> Force a common-carrier status and you've crazy-glued the non-competitive model into place even tighter.
I'm dense, so I'm not seeing the connection. Can you explain, please? --Matt On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> A.) There is nothing wrong with what they are doing > > Yes, there is something wrong with this, as it good to let businesses > make money, but they should make their money by hard work and ingenuity in > the face of competition, not by robbing banks or lock-in or extortion. > > On this point, there is no middle ground for compromise. Their network, > their rules. And I certainly can't fault them for not wanting to upgrade > their infrastructure when the primary outcome of that is helping their > competition whittle away at the profitable portions of their business-model. > > >> B.) If you (or others, or even a majority) are unhappy with what they > are > >> doing, the answer is not for you to impose your will on them in a > manner that > >> makes it even harder for them to see competition later, but to -- > instead -- > >> move towards competition most ricky tick, > > > > If only there were competition available to switch to. In my > neighborhood, my choices are Comcast or Verizon. Both of which are > terrible. > > > > I would switch *so* fast, for much bigger reasons than Netflix or > Youtube video quality. In the middle of a 2yr contract, they took away > half my channels, called it a "channel realignment." If I were to cancel, > I'd be hit with early termination fees. I argued with them pointlessly for > hours, and finally caved in and agreed to upgrade my service for $5/mo more > in order to get my channels back. And then they hit me with the early > termination fee anyway for canceling my old service and upgrading to a new > service with a new 2yr contract. > > By "move towards competition" I mean - work with the FCC, your local > PUC/PSC, and your local Franchise Authorities to end the monopolies that > THEY THEMSELVES are granting the existing/incumbent carriers. > > Solve the competition problem and you solve the net-neutrality problem AND > SO MANY other things. Force a common-carrier status and you've crazy-glued > the non-competitive model into place even tighter. > > > Yes, there is ABSOLUTELY something wrong. This kind of behavior cannot > result in a massively profitable company taking in money hand over fist, > unless they have a monopoly. And if some company has a monopoly, they > should not behave this way. > > So stop granting them the monopoly. They didn't get a monopoly by shoving > others out of the way a la Microsoft. They got the monopoly because YOU > (via your elected officials) gave it to them. > > And this isn't a "long time ago" thing, where all of us can claim to have > not been around for it. Every cable company renews its local franchise, > with your city or twon board usually, every 5 to 7 years. Have you made > your concerns known to your local town board, so that they can negotiate > with the cable companies to get what you -- and assuredly most of your > neighbors -- want? Did they listen? > > D > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
