Take action to force carriers to open networks and stop crippling devices.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by elephant007

Move to Europe... ha ha

I love commercials for products here in the US, they always say things like "Europeans have been doing it for years..." "You know the Germans, they make good stuff" "Patented European Formula"

Everything is better in Europe... well I've lived 10 years of my life in Europe, I'll pick the USA any day! To me, Europe is a nice place to visit

I wish we too would have one network... CDMA

Why do you wish we opnly had a CDMA network? Personally, I like being able to talk on the phone while I use the internet. There have been tons of times when I am at, for example, the RV supply store. And I'll be talking to my wife on the phone (using my bluetooth headset) while she sends me a video of the part I need. And I will keep her on the line until I can confirm the video was good enough or I need another one.

As for everything being better in the USA- I am in the process of setting up my new Touch Pro 2 phone. It is way better than any phone on the market in the USA right now. T-Mobile is set to launch theirs (stripped down) in a few weeks. The Europeans have already had it for a few months (WITH video calling). And that is how it is with pretty much all the new phones. If you lived in Europe right now, you'd have a way better phone (at least the option to get a better phone if you wanted) and way better services offered on that phone.

[slbailey1]

Originally Posted by boredandtattooed

net neutrality is BAD... u guys must not have children

also, crippling devices how??? theyll still always be allowed to set their specs, and gps blocks,etc if they want..

Crippling devices how - How about any Windows Mobile 6.5 and higher phones sold by Verizon will have the Marketplace link removed!!!

[Adrianh85]

Originally Posted by psycho_maniac

what rock are you under? dont you see all the posts about people ******** about the verzion touch pro? wtf man

^^^^^^+1

[MrObvious]

Hmm interesting discussion. I don't have much to add except for it would be nice if wireless carriers jived but oh well.

[constitutionalist]

Originally Posted by elephant007

Good points

The Government let Bell be a regulated monopoly, they supported Bell in their endevors partially because Bell laid the cable for the telephone network (not saying that they didn't get monies from the Federal Government for help). To this day, even if there are other landline providers, they still pay a fee to Ma Bell for using their network. With exception of Sprint or was it GTE, which laid their own network.
Basically what I'm saying is that Bell didn't let anyone on their network because they didn't have to, not until a public out cry (okay it was most likely backed by huge corporations like most movements)

There are some choices we have, go with a provider that least controls their own network, don't use any devices, get a device, complain and hope action takes place.

Wow anyone remember commercials like these?? HA HA I DO!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlaA4fU2QiI

Boredandtattooed, I can't believe you're against Net Neutrality, I mean being that you're against our government that's broken you want them to control the internet? Asking a legitimate question, not be a smartass

Precisely why we don't want the government essentially running healthcare, the internet, or cellcos. It creates a quasi- or official monopoly that stagnates the industry more than anything else. Just look at the post office and the DMV, or the quasi-private Bell monopoly of most of the 20th Century.

I think the answer here is to create a dues-paying consumers union that has the ability to get millions of members to act in unison and can pool resources to legally represent customers being unfairly treated in court. Government will not only over-regulate the industry, it will do so slowly and will always be responding to yesterday's issues, leaving open loopholes that are exploited by the industry's lawyers to their advantage (and it doesn't hurt that industry lawyers and execs are friends of those who'd write the regulations, anyway). In other words, a government solution that fails to address consumer interests is a foregone conclusion. Only we have the power and ability to properly look after our own interests.

Screw the government.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by constitutionalist

Precisely why we don't want the government essentially running healthcare, the internet, or cellcos. It creates a quasi- or official monopoly that stagnates the industry more than anything else. Just look at the post office and the DMV, or the quasi-private Bell monopoly of most of the 20th Century.

I think the answer here is to create a dues-paying consumers union that has the ability to get millions of members to act in unison and can pool resources to legally represent customers being unfairly treated in court. Government will not only over-regulate the industry, it will do so slowly and will always be responding to yesterday's issues, leaving open loopholes that are exploited by the industry's lawyers to their advantage (and it doesn't hurt that industry lawyers and execs are friends of those who'd write the regulations, anyway). In other words, a government solution that fails to address consumer interests is a foregone conclusion. Only we have the power and ability to properly look after our own interests.

Screw the government.

I understand where you're coming from, but... You're crazy if you think it's easier to corrupt a government (friends of the industry drafting the regulations) than it is to corrupt a union president.

To corrup the government, there would have to be lots of reps and senators on the payroll (which I'm not saying there aren't already, just that it would be required). To corrupt a union, they would only need 1 union president on the payroll.

I don't think the government needs ot be regulating our internet. But I do think the government needs to tell all the ISP's that they can't regulate our internet either.

Remember- Comcast was actually busted (after initially denying it) for slowing and blocking bit torrent traffic. This was primarily directed at Directv customers trying to use their Directv On Demand service. Comcast internet customers were beiong lied to, saying Comcast doesn't slow or block any traffic, and the blame was placed with Directv. Directv On Demand customers were left thinking Directv's service sucked, and Comcast was welcoming them in with open arms to the Comcast cable tv service with their own On Demand.

When ISP's start doing that kind of crap, yes, the government has to step in. And this isn't a hypothetical worse case scenario, this happened already.

[constitutionalist]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

I understand where you're coming from, but... You're crazy if you think it's easier to corrupt a government (friends of the industry drafting the regulations) than it is to corrupt a union president.

To corrup the government, there would have to be lots of reps and senators on the payroll (which I'm not saying there aren't already, just that it would be required). To corrupt a union, they would only need 1 union president on the payroll.

I don't think the government needs ot be regulating our internet. But I do think the government needs to tell all the ISP's that they can't regulate our internet either.

Remember- Comcast was actually busted (after initially denying it) for slowing and blocking bit torrent traffic. This was primarily directed at Directv customers trying to use their Directv On Demand service. Comcast internet customers were beiong lied to, saying Comcast doesn't slow or block any traffic, and the blame was placed with Directv. Directv On Demand customers were left thinking Directv's service sucked, and Comcast was welcoming them in with open arms to the Comcast cable tv service with their own On Demand.

When ISP's start doing that kind of crap, yes, the government has to step in. And this isn't a hypothetical worse case scenario, this happened already.

Sounds great, except for one problem: much of our government already is corrupt, so this already exits the realm of theory. On to your point of corrupted unions (at least labor unions), there is no question these have proven easily corruptible as well. In fact, the long, incestuous trail of quid pro quo between labor union bosses and government officials goes back well over a century and it's dirty; very dirty. But we're not talking a labor union here. Consumer advocacy unions are quite something else and have had a much better track record, partly because of better transparency brought about by greater accountability (unlike the government and labor unions, contributions and membership is voluntary).

Another problem with government telling ISPs what to do with their networks is that government officials, often corrupt, self-interested government officials have agendas far from altruistic ones; and when altruistic, far from well-informed (a fact amplified by the total lack of private sector experience within this current administration, as well as some others before it). That's not to say I don't think there should be any regulation; I just think you and I might disagree where that line should fall. Certainly, wherever Comcast acts in an anti-competitive manner by blocking access to Direct TV, there is reason for intervention. In fact, there are already laws on the books for that and even better, Direct TV, if it feels injured, has a team of lawyers to battle it out in civil court - thus the consumer wins. The best way to deal with Comcast and bit torrent is not for the government to say it can't block bittorrent. Rather, it's for consumers to pull together and begin throwing their weight around. If even 20 percent of Comcast users said, "alright, we've had enough and we're leaving, early term fee or not", Comcast would sit up. As it is now in the first place, no one knows if any more than a tiny handful of people were truly harmed by Comcast practices and Comcast doesn't respect its customers but simply sends its lawyers out to find the latest loophole in government regulation knowing it will likely take years for those loopholes to be fixed, especially as Comcast, the effective new owner of NBC - a network quite friendly to the current government - greases palms and hosts fancy luncheons inside the Beltway.

But of course in the case of Comcast, one also wonders how many people were really "harmed" by its practice. While my sympathies absolutely lie with those who wish to be free to use bit torrent, I have to say, I bet it was a tiny number of customers, who, thanks to the free market system, have the choice of which broadband provider they prefer to use (or in certain rural areas, where Comcast is the only broadband provider, may have to wait, but I doubt anyone is going to die in the meantime). The point is, if enough people demand a service, someone will sell it and make it available. Unfortunately, big government and it's endless string of yesteryear regulations kills the ability of the market to respond in this manner.

In the meantime, you already have politically-motivated government types (and of course, the problem is that is redundant), expressing that they would like to use Net Neutrality as an open door through which to regulate certain types of political speech on the internet at the same time that several top FCC officials have also called for regulation of political blogs and news sites, restricting editorials and forcing them to advocate views with which they are not sympathetic in order to be permitted to advocate their own. And then there is the FEC, which is looking into whether political blogs and news sites can be censored and fined for supporting views, policies, and candidates during an election year. In all, we have three separate bureaucracies advocating policies that would likely give Vladimir Putin a controlgasm. A slippery slope, to be sure, but again not theory but something already happening.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by constitutionalist

Sounds great, except for one problem: much of our government already is corrupt, so this already exits the realm of theory. On to your point of corrupted unions (at least labor unions), there is no question these have proven easily corruptible as well. In fact, the long, incestuous trail of quid pro quo between labor union bosses and government officials goes back well over a century and it's dirty; very dirty. But we're not talking a labor union here. Consumer advocacy unions are quite something else and have had a much better track record, partly because of better transparency brought about by greater accountability (unlike the government and labor unions, contributions and membership is voluntary).

Another problem with government telling ISPs what to do with their networks is that government officials, often corrupt, self-interested government officials have agendas far from altruistic ones; and when altruistic, far from well-informed (a fact amplified by the total lack of private sector experience within this current administration, as well as some others before it). That's not to say I don't think there should be any regulation; I just think you and I might disagree where that line should fall. Certainly, wherever Comcast acts in an anti-competitive manner by blocking access to Direct TV, there is reason for intervention. In fact, there are already laws on the books for that and even better, Direct TV, if it feels injured, has a team of lawyers to battle it out in civil court - thus the consumer wins. The best way to deal with Comcast and bit torrent is not for the government to say it can't block bittorrent. Rather, it's for consumers to pull together and begin throwing their weight around. If even 20 percent of Comcast users said, "alright, we've had enough and we're leaving, early term fee or not", Comcast would sit up. As it is now in the first place, no one knows if any more than a tiny handful of people were truly harmed by Comcast practices and Comcast doesn't respect its customers but simply sends its lawyers out to find the latest loophole in government regulation knowing it will likely take years for those loopholes to be fixed, especially as Comcast, the effective new owner of NBC - a network quite friendly to the current government - greases palms and hosts fancy luncheons inside the Beltway.

But of course in the case of Comcast, one also wonders how many people were really "harmed" by its practice. While my sympathies absolutely lie with those who wish to be free to use bit torrent, I have to say, I bet it was a tiny number of customers, who, thanks to the free market system, have the choice of which broadband provider they prefer to use (or in certain rural areas, where Comcast is the only broadband provider, may have to wait, but I doubt anyone is going to die in the meantime). The point is, if enough people demand a service, someone will sell it and make it available. Unfortunately, big government and it's endless string of yesteryear regulations kills the ability of the market to respond in this manner.

In the meantime, you already have politically-motivated government types (and of course, the problem is that is redundant), expressing that they would like to use Net Neutrality as an open door through which to regulate certain types of political speech on the internet at the same time that several top FCC officials have also called for regulation of political blogs and news sites, restricting editorials and forcing them to advocate views with which they are not sympathetic in order to be permitted to advocate their own. And then there is the FEC, which is looking into whether political blogs and news sites can be censored and fined for supporting views, policies, and candidates during an election year. In all, we have three separate bureaucracies advocating policies that would likely give Vladimir Putin a controlgasm. A slippery slope, to be sure, but again not theory but something already happening.

Well you are speaking in generalities and what ifs, but I am talking about an actual event that happened. We don't have to speculate about what would happen without governement intervention, because this actually happened.

As for your statement about Directv battling it out in civil court- good for Directv. However, there were tons of other services being blocked that were way too small to take on Comcast. This is why Comcast got away with literally lying about it for so long. Once Directv realized that Comcast was telling their custromers that Directv just sucked and that's why it didn't work, then Directv got involved too.

And your question about 20% of the customers demanding better- yeah right. For one thing, most of them are under contract with an ETF. For another thing, these customers don't even know it is happening. As I said, Comcast flat out lied about it for quite some time.

I agree with you that we don't need the government regulating everything. But this is one thing we clearly do need the government to regulate. Companies like Comcast are way too big for the average consumer to fight. Heck, Comcast is way too big for even a smaller corporation to fight (like the many legal music and video services who were being blocked on Comcast's network but were too small to do anything about it). We absolutely need to govenment to ensure our internet remains open. No ISP should be able to block any content (provided the content is not illegal like kiddie porn or viruses or something like that).

Your argument seems to be "the government can't be trusted." I don't disagree. I don't think they can be trusted either. But they can certainly be trusted a lot more than corporations like Comcast who openly admit they only have their own best interests in mind. The internet is basically a public utility now- you pretty much have to have it. And the government has always regulated public utilities.

If you are so sure the government is corrupt and won't act in our best interests, then you should be campaigning for government reform. Put term limits on everyone in congress, ban campaign contributions over $20 or so, ban lobbyists altogether, and whatever other steps may be needed to get it done. But we can't let corporations run the country just because we don't trust the government...

[constitutionalist]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

Well you are speaking in generalities and what ifs, but I am talking about an actual event that happened. We don't have to speculate about what would happen without governement intervention, because this actually happened.

As for your statement about Directv battling it out in civil court- good for Directv. However, there were tons of other services being blocked that were way too small to take on Comcast. This is why Comcast got away with literally lying about it for so long. Once Directv realized that Comcast was telling their custromers that Directv just sucked and that's why it didn't work, then Directv got involved too.

And your question about 20% of the customers demanding better- yeah right. For one thing, most of them are under contract with an ETF. For another thing, these customers don't even know it is happening. As I said, Comcast flat out lied about it for quite some time.

I agree with you that we don't need the government regulating everything. But this is one thing we clearly do need the government to regulate. Companies like Comcast are way too big for the average consumer to fight. Heck, Comcast is way too big for even a smaller corporation to fight (like the many legal music and video services who were being blocked on Comcast's network but were too small to do anything about it). We absolutely need to govenment to ensure our internet remains open. No ISP should be able to block any content (provided the content is not illegal like kiddie porn or viruses or something like that).

Your argument seems to be "the government can't be trusted." I don't disagree. I don't think they can be trusted either. But they can certainly be trusted a lot more than corporations like Comcast who openly admit they only have their own best interests in mind. The internet is basically a public utility now- you pretty much have to have it. And the government has always regulated public utilities.

If you are so sure the government is corrupt and won't act in our best interests, then you should be campaigning for government reform. Put term limits on everyone in congress, ban campaign contributions over $20 or so, ban lobbyists altogether, and whatever other steps may be needed to get it done. But we can't let corporations run the country just because we don't trust the government...

Actually, I went out of my way to specifically say I was not conjuring up hypotheticals. My examples of government abuses of power were specific and applicable and in fact directly responded to the specific examples you cited and further.

Indeed, you prove my point about DirectTV. The market cured itself.

With respect to your 20% response: exactly - you just reiterated my point, which is that more than likely considerably fewer than 20% felt harmed by this and it certainly didn't rise to the level of a serious breach, but simply an annoyance. However, if a customer felt Comcast violated its own terms, there is certainly civil relief as well as state and federal laws already in place to police contractual violations by businesses. However, an ISP is a private business and has a right to decide within the law what traffic flows through its network. The customer has a right to vote with his or her feet. The customer also has a duty to him- or herself to know the agreement they are consenting to when they choose to use an ISP, as well as options for relief if those terms are violated by the ISP. Sure, a free market calls for something other than mindless sheep, but as history shows us, it turns out a lot better than the alternative. ;D

Yes, my argument is that in this sense, government cannot be trusted. I think that history has demonstrably revealed to us that abusive government is far more rampant and egregious in nature than anything Comcast has ever done. Further, when government commits abuse your recourse is often very difficult or non-existent; when Comcast commits abuse, you fire the company and find another. When that abuse is more than an insignificant blip on the radar, sufficient numbers of people will do likewise and Comcast will have to choose whether to continue its practice and suffer starvation or reform. As I stated earlier, however, I am not arguing against all regulation, but I do believe that the laws currently in place are sufficiant; I am also aware of the present political Zeitgeist and know that until this changes, laws and regulations will not be enacted to promote healthy business but to restrict our liberties.

And we can't let government run the country simply because we do not trust some corporations. At least Comcast cannot kick down your door or sentence you to death. Every law and regulation, good or bad, that the government enacts is backed up by force of arms. Comcast can only mourn that you fired them.

But you are so right about term limits, there I completely agree with you. I do disagree with the current campaign finance laws as they now exist because they were created to limit free speech (Bob the auto mechanic cannot pay for his own ad exposing a crooked politician 60 days before an election because that is now illegal), plus the insiders with connections have already found ways to skirt laws governing contributions. So we have some work to do there. I am already working on the campaign of one US Senate hopeful who supports all of the above, as well as being involved in a number of other worthwhile endeavors and I challenge you to do similar work to see things change. There, after all, is a direct correlation between government corruption and overstep and public apathy. In fact, the same is true for the corporate world, too. We hold the key to both.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by constitutionalist

Actually, I went out of my way to specifically say I was not conjuring up hypotheticals. My examples of government abuses of power were specific and applicable and in fact directly responded to the specific examples you cited and further.

Indeed, you prove my point about DirectTV. The market cured itself.

With respect to your 20% response: exactly - you just reiterated my point, which is that more than likely considerably fewer than 20% felt harmed by this and it certainly didn't rise to the level of a serious breach, but simply an annoyance. However, if a customer felt Comcast violated its own terms, there is certainly civil relief as well as state and federal laws already in place to police contractual violations by businesses. However, an ISP is a private business and has a right to decide within the law what traffic flows through its network. The customer has a right to vote with his or her feet. The customer also has a duty to him- or herself to know the agreement they are consenting to when they choose to use an ISP, as well as options for relief if those terms are violated by the ISP. Sure, a free market calls for something other than mindless sheep, but as history shows us, it turns out a lot better than the alternative. ;D

Yes, my argument is that in this sense, government cannot be trusted. I think that history has demonstrably revealed to us that abusive government is far more rampant and egregious in nature than anything Comcast has ever done. Further, when government commits abuse your recourse is often very difficult or non-existent; when Comcast commits abuse, you fire the company and find another. When that abuse is more than an insignificant blip on the radar, sufficient numbers of people will do likewise and Comcast will have to choose whether to continue its practice and suffer starvation or reform. As I stated earlier, however, I am not arguing against all regulation, but I do believe that the laws currently in place are sufficiant; I am also aware of the present political Zeitgeist and know that until this changes, laws and regulations will not be enacted to promote healthy business but to restrict our liberties.

And we can't let government run the country simply because we do not trust some corporations. At least Comcast cannot kick down your door or sentence you to death. Every law and regulation, good or bad, that the government enacts is backed up by force of arms. Comcast can only mourn that you fired them.

But you are so right about term limits, there I completely agree with you. I do disagree with the current campaign finance laws as they now exist because they were created to limit free speech (Bob the auto mechanic cannot pay for his own ad exposing a crooked politician 60 days before an election because that is now illegal), plus the insiders with connections have already found ways to skirt laws governing contributions. So we have some work to do there. I am already working on the campaign of one US Senate hopeful who supports all of the above, as well as being involved in a number of other worthwhile endeavors and I challenge you to do similar work to see things change. There, after all, is a direct correlation between government corruption and overstep and public apathy. In fact, the same is true for the corporate world, too. We hold the key to both.

#1: You appear to not know what you are talking about here. The market did NOT cure itself in the Comcast incident. The FCC intervened and slapped Comcast down. See here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101205.html
So it actually proves MY point, that the goverment is needed for things like this. The market was not able to resolve this without government intervention.

#2: You are wrong about people feeling harmed by this. Do a google search on the matter- there were tons of people feeling harmed by it. The problem was Comcast lied about it so most people didn't know the problem was with Comcast. People thought they had computer issues, or Directv sucked, or whatever service they were trying to use had problems. This is what Comcast reps were telling their customers. They repeatedly denied blocking or slowing anything. Now, what is to stop Comcast from blocking the web sites that carry such information next time? Say Comcast blocks that traffic and the governemt doesn't intervene- it's not out of the realm of possibility that Comcast starts filtering any web page that paints Comcast in a negatove light. They already openly lied about it so it's not at all a stretch.

#3: Comcast may be a private business, but their lines are going across all kinds of private and public property. They are dependant on the government to allow this- even when a homeowner does not want a Comcast line buried in his backyard. As such, they are subject to government regulation.

#4: In this instance, the government did the correct thing. You arguing that government can't be trusted is hillarious. Maybe government can or can't be trusted, but we KNOW Comcast can't be trusted. They have already been caught lying while doing the wrong thing. They don;t even pretend to be looking out for the public's best interests- they make it clear they are a business looking out for their own self interests. So while you keep saying we can't trust the government, I'll keep saying we can certainloy trust them a heck of a lot more than a corporation like comcast.

#5: It is not a ssimple as firing Comcast and finding another. This is the largest cable company in the nation. Even in areas that have another choice, there is likely only 1 other choice. And on top of that, Comcast lies about what they do so the consumer doesn't even know Comcast is the root of the problem (as recent history has shown us).

#6: Your stance is just laughable. You seem to be saying something alone the lines of "Comcast already has the government paid off anyway so we might as well cut out the middle man and let Comcast make their own rules." That is just ridiculous. If you think the government is corrupt, then we need to clean the government up. But we can't just abandon the government and let the largest corporations run the country.

#7: Comcast has a lot more power than you think. They might not be able to kick down your door but like I said, they can send their techs to your backyard whenever they want (if you have a comcast line buried). In addition to that, they were setting a precedent that they could control the information you have access to. Even the government doesn't have that kind of power. We're talking abotu the largest tv service provider, and the largest internet provider- filtering information, and lying about it. And you think this is a good thing? Not hardly. Clearly, the government intervening was a good thing. And we absolutely need the government to intervene if something like that ever happens again.

#8: Don't worry about challenging me to work towards change- I am the one who started this thread so clearly I am doing something...

If you feel we can't trust our government to do basic things, then we need to revamp the government. We simply can't let the country be run by the largest corporations. While you THINK the government might not really be about the public's best interest, we KNOW the largest corporations certainly don't care about the public's best interests.

Public utilities have been regulated forever. There has been no problem with such regulation in the past. Throw all of that government regulation is bad nonsense out the window here because public utilities have been just fine- while regulated by the government. In fact, the only reason Comcast is so biog is because the government regulated the landline telco industry but cable companies weren't included in such regulation (they did not offer the same services at the time). Once cable companies started offering the same service as phone companies, they should have been under the same rules and regulations as the landline telcos.

And for the record, I am sure there are many, many more instances of corporations breaking the rules than there are of government officials breaking the rules. Corporations get fined every single day for various violations. Hundreds, or even thousands of fines are handed out every single day. Government officials get caught breaking the rules every once in a while, but not to the tune of hundreds or even thousands of times every single day.