1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules. It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch. It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.
LOL have you seen the fucking housing market lately? I'm going to guess that's a no.
One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.
^ Found the Libertarian! The free market will regulate itself, except when it doesn't which is pretty much always as has been shown over and over in history, and those who are most vulnerable being the biggest losers in the end. It's hard to believe we're still hearing people making this kind of argument in the face of myriad evidence to the contrary.
2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit. The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance. Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance. You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit. It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew. This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not. There's no free lunch.
I'm gonna take a wild guess you're against renters' rights laws and other consumer protections, too.
Your replies indicates you are slick with your words and slights. But they're got no substance to them. It would be nice if you could put some thought into countering what I pointed out instead of throwing labels around. Just a thought.
He just called bull to the bull. That's all.
Isn't that just a bit of a "chip on the shoulder" mentality? Replies like that wouldn't score well in a debate society. If you can't articulate a clear response, perhaps it's because you don't have one.
It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has.
Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
We have now been through an entire generation's worth of the reflexive propaganda trope of "gubmint bad, bidness good."
ISPs, telcom and cable companies are all giant corporations with lumbering bureaucracies. Pick any one of them, combine its name with the words "customer service" in a search box, and you will find endless laments and horror stories that are as bad or worse than any comparable complaints about government bureaucracies. Whether the MBA dogmatists like it or not, broadband internet service necessarily functions as a basic infrastructure utility.
Government rightfully operates or heavily regulates utility infrastructure because the national economic interest lies with assuring that everyone has equal access to these resources. It is incredibly ironic that the libertarian impulses of folk living in red-state flyover country works hard against their own interests and flies in the face of the fact that, based on purely private-market considerations, they are in an even weaker bargaining position than poor urban folk in deep blue territory. From an ISP's perspective, if there's enough population density, providing cheap service to poor city dwellers is vastly more lucrative than stringing fiber for miles and miles just to hook up a handful of suburban sprawl dwellers or more rural customers, even if those folks are more affluent and can afford to pay a premium over standard full-price. It's the same as the loonies who want to privatize the post office, claiming FedEx is much more efficient, and not considering that sending a birthday card to grandma costs between 40 to 80 times more with FedEx than it does with USPS, depending on where grandma lives.
Likewise, it's ironic that any libertarian-minded person would object to requiring increased competition of ISPs in apartment buildings. The density argument noted above means that apartment buildings naturally lend themselves to greater ISP competition. It's worth stringing the relatively short lines to compete for relatively large numbers of customers. The only reason that doesn't happen is because the apartment building owners prefer to block that competition in order to scrape money from the ISPs by granting 'exclusive access' to those relatively large numbers of customers. ISPs benefit because, rather then competing through price and service for only a percentage of a building's customers, paying a single, hefty tribute to the landlord gives them all the building's customers, with no need to offer competitive pricing to any of them. Landlords win, ISPs win, and screw the tenants.
Tell us again how is it private enterprise always handles things better?
Oh please.
The big government socialists are out in force here.
Yes,
Opening up complexes to multiple providers might be a good thing. Not
100% convinced that property owners should be forced to do so, but I'm
open to being convinced. My objection is to just about any government
run anything.
Governments at any level do
not know how to run a business, struggle to keep up with the latest
advances, mire themselves in politics and bureaucracy and eventually
become a burden to the taxpayer.
1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules. It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch. It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.
LOL have you seen the fucking housing market lately? I'm going to guess that's a no.
One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.
^ Found the Libertarian! The free market will regulate itself, except when it doesn't which is pretty much always as has been shown over and over in history, and those who are most vulnerable being the biggest losers in the end. It's hard to believe we're still hearing people making this kind of argument in the face of myriad evidence to the contrary.
2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit. The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance. Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance. You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit. It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew. This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not. There's no free lunch.
I'm gonna take a wild guess you're against renters' rights laws and other consumer protections, too.
Your replies indicates you are slick with your words and slights. But they're got no substance to them. It would be nice if you could put some thought into countering what I pointed out instead of throwing labels around. Just a thought.
He just called bull to the bull. That's all.
Isn't that just a bit of a "chip on the shoulder" mentality? Replies like that wouldn't score well in a debate society. If you can't articulate a clear response, perhaps it's because you don't have one.
It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has.
Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
We have now been through an entire generation's worth of the reflexive propaganda trope of "gubmint bad, bidness good."
ISPs, telcom and cable companies are all giant corporations with lumbering bureaucracies. Pick any one of them, combine its name with the words "customer service" in a search box, and you will find endless laments and horror stories that are as bad or worse than any comparable complaints about government bureaucracies. Whether the MBA dogmatists like it or not, broadband internet service necessarily functions as a basic infrastructure utility.
Government rightfully operates or heavily regulates utility infrastructure because the national economic interest lies with assuring that everyone has equal access to these resources. It is incredibly ironic that the libertarian impulses of folk living in red-state flyover country works hard against their own interests and flies in the face of the fact that, based on purely private-market considerations, they are in an even weaker bargaining position than poor urban folk in deep blue territory. From an ISP's perspective, if there's enough population density, providing cheap service to poor city dwellers is vastly more lucrative than stringing fiber for miles and miles just to hook up a handful of suburban sprawl dwellers or more rural customers, even if those folks are more affluent and can afford to pay a premium over standard full-price. It's the same as the loonies who want to privatize the post office, claiming FedEx is much more efficient, and not considering that sending a birthday card to grandma costs between 40 to 80 times more with FedEx than it does with USPS, depending on where grandma lives.
Likewise, it's ironic that any libertarian-minded person would object to requiring increased competition of ISPs in apartment buildings. The density argument noted above means that apartment buildings naturally lend themselves to greater ISP competition. It's worth stringing the relatively short lines to compete for relatively large numbers of customers. The only reason that doesn't happen is because the apartment building owners prefer to block that competition in order to scrape money from the ISPs by granting 'exclusive access' to those relatively large numbers of customers. ISPs benefit because, rather then competing through price and service for only a percentage of a building's customers, paying a single, hefty tribute to the landlord gives them all the building's customers, with no need to offer competitive pricing to any of them. Landlords win, ISPs win, and screw the tenants.
Tell us again how is it private enterprise always handles things better?
Oh please.
The big government socialists are out in force here.
Yes,
Opening up complexes to multiple providers might be a good thing. Not
100% convinced that property owners should be forced to do so, but I'm
open to being convinced. My objection is to just about any government
run anything.
Governments at any level do
not know how to run a business, struggle to keep up with the latest
advances, mire themselves in politics and bureaucracy and eventually
become a burden to the taxpayer.
Is it government that screws things up? Or is it private enterprise? That's been our debate since Reagan.
And, that's why we're losing to China. Rather than get tied up fighting ideological battles, they focus on what is the best thing for their country and their people. If the best thing is private enterprise then that's fine. if the best thing is government, then that's fine. They don't get bogged down in ideology. They just solve the problem.
Here we get bogged down debating one ideology versus the other and forget about the actual issue.
Government, like corporate structure, is not the end game. It's a means to the end. A tool to get you where you want to be.
Here, the debate is whether government should use their regulatory authority to eliminate a mini-monopoly and instead create private enterprise competition. But both history and logic says: this is a utility that is best served by a single, tightlyregulated private enterprise player. Do you have multiple gas, electric and water lines running through your neighborhood? No! You have one of each and each is tightly regulated to control them from abusing their monopoly. It's the right blend of government and private enterprise. Nothing else makes logical sense -- only ideological sense.
But, while broadband was originally viewed as another utility, we turned it completely over to the control of private enterprise --- and the result is, like health care, we pay very high prices for very mediocre service.
Ideology provides guidelines, but it can't drive the boat -- especially when it is myopic.
It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has.
Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
We have now been through an entire generation's worth of the reflexive propaganda trope of "gubmint bad, bidness good."
ISPs, telcom and cable companies are all giant corporations with lumbering bureaucracies. Pick any one of them, combine its name with the words "customer service" in a search box, and you will find endless laments and horror stories that are as bad or worse than any comparable complaints about government bureaucracies. Whether the MBA dogmatists like it or not, broadband internet service necessarily functions as a basic infrastructure utility.
Government rightfully operates or heavily regulates utility infrastructure because the national economic interest lies with assuring that everyone has equal access to these resources. It is incredibly ironic that the libertarian impulses of folk living in red-state flyover country works hard against their own interests and flies in the face of the fact that, based on purely private-market considerations, they are in an even weaker bargaining position than poor urban folk in deep blue territory. From an ISP's perspective, if there's enough population density, providing cheap service to poor city dwellers is vastly more lucrative than stringing fiber for miles and miles just to hook up a handful of suburban sprawl dwellers or more rural customers, even if those folks are more affluent and can afford to pay a premium over standard full-price. It's the same as the loonies who want to privatize the post office, claiming FedEx is much more efficient, and not considering that sending a birthday card to grandma costs between 40 to 80 times more with FedEx than it does with USPS, depending on where grandma lives.
Likewise, it's ironic that any libertarian-minded person would object to requiring increased competition of ISPs in apartment buildings. The density argument noted above means that apartment buildings naturally lend themselves to greater ISP competition. It's worth stringing the relatively short lines to compete for relatively large numbers of customers. The only reason that doesn't happen is because the apartment building owners prefer to block that competition in order to scrape money from the ISPs by granting 'exclusive access' to those relatively large numbers of customers. ISPs benefit because, rather then competing through price and service for only a percentage of a building's customers, paying a single, hefty tribute to the landlord gives them all the building's customers, with no need to offer competitive pricing to any of them. Landlords win, ISPs win, and screw the tenants.
Tell us again how is it private enterprise always handles things better?
Oh please.
The big government socialists are out in force here.
Yes,
Opening up complexes to multiple providers might be a good thing. Not
100% convinced that property owners should be forced to do so, but I'm
open to being convinced. My objection is to just about any government
run anything.
Governments at any level do
not know how to run a business, struggle to keep up with the latest
advances, mire themselves in politics and bureaucracy and eventually
become a burden to the taxpayer.
Try riding a German train. Your little mind will be blown.
It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has.
Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
We have now been through an entire generation's worth of the reflexive propaganda trope of "gubmint bad, bidness good."
ISPs, telcom and cable companies are all giant corporations with lumbering bureaucracies. Pick any one of them, combine its name with the words "customer service" in a search box, and you will find endless laments and horror stories that are as bad or worse than any comparable complaints about government bureaucracies. Whether the MBA dogmatists like it or not, broadband internet service necessarily functions as a basic infrastructure utility.
Government rightfully operates or heavily regulates utility infrastructure because the national economic interest lies with assuring that everyone has equal access to these resources. It is incredibly ironic that the libertarian impulses of folk living in red-state flyover country works hard against their own interests and flies in the face of the fact that, based on purely private-market considerations, they are in an even weaker bargaining position than poor urban folk in deep blue territory. From an ISP's perspective, if there's enough population density, providing cheap service to poor city dwellers is vastly more lucrative than stringing fiber for miles and miles just to hook up a handful of suburban sprawl dwellers or more rural customers, even if those folks are more affluent and can afford to pay a premium over standard full-price. It's the same as the loonies who want to privatize the post office, claiming FedEx is much more efficient, and not considering that sending a birthday card to grandma costs between 40 to 80 times more with FedEx than it does with USPS, depending on where grandma lives.
Likewise, it's ironic that any libertarian-minded person would object to requiring increased competition of ISPs in apartment buildings. The density argument noted above means that apartment buildings naturally lend themselves to greater ISP competition. It's worth stringing the relatively short lines to compete for relatively large numbers of customers. The only reason that doesn't happen is because the apartment building owners prefer to block that competition in order to scrape money from the ISPs by granting 'exclusive access' to those relatively large numbers of customers. ISPs benefit because, rather then competing through price and service for only a percentage of a building's customers, paying a single, hefty tribute to the landlord gives them all the building's customers, with no need to offer competitive pricing to any of them. Landlords win, ISPs win, and screw the tenants.
Tell us again how is it private enterprise always handles things better?
Oh please.
The big government socialists are out in force here.
Yes,
Opening up complexes to multiple providers might be a good thing. Not
100% convinced that property owners should be forced to do so, but I'm
open to being convinced. My objection is to just about any government
run anything.
Governments at any level do
not know how to run a business, struggle to keep up with the latest
advances, mire themselves in politics and bureaucracy and eventually
become a burden to the taxpayer.
Try riding a German train. Your little mind will be blown.
China's are faster.
The point is: its not about some ideologic bullshit over whether government or private enterprise is better.
Either can be good. Or. Either can be bad. It depends on the situation.
To base real world decisions on ideology is misguided.
Reagan attacked government control because, at the time, government control had grown too big -- so his methods worked by bringing a better balance between the two. But his ideology was then, over the decades taken too far. And:
We switched over to the 'Government can't do anything right, turn it all over to private enterprise" ideology. But, today, after 4 decades of gutting government and turning its functions over to private enterprise (even many of those that are supposedly government agencies) we have flipped to the other side of that coin and created other, additional problems. Thus was born the "Progressive Movement" and "Social Democrats".
In other words: Reagan had it right! (But ONLY for his time and its unique challenges)
Smart, successful countries don't use "either this or that" mentality but instead use whichever suits the situation and works best for that situation without getting locked into one ideology or another.
1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules. It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch. It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.
LOL have you seen the fucking housing market lately? I'm going to guess that's a no.
One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.
^ Found the Libertarian! The free market will regulate itself, except when it doesn't which is pretty much always as has been shown over and over in history, and those who are most vulnerable being the biggest losers in the end. It's hard to believe we're still hearing people making this kind of argument in the face of myriad evidence to the contrary.
2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit. The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance. Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance. You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit. It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew. This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not. There's no free lunch.
I'm gonna take a wild guess you're against renters' rights laws and other consumer protections, too.
Your replies indicates you are slick with your words and slights. But they're got no substance to them. It would be nice if you could put some thought into countering what I pointed out instead of throwing labels around. Just a thought.
Comments