On 04/13/2010 09:56 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:

We have 2 real hopes for these problems.
1. Municipal owned/run Fiber to the home (Utopia,iProvo)
2. Net Neutrality legislation to protect us in this current state of
limited competition.

As soon as everyone starts believing that they cannot or will not do without something, they have already lost and the companies win. They do everything they can to get people to believe that they have no options; they then turn to the government and get them to regulate something that the free market could have dealt with if people didn't believe that they had no choice.

Example. Cable TV. People got to the point that they believed that they could not live without their cable television, and rather than voting with their wallets and either doing without or accepting the realities of a free market, they turned to the government and got it regulated. Which, in the long run, got it to be more expensive. Now, the cable companies cannot raise their prices other than set amounts on set schedules (which they will always do, it is now sanctioned to raise their prices at certain times, and they can blame the government for it). They can also impose fees to cover their regulatory expenses, meaning the consumer is the one that pays more for the expense of the government saying they cannot charge more. It's a loosing battle.

Ever been in a city where the cable company keeps changing? It's part of the big trade game the cable companies do now because of regulation. Also, a lot of the cost of the cable TV is imposed by the government (did you know that they pay almost as much in license fees to use radio frequencies in a private spectrum network as those same frequencies cost to license in the open airwaves? Thanks, FCC)

Government regulation, in general, is bad and looses a little more of our freedoms each and every time it happens. It eliminates the benefits of the free market, and costs more money to do so. All because people get in their heads that they cannot do without the service.

And yes, if it's your job, then pick a place to live that has acceptable service. You still have options; don't whine just because you chose to live in a remote location to lower your cost of living, then found that you missed something you do not want to live without. It all comes to what is important to you; just don't think that your poor choices should have to force government regulations on the rest of us.

-Steve

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/

Reply via email to