3 ms·

Not that this bill is necessarily a bad thing, but Republicans know no end to their hypocrisy. They'll introduce all sorts of unnecessary micro-regulation to cr

by aneth4 13y ago

Not that this bill is necessarily a bad thing, but Republicans know no end to their hypocrisy. They'll introduce all sorts of unnecessary micro-regulation to create a "free" market. This is the same guy who supported the bills deregulating the financial industry, which lead to the derivatives crisis. I guess Senators suffer from the same problems as software engineers - they only see the problems in their living room.

FelixP 13y ago
Honestly, this seems like a pretty unambiguously good thing - don't assume it's bad just because you dislike the politician / party that's proposing it.
- illuminate 13y ago
  It's the "stopped clock" principle, we're wondering where the catch is, and what's going to come out and water this down into uselessness. I'll be happy and laud the originator if everything goes as proposed. They rarely do.
jacoblyles 13y ago
Some people just hate Republicans no matter what they do.
- aneth4 13y ago
  I don't hate Republicans who are not either completely hypocritical or spineless before the social conservatives and tea party idiocy.
roc 13y ago
The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation against things like fraud, collusion, monopolies, etc. This is exactly the sort of regulation Republicans should care about. Not that this excuses Republicans from being hypocrites. But on this issue, there's no conflict with their core philosophy. And frankly, even deregulating the financial industry was consistent with their philosophy. It was their support for socializing what should have been private losses that was the philosophical problem.
- illuminate 13y ago
  "The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation" This is where every liberal/conservative rolls there eyes in disgust.
jerrya 13y ago
I don't have a free market in cable providers. In my largish apartment complex, there is one cable provider: Cox. I can't use a sat dish, my apartment faces the wrong direction and I'm on the second floor. FIOS isn't available. CenturyLink agrees no "prism tv" whatever that is for me, and directtv is out because I am on the second floor and face the wrong direction. So there's really no free market in cable providers for me, it's a monopoly situation. The free market solution would be to require Cox to allow other cable providers to use their cable to get last mile to me and then let Cox, et. al., charge me however they wish. I would be curious to know which situation Cox would prefer: mandatory unbundling, or force them to share the cable. EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex? My understanding is that Verizon has dramatically slowed their FiOS rollout, primarily because they don't think they're likely to be able to sell you "premium services" long-term. Does anyone think that within 10 years there will be any content worth having not available over a 100Mbit (or gigabit, even) pure IP connection? How much can Verizon expect to charge for such a connection? FiOS made sense when they thought they would be Skype, HBO, NetFlix and iTunes combined, or at least get a cut on all of those. But even if we don't get regulated Network Neutrality, competitive pressure alone will commoditize content and application delivery over IP.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    What I don't understand is their pricing model. It seems like they would do a lot better to have A) a "cheap crappy" option which is something like 384K internet and basic cable for an extraordinarily low price, and B) a 100Mbps+ internet service at the same profit margin they would get by selling an entire "triple play" package and then optional over the top phone and cable packages effectively for Verizon's cost, the point of offering them at all merely being to be able to supply the same overall offering as their existing competitors. The result would be that Verizon could stop giving a crap about whether you use their TV offerings or Hulu or whatever else because that's not where they make their money, but at the same time customers wanting the "triple play" package can get it from them for a total price competitive with similarly situated ISPs and with an overall profit margin they expect from such a thing. Just admit to themselves that they're in the wire business, stop trying to be in the content business, and charge accordingly for the wire. Suddenly "cord cutters" are not a problem, especially when the competing ISP realizes the logic and does the same thing.

by aneth4 13y ago

FelixP 13y ago

Honestly, this seems like a pretty unambiguously good thing - don't assume it's bad just because you dislike the politician / party that's proposing it.

illuminate 13y ago
It's the "stopped clock" principle, we're wondering where the catch is, and what's going to come out and water this down into uselessness. I'll be happy and laud the originator if everything goes as proposed. They rarely do.

jacoblyles 13y ago

Some people just hate Republicans no matter what they do.

aneth4 13y ago
I don't hate Republicans who are not either completely hypocritical or spineless before the social conservatives and tea party idiocy.

roc 13y ago

The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation against things like fraud, collusion, monopolies, etc. This is exactly the sort of regulation Republicans should care about. Not that this excuses Republicans from being hypocrites. But on this issue, there's no conflict with their core philosophy. And frankly, even deregulating the financial industry was consistent with their philosophy. It was their support for socializing what should have been private losses that was the philosophical problem.

illuminate 13y ago
"The "free" market doesn't exist without regulation" This is where every liberal/conservative rolls there eyes in disgust.

jerrya 13y ago

I don't have a free market in cable providers. In my largish apartment complex, there is one cable provider: Cox. I can't use a sat dish, my apartment faces the wrong direction and I'm on the second floor. FIOS isn't available. CenturyLink agrees no "prism tv" whatever that is for me, and directtv is out because I am on the second floor and face the wrong direction. So there's really no free market in cable providers for me, it's a monopoly situation. The free market solution would be to require Cox to allow other cable providers to use their cable to get last mile to me and then let Cox, et. al., charge me however they wish. I would be curious to know which situation Cox would prefer: mandatory unbundling, or force them to share the cable. EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex?

twoodfin 13y ago
EDIT: I do wonder what keeps Verizon from offering FIOS if they wanted to. Is it too expensive to rewire a huge sprawling multi-floor apartment complex? My understanding is that Verizon has dramatically slowed their FiOS rollout, primarily because they don't think they're likely to be able to sell you "premium services" long-term. Does anyone think that within 10 years there will be any content worth having not available over a 100Mbit (or gigabit, even) pure IP connection? How much can Verizon expect to charge for such a connection? FiOS made sense when they thought they would be Skype, HBO, NetFlix and iTunes combined, or at least get a cut on all of those. But even if we don't get regulated Network Neutrality, competitive pressure alone will commoditize content and application delivery over IP.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  What I don't understand is their pricing model. It seems like they would do a lot better to have A) a "cheap crappy" option which is something like 384K internet and basic cable for an extraordinarily low price, and B) a 100Mbps+ internet service at the same profit margin they would get by selling an entire "triple play" package and then optional over the top phone and cable packages effectively for Verizon's cost, the point of offering them at all merely being to be able to supply the same overall offering as their existing competitors. The result would be that Verizon could stop giving a crap about whether you use their TV offerings or Hulu or whatever else because that's not where they make their money, but at the same time customers wanting the "triple play" package can get it from them for a total price competitive with similarly situated ISPs and with an overall profit margin they expect from such a thing. Just admit to themselves that they're in the wire business, stop trying to be in the content business, and charge accordingly for the wire. Suddenly "cord cutters" are not a problem, especially when the competing ISP realizes the logic and does the same thing.