, we're kicking them out to bring in locally run fiber. No whining here, just celebration. You're not kicking them out, moron. You will eventually have a fiber provider in the towns but Comcast isn't going anywhere.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:20 |
Nintendo Kid posted:You're not kicking them out, moron. You will eventually have a fiber provider in the towns but Comcast isn't going anywhere. I don't really care where they go honestly. More ISPs is a win for us, the sooner I can get off of Comcast the better I mean, I guess they are a decent cable tv provider? Beats me, I'm not a customer. Their internet service leaves a lot to be desired though. Here's a local provider nearby: http://longmontcompass.com/welcome-to-the-future-nextlight-is-here/ quote:NextLight will be available at a Charter Member rate for residential users who sign up within three months of NextLight reaching their neighborhood. Charter Members will get 1 Gbps service for $49.95 a month; the normal rate would be $99.95. Customers who become Charter Members will keep that status for as long as they subscribe, and will even be able to sell their home with the Charter Subscription. Good luck competing with that Comcast. Current rates here in Boulder 15 miles down the road: 150mbps - 115/mo why even bother listing the rest lol down with slavery fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:23 |
|
So yeah you were wrong about everything from "comcast fought this" to "comcast is out". Thanks for confirming!
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:33 |
Nintendo Kid posted:So yeah you were wrong about everything from "comcast fought this" to "comcast is out". Thanks for confirming! This actually isn't the first bill regarding this issue, whether or not you want to believe they haven't fought this is up to you, my mailbox says otherwise. Either way, Comcast is effectively out of the internet game once reasonable competition shows up. Much like the rest of America. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_26750152/boulder-issue-2c-gives-city-broadband-authority quote:In an email, Comcast Vice President for Public Relations Cindy Parsons said the cable and Internet provider does not believe broadband service is a good use of municipal resources. Also, if you want to know why they didn't attempt to mount some kind of organized fake organization like they usually do: quote:Telecommunications companies spent $245,000 to defeat Longmont's first attempt to get voter approval for citywide fiber optic in 2009, making it the city's most expensive election ever at the time. In 2011, opponents spent $420,000, but voters approved the measure by 61 percent. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:37 |
|
down with slavery posted:This actually isn't the first bill regarding this issue, whether or not you want to believe they haven't fought this is up to you, my mailbox says otherwise. Either way, Comcast is effectively out of the internet game once reasonable competition shows up. Much like the rest of America. Its not like they won't run any competition out of the market before that happens. ....oh wait...
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:38 |
CommieGIR posted:Its not like they won't run any competition out of the market before that happens. How exactly do they run the city out of competing? Like I said, it's working in other local markets. The answer isn't to wait for Google to show up and save they day, get politically active locally and work towards building your own fiber network. The big companies simply aren't going to do it without being absolutely forced to (and in the case here, they don't even try to compete with local fiber) This lady gets it (too bad the editors for the camera suck so bad, misspelled her quote): quote:Katie Fleming Dahl, associate director of Colorado Common Cause and a member of the Yes on 2C steering committee, said her organization sees Internet service as a utility to which people have a right and an important tool for participation in the democratic process. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:40 |
|
down with slavery posted:How exactly do they run the city out of competing? Like I said, it's working in other local markets. Aw, someone who still doesn't understand Citizens United.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 03:10 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 18:40 |
CommieGIR posted:Aw, someone who still doesn't understand Citizens United. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate.
|
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 03:11 |