I don't want to be a captive of AT&T or Verizon. I want them to serve me.
In Europe, the owner of T-Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, prohibits its subscribers from using Skype in its terms and conditions. AT&T and Verizon would love to be able to impose the same terms and conditions here.
What's it going to be, Congress? Oregon representatives DeFazio, Wu, Walden, Blumenauer and Schrader need to stand up and protect the market from the power of the duopoly. You too, Wyden and Merkley. Be heard on this.
I love the iPhone, and I love my Evo 4G and my Nexus S. I think it is wonderful to be able to buy these phones with all the features preloaded and have a two-year contract and a high value added by Sprint or AT&T or Verizon. They should be able to sell that.
But I want more choice. I want to be able to use the phone I want in the way I want and pay a fair price for access that I control.
I don 't want AT&T or Verizon to dumb down my phone so I can't use it on my home's wifi network the way they do now. I want to use my home's broadband conveniently to make a call and not be forced to kludge a solution.
I don't want AT&T or Verizon to cut sweetheart deals with Samsung or HTC or Motorola so that I can't get the phone I want to work on the technology I want, the way they do now.
I want to pay for megabytes I choose to download and upload, and not be forced to pay for data sent by automatic programs that AT&T or Apple or Google have loaded on my phone that suck up my personal data and sneak it to their servers without my knowledge.
I don't want NFL or NASCAR or anybody else's bloatware on my phone, or at least be able to get rid of it, which I can't do now. At what point does "protect network security" become an excuse for "keep competition out?"
And by the way, I want to pay for my call minutes in tenths: a call that lasts two minutes and six seconds should be billed at 2.1 minutes, not three, which is nothing but a 30% theft by the phone company.
If the telecom's don't want to become "dumb pipes," then I want our government to ensure, through the mechanism of the free market, that I have the right to choose a "dumb pipe" for my mobile phone and data services.
In fact, I need to be able to choose between two dumb pipes, either GSM or CDMA technology. I want to be able to use any phone I want on whichever pipe that I choose. I want to own the phone, and be able to customize it in any way that I want, use it in any legal way that I want.
The current system is being abused, protections for the consumer are few, because the market has failed to be transparent enough to drive the abuses out through the mechanism of consumer choice.
That will get worse if the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is approved.
We need competition in the market place and a government that has reduced barriers to entry into the market of access to airwaves, "spectrum," that is owned and licensed by "We the People."
Our founding fathers would have been as outraged by the threat of corporate power as they were of royal power had such a thing existed in their day. It is up to us to stand up and demand our rights in a this new world. We do this by protecting the free market, doing what we need to foster competition and freedom of choice.
It is time our representatives in government took the threat to the future of communications seriously. We cannot let the consolidation continue by those who seek a monopoly. It is bad for markets, bad for America.
Hooray for Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) who earlier this week held a news conference urging regulators to block the deal, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Thank you for your free market stance that helps small business and consumers.
Power corrupts, even the economic power of private enterprise. The best antidote for that corruption is competition, functioning markets, and effective oversight.
Wake up.
Showing posts with label Defazio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defazio. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Shut up, Peter
Oregon's Peter DeFazio has always been a loose canon, to be sure, and often off target. But he threatens the interests of those who agree with him when he gets it as wrong as he did yesterday.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)