It is certainly government's business, but that's why we have the Justice Department (more generally, the executive branch). Most of these Senators are little more than grandstanding, semi-informed bombasts that like to run a circus for populist purposes.
You're essentially arguing that even though the world changes, laws should remain stagnant and the DoJ should just have to work with what they have now, regardless of how outdated, or even counterproductive that might be.
Regardless of what you think of the Senate, the government is charged with promoting the general welfare of the country, and this is exactly the sort of thing they ought to get themselves involved in to have any hope of achieving that mandate.
Yep. The senate is in many ways one of the most out of control branches of our government. The majority of these clowns have never even run a business in their lives. Who are they to tell anyone how to run their business? I would be just as qualified as they are, in other words, not at all.
Have you ever run a country? No? Then who are you to tell anyone how to?
Preposterous, isn't it? But, that's essentially the argument you are making, turned against you, and it turns out to be nonsensical on many levels.
The majority of these clowns have never even run a business in their lives. Who are they to tell anyone how to run their business? I would be just as qualified as they are, in other words, not at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Have you ever run a country? No? Then who are you to tell anyone how to?
Preposterous, isn't it? But, that's essentially the argument you are making, turned against you, and it turns out to be nonsensical on many levels.
Let's see here. Res1233 says he would like Senators to have some experience running a business before they try to run a country.
But anonymouse says Res1233 can't even comment on how to run a country unless he has experience running a country.
That means anonymouse agrees with Res1233 that one should have experience before trying to run a country. Right??
You're essentially arguing that even though the world changes, laws should remain stagnant and the DoJ should just have to work with what they have now, regardless of how outdated, or even counterproductive that might be.
Regardless of what you think of the Senate, the government is charged with promoting the general welfare of the country, and this is exactly the sort of thing they ought to get themselves involved in to have any hope of achieving that mandate.
If that's what they're doing, great.
But you must not be very serious in implying that's what these grandstanding blowhards achieve in such hearings.
Let's see here. Res1233 says he would like Senators to have some experience running a business before they try to run a country.
But anonymouse says Res1233 can't even comment on how to run a country unless he has experience running a country.
That means anonymouse agrees with Res1233 that one should have experience before trying to run a country. Right??
You need to understand reductio ad absurdum to see what anonymouse was doing. You're focusing on the absurd argument rather than the real point anonymouse was trying to make.
You need to understand reductio ad absurdum to see what anonymouse was doing. You're focusing on the absurd argument rather than the real point anonymouse was trying to make.
Seriously? You do understand that the airwaves are owned by the public, right? So, the government has a duty to manage those airwaves to the benefit of the public. That is why the government provides licenses to companies like AT&T to use the airwaves. Those licenses are non-transerferable without government approval. So, the government is doing exactly what it should be doing, asking questions.
Further, allowing this sale to go through will be bad for the economy, consumers, and hardware manufacturers like Apple.
Bad for the economy because thousands of people will be laid off and stores closed adding to urban blight. It will be bad for consumers because they will have one less choice. T-Mobile has the best variety of plans and the customer service is better then the other three big companies. Lack of choice is bad. The price of plans will go up because Verizon & AT&T always follow one another when the other raises a plan. Sprint will become a quick take over target, and AT&T already said its next target is MetroPCS
Finally, it is bad for companies like Apple. With a consolidation of the market, companies like Apple will be forced to except less in subsidies, and be subject to stricter terms. This will result in less innovation as costs have to be cut and services limited. Currently, if Apple couldn't strike a deal with AT&T, it has Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint to go with. After this deal goes though, it has to deal with AT&T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by res1233
The US government needs to stop sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. People will still have the option of switching to Verizon or Sprint once their contract is up if they're not satisfied with AT&T's service, although they will have to get a new phone, but if they have iPhones, or any other phone that syncs with their computer, that's not such a huge issue. Most of these politicians don't know anything about the industry they're trying to legislate. Who are they to force anyone to do anything? Also, it's worth mentioning that in the near future, the iPhone is expected go world-mode, which will mean you wont even have to get a new phone if you want to switch. This entire issue is all in their heads.
T-Mobile is nowhere close to being bankrupt. T-Mobile's biggest problem is it has been a victim of exclusivity deals, and consequently not had access to desired phones like the iPhone. If the iPhone were released on T-Mobile, T-Mobile would become competitive again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
My understanding here is that the Senate is trying to block the creation of a potentially abusive monopoly even more than one already exists, which is noble.
HOWEVER, as I understand it, T-Mobile is bankrupt thanks in part to FCC rules that they couldn't use the same 3g spectrum as everyone else, which is why if you unlock an iphone you are stuck on edge.
So T-Mobile is going to sell or just shut down. Meaning there would be 3 major companies left anyway. Something the Senate seems to think is no good.
so how about this.
New Law. No more cell phone to carrier locking. Effective immediately for GSM supporting devices. New phones will be sold unlocked. Current phones will be unlocked upon competition of the previously agreed upon 2 year contract or if the user is willing to pay the ETF. No arguments from the carrier or hardware maker. AND at no additional fee to the user.
That way if someone wants to buy an iphone or whatever they can and can use it on Simple Mobile or US Cell or whomever.
For CDMA it gets a little tricker. Rumor has it they could support a sim if they wanted to but they don't want to, well now they will have no choice. They will be given a deadline of say 2 years to either drop CDMA or find a way to support switching networks (sim or software). Which must be back applied to all folks who have completed their contract etc
In the end, ATT is looking for the users. They want the towers. Between the construction costs and local laws, its better for them to get them by buying T-Mobile outright rather than trying to win at some kind of auction. You can bet Sprint was thinking the same thing.
But you must not be very serious in implying that's what these grandstanding blowhards achieve in such hearings.
The problem with your argument is that you first assume that they are grandstanding blowhards, then conclude that they are grandstanding blowhards. I think you're letting anti-government bias (whether that's based on ideology or cynicism) cloud your perception. I'm trying to keep an open mind and see if anything comes of it before concluding that they are grandstanding blowhards or not: whether they are just going through the motions, or whether there is intent behind what they are doing. There are some senators who do actually try to accomplish something, and Franken, while he doesn't have a track record to indicate that he is one of those or not, comes to the Senate with an expressed philosophy that not only can the government do good, but that it's the obligation of the government to do good for the people, and not for special interests.
EDIT: I seem to have gotten confused about which article I was commenting on, so the remarks regarding Franken aren't really to the point. However, I think the main point that one should "ask questions" before shooting is still valid. Sometimes Congress grandstands, sometimes they actually do something, although, doing something in today's political environment has become extremely difficult, grandstanding or not.
Comments
It is certainly government's business, but that's why we have the Justice Department (more generally, the executive branch). Most of these Senators are little more than grandstanding, semi-informed bombasts that like to run a circus for populist purposes.
You're essentially arguing that even though the world changes, laws should remain stagnant and the DoJ should just have to work with what they have now, regardless of how outdated, or even counterproductive that might be.
Regardless of what you think of the Senate, the government is charged with promoting the general welfare of the country, and this is exactly the sort of thing they ought to get themselves involved in to have any hope of achieving that mandate.
Yep. The senate is in many ways one of the most out of control branches of our government. The majority of these clowns have never even run a business in their lives. Who are they to tell anyone how to run their business? I would be just as qualified as they are, in other words, not at all.
Have you ever run a country? No? Then who are you to tell anyone how to?
Preposterous, isn't it? But, that's essentially the argument you are making, turned against you, and it turns out to be nonsensical on many levels.
The majority of these clowns have never even run a business in their lives. Who are they to tell anyone how to run their business? I would be just as qualified as they are, in other words, not at all.
Have you ever run a country? No? Then who are you to tell anyone how to?
Preposterous, isn't it? But, that's essentially the argument you are making, turned against you, and it turns out to be nonsensical on many levels.
Let's see here. Res1233 says he would like Senators to have some experience running a business before they try to run a country.
But anonymouse says Res1233 can't even comment on how to run a country unless he has experience running a country.
That means anonymouse agrees with Res1233 that one should have experience before trying to run a country. Right??
You're essentially arguing that even though the world changes, laws should remain stagnant and the DoJ should just have to work with what they have now, regardless of how outdated, or even counterproductive that might be.
Regardless of what you think of the Senate, the government is charged with promoting the general welfare of the country, and this is exactly the sort of thing they ought to get themselves involved in to have any hope of achieving that mandate.
If that's what they're doing, great.
But you must not be very serious in implying that's what these grandstanding blowhards achieve in such hearings.
Let's see here. Res1233 says he would like Senators to have some experience running a business before they try to run a country.
But anonymouse says Res1233 can't even comment on how to run a country unless he has experience running a country.
That means anonymouse agrees with Res1233 that one should have experience before trying to run a country. Right??
You need to understand reductio ad absurdum to see what anonymouse was doing. You're focusing on the absurd argument rather than the real point anonymouse was trying to make.
You need to understand reductio ad absurdum to see what anonymouse was doing. ...
Or at least read the second paragraph.
You need to understand reductio ad absurdum to see what anonymouse was doing. You're focusing on the absurd argument rather than the real point anonymouse was trying to make.
Or at least read the second paragraph.
Ah! Very clever!
Further, allowing this sale to go through will be bad for the economy, consumers, and hardware manufacturers like Apple.
Bad for the economy because thousands of people will be laid off and stores closed adding to urban blight. It will be bad for consumers because they will have one less choice. T-Mobile has the best variety of plans and the customer service is better then the other three big companies. Lack of choice is bad. The price of plans will go up because Verizon & AT&T always follow one another when the other raises a plan. Sprint will become a quick take over target, and AT&T already said its next target is MetroPCS
Finally, it is bad for companies like Apple. With a consolidation of the market, companies like Apple will be forced to except less in subsidies, and be subject to stricter terms. This will result in less innovation as costs have to be cut and services limited. Currently, if Apple couldn't strike a deal with AT&T, it has Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint to go with. After this deal goes though, it has to deal with AT&T.
The US government needs to stop sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. People will still have the option of switching to Verizon or Sprint once their contract is up if they're not satisfied with AT&T's service, although they will have to get a new phone, but if they have iPhones, or any other phone that syncs with their computer, that's not such a huge issue. Most of these politicians don't know anything about the industry they're trying to legislate. Who are they to force anyone to do anything? Also, it's worth mentioning that in the near future, the iPhone is expected go world-mode, which will mean you wont even have to get a new phone if you want to switch. This entire issue is all in their heads.
My understanding here is that the Senate is trying to block the creation of a potentially abusive monopoly even more than one already exists, which is noble.
HOWEVER, as I understand it, T-Mobile is bankrupt thanks in part to FCC rules that they couldn't use the same 3g spectrum as everyone else, which is why if you unlock an iphone you are stuck on edge.
So T-Mobile is going to sell or just shut down. Meaning there would be 3 major companies left anyway. Something the Senate seems to think is no good.
so how about this.
New Law. No more cell phone to carrier locking. Effective immediately for GSM supporting devices. New phones will be sold unlocked. Current phones will be unlocked upon competition of the previously agreed upon 2 year contract or if the user is willing to pay the ETF. No arguments from the carrier or hardware maker. AND at no additional fee to the user.
That way if someone wants to buy an iphone or whatever they can and can use it on Simple Mobile or US Cell or whomever.
For CDMA it gets a little tricker. Rumor has it they could support a sim if they wanted to but they don't want to, well now they will have no choice. They will be given a deadline of say 2 years to either drop CDMA or find a way to support switching networks (sim or software). Which must be back applied to all folks who have completed their contract etc
In the end, ATT is looking for the users. They want the towers. Between the construction costs and local laws, its better for them to get them by buying T-Mobile outright rather than trying to win at some kind of auction. You can bet Sprint was thinking the same thing.
If that's what they're doing, great.
But you must not be very serious in implying that's what these grandstanding blowhards achieve in such hearings.
The problem with your argument is that you first assume that they are grandstanding blowhards, then conclude that they are grandstanding blowhards. I think you're letting anti-government bias (whether that's based on ideology or cynicism) cloud your perception. I'm trying to keep an open mind and see if anything comes of it before concluding that they are grandstanding blowhards or not: whether they are just going through the motions, or whether there is intent behind what they are doing. There are some senators who do actually try to accomplish something, and Franken, while he doesn't have a track record to indicate that he is one of those or not, comes to the Senate with an expressed philosophy that not only can the government do good, but that it's the obligation of the government to do good for the people, and not for special interests.
EDIT: I seem to have gotten confused about which article I was commenting on, so the remarks regarding Franken aren't really to the point. However, I think the main point that one should "ask questions" before shooting is still valid. Sometimes Congress grandstands, sometimes they actually do something, although, doing something in today's political environment has become extremely difficult, grandstanding or not.