On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
>> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single
>> choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without
>> paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's
>> draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.
> 
> So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
> little alternative in your locality?

Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required 
to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly, 
which includes dictating what traffic I can or cannot use.

They provide me with a pipe that sends bits back and forth.  But they 
should not be permitted to say "you may not use NNTP connections" or "you 
may not use p2p connections regardless of whether it's legal content or 
not".

Once they get into the business of filtering content, they open 
themselves up to lawsuits when their technology fails to "protect" people 
from illegal content.

This is why the provider of the pipe should not also be the ISP.  I 
notice that you completely ignored my earlier comments about the water 
mains and how my tax dollars subsidize people on the other side of town, 
even though I don't use *their* water pipes.

> It's OK to ask or lobby for Comcast to get what you need. I don't think
> it's OK at all for legislation to dictate Comcast to offer you exactly
> what you want.

What I and others want is for the providers to not be permitted to 
restrict traffic.

What makes it OK for Comcast to lobby congress and get legislation that 
allows them to apply arbitrary limits to the service?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...

> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
> >> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single
> >> choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without
> >> paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's
> >> draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.

> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
> > little alternative in your locality?

> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,

That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part. The
only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway. Does that
make them a monopoly?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:16:35 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> 
>> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained
>> >> before - if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a
>> >> single choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps
>> >> without paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with
>> >> Comcast's draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3
>> >> Mbps currently.
> 
>> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to
>> > be little alternative in your locality?
> 
>> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
>> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,
> 
> That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part.
> The only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway.
> Does that make them a monopoly?

No, because you can *drive* to another location.

One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at 
home by driving to town.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f2776b@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:16:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> >> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained
> >> >> before - if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a
> >> >> single choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps
> >> >> without paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with
> >> >> Comcast's draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3
> >> >> Mbps currently.
> >
> >> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to
> >> > be little alternative in your locality?
> >
> >> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
> >> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,
> >
> > That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part.
> > The only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway.
> > Does that make them a monopoly?
>
> No, because you can *drive* to another location.
>
> One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at
> home by driving to town.

What if I don't have a license/car and am confined to a wheelchair?

The point is, the singular and particular circumstance of individuals and
local unavailability of competition do not make companies that happen to be
available monopolies. Why should Comcast be restricted in what they can
offer should they happen to be the only provider offering services to you?
If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply unavail my services to
you and be done with it instead of your singular circumstance have dictate
how I do business globally. Thus you would actually be worse off.

I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
nobody else is willing to. Sure, if they engage in illegal, monopolistic
practices, maybe to keep out the competition from your area, that's another
matter and should be dealt with existing anti-monopoly laws.

I guess it depends on whether you regard full access to the internet as a
right or not. To me, the baseline is no access at all. Anything above is a
bonus.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required 
> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly, 
> which includes dictating what traffic I can or cannot use.

*Especially* since the *reason* they have a monopoly is that the government 
passed laws *giving* them a monopoly.

If there were actually ten or twenty competing high-speed ISPs from which to 
chose, your position might make sense. When the government says "Sorry, TW 
won the bid, you don't get to run any connectivity here", it seems perfectly 
reasonable to use the same government to make TW behave in a fair manner.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part. The
> only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway. Does that
> make them a monopoly?

No, but the government here *makes* it a monopoly.  You seem to be 
consistently ignoring that point.

What if your water company said "we don't run water out to houses occupied 
by people with green eyes."  Would that be OK?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:38:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
>> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,
>> which includes dictating what traffic I can or cannot use.
> 
> *Especially* since the *reason* they have a monopoly is that the
> government passed laws *giving* them a monopoly.
> 
> If there were actually ten or twenty competing high-speed ISPs from
> which to chose, your position might make sense. When the government says
> "Sorry, TW won the bid, you don't get to run any connectivity here", it
> seems perfectly reasonable to use the same government to make TW behave
> in a fair manner.

Yup on all points. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:08:36 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at
>> home by driving to town.
> 
> What if I don't have a license/car and am confined to a wheelchair?

What if...what if....what if.  What if you have no hands and can't type?

We can play exceptions all day long.  Well, you can, I'm not going to.

> The point is, the singular and particular circumstance of individuals
> and local unavailability of competition do not make companies that
> happen to be available monopolies. 

As Darren pointed out, the government *made* them monopolies.

> Why should Comcast be restricted in
> what they can offer should they happen to be the only provider offering
> services to you? If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply
> unavail my services to you and be done with it instead of your singular
> circumstance have dictate how I do business globally. Thus you would
> actually be worse off.

And your customers would probably (a) be extremely pissed off, and (b) 
take it to the public utilities commission.  You don't seem to understand 
that we're talking about a utility service.

Until you come to that understanding, there's no point in further 
discussion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Why should Comcast be restricted in what they can
> offer should they happen to be the only provider offering services to you?

You just answered your own question. They're not being restricted in what 
they offer. They're being restricted in how much they can charge, because 
they're the only providers offering that service to you.

> If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply unavail my services to
> you and be done with it instead of your singular circumstance have dictate
> how I do business globally. Thus you would actually be worse off.

Then you don't get to do business anywhere.  And at least that way, someone 
else can come in and provide services.

You think Microsoft couldn't just tell the EU "OK, we won't sell Windows 
there."  Why do you think they didn't do that?

And I mean, hey, why should we make it illegal for Comcast to come into your 
house and take money out of your wallet while you're sleeping? That'll get 
them lots of profit too.  Or maybe only to the people who can't drive, or 
are in a wheelchair, as long as you're making stupid arguments.

> I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
> effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
> nobody else is willing to. 

You probably don't see the point in legally forcing owners of apartment 
complexes to rent to minorities, either, or making business owners mark some 
parking spots as reserved for disabled people, I'm guessing.

The point is the betterment of society in general. The same reason we make 
people get vaccinated, we send people to school, we require people to pass a 
drivers license test before driving, and we outlaw discrimination, and we 
let everyone vote without having to pay extra for the privilege.

Since the *only* reason to let Comcast filter certain "premium" connections 
is to make the corporation more money, and the corporation exists solely 
because individuals have granted that permission, I don't see why you think 
it's a good idea to let Comcast charge thru the nose their captive audiences.

But sure, continue to act like Comcast and TW are doing everyone a favor in 
spite of the fact that you've been told repeatedly that at least in this 
country they're all granted monopolies by the government. It's better than 
admitting you might have been wrong in some way, eh?

> Sure, if they engage in illegal, monopolistic
> practices, maybe to keep out the competition from your area, that's another
> matter and should be dealt with existing anti-monopoly laws.

I get the feeling you're not even reading the responses to your messages.

But that's OK. You probably think MCI sued AT&T for monopolistic practices, 
and that's what led to the break-up of AT&T in the '80s.

> I guess it depends on whether you regard full access to the internet as a
> right or not. To me, the baseline is no access at all. Anything above is a
> bonus.

It's a good thing to have an informed populace, don't you think? Do you 
think government secrecy, secret police raids, trials behind closed doors, 
and censorship are good things? It's not a matter of right. It's a matter of 
lots of people recognizing that government-granted monopolies of utilities 
need to be regulated to keep them from taking advantage of their customers.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
> effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
> nobody else is willing to. 

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090424_766570.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_technology

BTW, this is the kind of thing the law is about. Comcast blocking you from 
getting to online TV shows paid for by someone else (like Hulu) unless 
you're paying Comcast to get that TV show in analog on your cable subscription.

Nothing at all to do with bandwidth.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message