|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 14, 2015 18:17:19 GMT -5
why the industrial segment's fear of government competition? Mind boggling, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by MF on Dec 14, 2015 19:42:46 GMT -5
Reminds me of ATT breakup years ago....
Govt is very inefficient, ,,
The private sector is rolling right along,,,
The govt is being told to block it,,,,Rubio,,,because of $$$ going into GOVT POCKETS,,,
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 14, 2015 20:08:53 GMT -5
Hey tthat there is one of those diversionary tactics you get worked up over. Why are the cable companies worried about municipally sourced services? Why can't they let government fail in the face of their awesome business superiority?
Tic tic tic, duck dodge dive, et cetera. They have a good scam going and hate to lose out on obscene profits. I know you are an ultrabazillionaire, you can afford ONE clue. So go buy one.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 16, 2015 6:36:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Dec 16, 2015 9:42:26 GMT -5
Not sure how I feel about all of our utilities being supplied by the government unless, of course, the government really is the people. But we know it's not. It's merely an extension of Time Warner, Dominion Power, et al. I think the question becomes the same question we should examine with everything, which is; Is this supposed to be a government function? My feeling is that it's not, but I understand why and even agree with some of the arguments as to why it should be, at least as far as essential utilities are concerned, like sewer and water, for example. Yet there are places where those too are run by profit driven private interests. |
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 16, 2015 9:53:22 GMT -5
Ah, but the BIG tell is that the government supplied service is better and cheaper than the monopolistic commercial alternative*. It's because the PTB are generally satisfied with the status quo, where a given ISP has a monopoly for their shit quality service. If there actually were competition, the results might be different, but as I mentioned, the PTB are currently satisfied with the anticapitalistic "no competition allowed" model.
And they want to keep it that way, hence the OP, and hence the state laws that bar municipalities from providing internet service.
*Why won't our resident business geniuses weigh in on this? Tic tic tic, bok bok bok bok...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Dec 16, 2015 10:25:03 GMT -5
Not gonna get into the baiting aspect but what if you were talking about, say, automobiles instead of internet? What if the government could build them faster, better, cheaper... would you apply the same logic? I think not because you know what that would mean. None of us, even the ones who are accused of it daily, want that. So just because government can, doesn't mean it should.
I prefer a system where the industries do what they do within the confines of law and regulation. The problem is when the industries get in the pockets of government officials and go around those laws and regulations (per your other point), and basically eliminate any and all viable competition in the private market.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 16, 2015 10:32:33 GMT -5
I don't disagree.
But if everyone in Virginia could only buy Fords, and everyone in Maryland could only buy GM products, and everyone in Texas could only buy Hondas, etc, then we'd have an analogous situation. And that situation would suck, right?
The real problem is the no competition status quo, and the resulting (predictably) expensive but shit service.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Dec 16, 2015 10:43:38 GMT -5
I meant to add that to my first paragraph..... and if the government built the cars and prohibited anyone else from doing so that's as bad if not worse than just going outside of it's intended function.
|
|
