[Tricks]

It comes down to who you trust more I guess. Telecoms restricting access for a dollar, or government, with all the checks and balances, restricting access to limit free speech.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

It comes down to who you trust more I guess. Telecoms restricting access for a dollar, or government, with all the checks and balances, restricting access to limit free speech.

The telecoms have a vested interest in fostering access and so long as the government makes sure that the markets are competitive then people will be able to compel the various firms to keep their prices reasonable.

Seriously, in 1945 AT&T enjoyed a near-national monopoly in the USA and a coast-to-coast long distance call cost around $6 per minute...which was why the Western Union telegram business flourished well into the 1980's and only closed down in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_U ... _telegrams

When they lost their monopoly prices plummeted, services improved, and the result enabled the internet to arise.

Less government intervention resulted in lower prices and better services.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Less government intervention resulted in lower prices and better services.

What planet are you posting from? Just Google 'better service' and the name of any ISP or Cell phone company. Hilarity ensues. Those same companies took all sorts of government incentives to upgrade their networks, and didn't upgrade their networks. But guess who got big bonuses!

And remember when less government intervention led to such great service that the Department of Justice had to file antitrust suits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_o ... ell_System

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The telecoms have a vested interest in fostering access and so long as the government makes sure that the markets are competitive then people will be able to compel the various firms to keep their prices reasonable.

But that doesn't exist. And the telecoms are actively keeping that from happening. They are fighting access to pre-existing infrastructure in the form (typically) of poles. So even if a company wanted to enter the market, the telecoms are using their weight to make it virtually impossible. The whole point of net neutrality was to make it so that a company couldn't make bullshit rules when they're the only option in any given area. You don't currently have competition in approximately a third of your country. And the telecoms that run those areas refuse to allow access to other companies.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... neutrality

That's why net neutrality was so important.

[Tricks]

Honestly, the best benchmark I can see for whether or not Net Neutrality is a good thing is how hard telecoms fought it. Anything those scum sucking fuckers don't like is always going to be the right way to go.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Less government intervention resulted in lower prices and better services.

What planet are you posting from? Just Google 'better service' and the name of any ISP or Cell phone company. Hilarity ensues. Those same companies took all sorts of government incentives to upgrade their networks, and didn't upgrade their networks. But guess who got big bonuses!

And remember when less government intervention led to such great service that the Department of Justice had to file antitrust suits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_o ... ell_System

It was government intervention that allowed AT&T to become a monopoly in the first place.

And while you may find a lot of complaints published about these firms do note that you're doing so via a means that would not even exist had not competition been introduced into the communications market.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

(The telecom firms) are fighting access to pre-existing infrastructure in the form (typically) of poles.

If a company builds an infrastructure then it belongs to them. Note that denying access to wired infrastructure has no impact whatsoever on satellite, cell, and microwave systems.

You can still compete without socializing someone else's property.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

(The telecom firms) are fighting access to pre-existing infrastructure in the form (typically) of poles.

If a company builds an infrastructure then it belongs to them. Note that denying access to wired infrastructure has no impact whatsoever on satellite, cell, and microwave systems.

You can still compete without socializing someone else's property.

Use purely cell, satellite, or microwave based internet and let me know how that goes for you.

And considering the construction of those poles was likely subsidized by the government to begin with, it belongs just as much to them as the telecoms.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

And considering the construction of those poles was likely subsidized by the government to begin with, it belongs just as much to them as the telecoms.

That may be the case in your country but it is not the case in our country. In the USA utility poles are paid for and owned by utility firms who are also 100% liable for their care and maintenance.

Case in point:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/16/ ... companies/

The utility firms can lease space on their utility poles and sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't.

Comcast tried to force utility firms in California to give them space to run cable TV lines and they lost and then installed the lines underground where they're both out of the way and a bunch more reliable than if they were exposed to the elements.

Some cities, like San Francisco, have some underground utility tunnels where they require service lines to be installed as opposed to running poles and wires in the downtown areas.

But seriously, if someone has to front the expense to build a utility line and then they have to absorb all of the costs and liabilities of maintaining it then how in fuck is some 'competing' firm's investors supposed to have some sort of right to what a bunch of other investors paid for? Fuck that.

[Tricks]

It's already law that they have to accommodate new entrants into the market on pole access. It's more they stall and bitch about it, even on poles they don't own. If a new entrant to a market (google fibre has been most recent case) needs access, it makes an application to the owner of the pole. Often utility companies, not necessarily telecoms. Then it's figured out if something needs to be moved, and then cooperation between the two companies to get the shit moved, and then the new stuff up is supposed to happen. Companies like AT&T and Comcast refuse to cooperate with new entrants. Cause they're flaming dickbags.

[Tricks]

I find it alarming that someone in the tech industry sides with arguably the most corrupt institutions within tech. These cocksuckers are worse than facebook and google to me.

[Tricks]

And saying the internet was fine and dandy beforehand is fucking laughable. Every major telecom has instances of squashing competition or limiting freedom of speech in it's recent history, by completely blocking access to and from consumers. Free market my fucking ass.

https://www.freepress.net/our-response/ ... ef-history

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

I find it alarming that someone in the tech industry sides with arguably the most corrupt institutions within tech. These cocksuckers are worse than facebook and google to me.

I'm siding with the principle of property rights. And as you may have noticed over the years I also defend the rights of dickbags.

Because diminishing the rights of anyone diminishes the rights of everyone.

Seriously, we protect the rights of people we don't like or else we put our own rights at risk.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

I find it alarming that someone in the tech industry sides with arguably the most corrupt institutions within tech. These cocksuckers are worse than facebook and google to me.

I'm siding with the principle of property rights. And as you may have noticed over the years I also defend the rights of dickbags.

Because diminishing the rights of anyone diminishes the rights of everyone.

Seriously, we protect the rights of people we don't like or else we put our own rights at risk.

What is more important, consumer rights or rights of a company?