Senators Target Carrier Exclusivity
nothing better to do?
so much for "Change"...
Let's.. I don't know, work on reducing our budget and stimulating local businesses (rather than simply low paying mass market stores) Finding a way to stop bleeding money so they don't need to tax us 5 times for everything.
No, let's solve the hard issues... like why my kid can't get the iphone with verizon.
irockash said:
Cause, you know the government can only FOUL UP one thing at a time.
Corrected it for ya 🤣
It's not that hard to do a better job by doing less.
I vote and I contribute in a positive way to my community through charitable functions, etc.
So.... yeah I can crticize all I want. At some point I would enjoy serving my community or state with some elected office. I know I would do a better job but as others have said, it won't be too hard to do better.
texaswireless said:
I know I would do a better job but as others have said, it won't be too hard to do better.
🤣
Especially for Texas.
It's like Florida and Texas are in competition to see which state can be the biggest laughingstock of the country.
Of course... you have to have a job in order to lose it.
Texas is a "special" state to me, which I loathe for numerous reasons.
It's the only state I know of whose Supreme court once actually ruled (and now set as precedent) that, "The [Texas] Constitution does not say that the lawyer has to be awake" in an appeal to a death row conviction.
Keep it classy Texas.
Don't have an aneurysm
Fortunately, I do not base my self esteem off the interwebs, or what people (especially people like you) think.
Though, I must admit, it is humorous to see that you still employ paradoxical arguments that reek of hypocrisy.
Perhaps you should examine your own posting history and take some of your own advice 🤣
captainplooky said:
🤣
Especially for Texas.
It's like Florida and Texas are in competition to see which state can be the biggest laughingstock of the country.
You have a definite point. Electing Jeb or George W. speaks volumes on the (low) collective IQ of the populace of a state.
AJ
LEGOMAN said:
xmfd because you guys are in the government doing a good job right? i mean you guys are all talking about it like you could do better xfd
It's not a matter of doing it better, it's a matter of doing it LESS.
(continues)
HokiesACC said:
Yet another example of how government is pushing the door of the private sector farther and farther open. I really hope this doesn't get passed. It completely undermines the entire concept of capitalism.
...
My God. who in the hell votes these moron politicians into office??
When capitalism involves the necessary use of public property (e.g. spectrum), stringent government regulation plays a crucial role.
If you really believe that VZW & AT&T are the progeny of noble capitalism (as opposed to unfairly privileged monopolism or oligopolism), then you, yourself, are a moron.
AJ
And I'm a moron for thinking that our service providers are a great example of capitalism? I'm sorry, are 4 big carriers not enough for you? Do you think we should have 30? Maybe 40? Will competition be more appropriate for you then? Do you think we need to break up Anheuser Busch too because they have 50% of the beer market? What about Apple? They have to have at least 80% of the digital music player market. We should definitely break them up. What about...
(continues)
If a carrier works on equal selection or choice, then carriers are forced to compete for better pricing and service. This is the way it should be.
As a consumer, I tire of hearing complaints from my friends of how they are paying through the nose to a carrier just because they have that certain device. While it was their choice to choose this direction, it still shows that the big two can charge whatever they want because where else can the consumer go? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to pay those monthly bills for the rest of my life for a phone.
however, without this exclusivity thing it would close some doors on manufacturer competition. I bet PALM wouldn't have had room to come out with the PRE. ok bad example because palm would still be dominating market from way back because no one could come out, and see we'd have crappy palms!
Exclusive has benefits.
xmfd = transfer my freaking deal, or maybe cross m*** F**** d**k
how about "x-mas my favorite day"
That's how things work in this county: people want something done that they can't do themselves, so they go to their gov't representatives.
Thus (to use another example) the President doesn't care about health care in spite of the will of the people, he cares about about because of the will of the people.
Obviously, enough constituents of the Senators in question (or more likely, a consumer rights group) pushed hard enough for this to get some action on it.
Consumer groups have nothing to offer politicians but fuel for the populist fire. Astroturfing groups (ie - industry groups masquerading as consumer groups) will usually attempt to do some favors, but something like "more industry freedom" doesn't have profit as it's aim, just more consumer choice.
Have a little faith in the system: not every politician's every action is self serving or deceitful. 🙄
Plus, "carrier exclusivity" isn't something the government should be talking about in the first place.
I dunno if you know this or not, but the American people take their freedom (even trivial, useless, or even counter productive freedoms) very seriously. 😉
I personally agree that this issue is frivolous, but I wouldn't dare say that of it's philosophical underpinnings (not that I agree with them either, but still).
I'm sorry, but I consider the fact that I have a huge chunk of my paycheck taken out every week for a system I'll never get to use (Social Security) a lot more important than getting whatever phone I want to work on whatever network I want.
Would universal compatibility be nice? Of course. But it is not the governments place to decide that, especially when they are blowing billions of dollars a year on already useless crap. Why add to it?
Think about it... the alternative was McCain.. someone who started out as a "maverick" and then became little more than a yesman to the party line when the GOP wasn't really all that popular.
It was like Kerry/Bush all over again. On one hand you had someone who was charismatic, but not really cut out for the job, and you matched him against someone with the personality of a dead fish. Neither was a good choice, but people were convinced they were the only choices.
😈
especially cellphones
This forum is closed.