What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "Bad Boy Way" To Meet Women Online view!
doubleyourdating.com - You don't have to be a bad boy to succeed with the ladies - but here's a lesson ANY GUY can use...
22 Comments
- dattaway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7A telephone lawyer working for the FCC? Who would have thought?
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I read this article trying to find how it really applied to 'net neutrality', and I found this:
"Smaller telecom competitors don't have the capital required to compete in the fiberoptic space, and continue to require copper in order to complete "the last mile" between private telecom lines and households....if AT&T decommissions the copper plants, they could cease to produce copper altogether. "Putting the brakes on this anti-competitive activity, and preserving the copper last mile access required for intra-modal competitors to reach customers, is critical to ensuring that consumers have more than one or two choices of service providers,""
This is in fact very true, but unfortunately this is probably where we are headed. Sooner or later, the large fiber companies will squeeze out the smaller telcom providers. This is why it's important to protect net neutrality now, because in a few years, there will be no real competitive service options available, and the fiber companies and ISP's will have carte blanche with regards to their customers. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This will happen sooner or later. Too much money involved for it not to. If not now, it will further down the line when a few more palms are greased.
Call your Senators and your Reps about Net Neutrality now. Let them know where you stand before the 2008 election. If you don't, this issue will have surely been settled by the next time your politicians will care about what you have to say. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@SirBotchness
I'm totally with you, but some people have a bad feeling about moveon.org because of some of the other issues they are involved with. If the main issue you're concerned about is Net Neutrality, another choice is http://www.savetheinternet.com/ . Info for contacting politicians is right on their homepage. - gspederson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Does anybody else have an uneasy feeling we're about to get shafted some more? I have a 4 line Bellsouth package in my office and can tell they absolutely stink...and I have to pay $423/mo for this stink fest. I shudder to think what will happen when they monopolize the market more than they already do now....
So much for our politicians supposedly caring and helping small businesses....helping us how? Spend more money trying to run our businesses??? Gee thanks. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Also, the smaller providers are the ones that will have the chance to gain customers if the larger telcoms start throttling basic internet packets so they can make more money selling their high speed video. So, it's important the smaller providers are sustained (and more of them started) so that we have choices that will actually provide open access to the internet. The gaming only network that Verizon and Comcast are pushing, which so many gamers are naively excited about, is a sign that the big telcoms are ready to start tiering everything they can for profit. These large providers want more customers and more gov't authorized geographic monopolies so they can control the supply, ignore the demand, and strangle the competition.
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Regional Provider BellSouth"?
How is AT&T or Qwest or Verizon not a regional provider? BellSouth did Cingular and Verizon did Verizon Wireless, so theres no argument that there's no cellphone network.... - webpoet73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I do not approve of this merger... just from a consumer standpoint. I am not a fan of AT&T. In fact, I am not in favor of the merger because we are getting close to "Ma Bell" again. I do not want Cingular re-branded to AT&T wireless (but wouldn't that be an odd track ... AT&T wireless is sold and becomes Cingular who is sold to AT&T and then becomes AT&T wireless, again...)
This merger will cause a mess for me, personally. I have Bellsouth phone, long distance (a small 30 minute emergency package), Cingular wireless, and FastAccess DSL. I actually consider Bellsouth to be a monopoly. AT&T/Bellsouth would be a larger monopoly. I have Bellsouth because they are better than the alternatives I have (I am looking at you Comcast). But I may have to look into those alternatives if the merger is approved. - SirBotchness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is annoying, those in charge of this merger should stop this and stop a potential monopoly here. If BellSouth and AT&T get their way, we're going to be using thier lines, their appoved websites and thier services. And paying out the ass to do ss. I'm glad now that i have to use comcast cable, but i have SBC phone service in my area, which could be bad. This better get dealt with or we're in for some crap.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good news for Monopolies! Now Once at&t merges with bellsouth, then bellsouth can route through the NSA as well! Aren't you just excited!
- Prospero424, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, can anyone remember the last time the FCC failed to approve a telecom merger or suggested anything other than relaxed ownership rules? Anyone?
They're a rubber stamp commission these days; they exist to serve the telecommunications industry and its financial interests, not the American people, and this was exactly what was intended by those who appointed these commissioners.
What amazes me the most are the people who actually buy the propaganda put out by these groups. They ACTUALLY believe that the best way to "promote competition" is to relax ownership rules, thereby lessening the number of competitors in the market drastically.
They've been convinced that up = down, and they seem to like it that way.
/shakes head - SirBotchness, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You have to get involved. Get on MoveOn.org, get in touch with your sentators just like freff said. I contacted my senators when this was just getting brought up, and i will do it again. Let them know what you think and let them know that your vote is important to them, and all that other jive that they like to hear. Just get in their face. And when it comes down to decision time i might even be calling once a week.
- princessangry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the money the telcos are spending to pay off the govt on this issue could be using that money to further innovate thier networks. this is the biggest load of BS I have seen. they are wasting money on paying them off instead of keeping it or putting it to good use! damn they are stupid! no wonder they are "loosing money" you gave it all to the damn govt!
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Genghis
There is net neutrality right now. "Net neutrality" is the way that the internet currently functions, meaning that all service providers are required to carry all applications and service all protocols equally.
Put it simply, ISP's are angling to offer "tiered" rates and service plans priced according to Quality of Service levels. This would raise the price of broadband service considerably, and lower the quality of the services that people are paying for right now. The only real protection against a defeat of the current "net neutrality" by the Service Providers would be for more competition for the "last mile" services. That's exactly what mergers like this one are attempting beginning to attempt to crush.
My point of view is that the large companies will eventually push out the smaller ones. There is just way too much money in it for them at some point for this not to happen. Therefore, the current state of the internet must be maintained, because without it, consumers soon will hardly recognize the internet and they will be paying much much more for things that we take for granted today. And it will be because right now, nobody really cared. - ghoti06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The thing nobody seems to realize in this debate is that the Republican commissioner who is currently recused does not have the conflict of interest this thread seems to think. In fact, his former employer, COMPTEL, opposes the merger. So assuming he votes for the merger -- which I agree is most likely -- there is no actual issue with him doing the bidding of his former employer. No conflict of interest. It's just a game of gotcha. He can clearly think for himself, and we might as well let him do so.
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Genghis , that works when there is an alternative to switch to. In several areas there is only one provider, no choice for market forces to act upon.
Also the sheer size of the incumbants means they can kill any startup companies fairly quickly - gspederson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@SirBotchness and misterpony,
I have joined up with savetheinternet.com and have sent off my letters. Still tough, I feel quite pessimistic about this all. I have a bad feeling that what we say, or what we ask for generally gets ignored, unless of course our opinion/request is delivered and bought by a lobbyist.
Maybe that's just my pessimistic paranoid mind.... - PoVRAZOR, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7No tubes were hurt durring the discussion of said merger.
- flinx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Forget about the monopoly/legal considerations for a second....
Then think about what a huge cluster it's going to be in billing and customer service. That alone is enough to think this is a bad idea from a customer perspective! - Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1There is no net-neutrality now. Is anyone blocking your Internet connection or web site? NN is government regulation that is not needed. If they screw with your connection, then switch providers. Economics 101. Our entire society works this way. Should we force McDonalds to stop selling value meals because it hurts the little mom and pop restaurant? Should we force Microsoft to stop selling 3 different versions of Windows to make it fair to the people who can't afford Windows Professional?
- Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If government regulates to protect the little guy, you have just lost innovation and motivation. The little guys with new and innovative ideas will thrive despite government regulation not because of it. Why prop up a company with a bad business plan that should have gone out of business in the first place.
- Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7this is obviously too boring a subject to post comments on.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is