"Of course AT&T didn't "re-invent" itself as-so-much as it got blown up by government for being a predatory monopoly..." It was a government created monopoly. No one was able to compete with AT&T because the government prevented them. Wasn't the companies fault.
Why is AT&T requesting so many tax cuts? Because the taxes exist. We've buried our companies under billions of dollars in taxes and fees and wasted hours trying to put all these forms together so they can pay their taxes.
We need to stop regulating these companies, get out of their way--stop trying to give them special favors and take favors away--let them succeed or fail based upon their ability.
The whole approach of the article is wrong. Yes, AT&T is incompetent, but as long as we have regulated markets, they're going to continue to be.
What I'm suggesting is we remove our politician's ability to make special deals with companies. This way no one gets special favors or monopolies. This way there's unfettered competition. As for existing infrastructure, it remains private property in the hands of the current owners. No time travel needed since laws and policies can be changed for the better and what is an ideal situation.
If you think running to the government is the solution, then don't be surprised when the next person or company does the same thing.
Free up the market, let the cable companies raise their rates (not only do you not have a right to a good or service, they don't have a right to force you through government exclusivity laws), you can then start your own company to compete with them. Since you'd now be working on an equal political field (no special favors for anyone), they would have to compete properly (on economic grounds).
If you'd like to support giving broadband to the poor (I'm all for it), do it through a private charity; stop using the government to take money from one group of people and give it to another in the form of goods and services.
Charity should be private, not mandated by the government.
This is yet another reason why the government needs to get of education. This would be non-news if it was a private organization which decided to revoke it's approval for a program or group. Since this is a government school everyone gets up in arms when the politicians (aka the government) gets involved with running its schools.
Does this mean the politicians will be removing their own ability to make "exclusive" deals with Internet providers which restrict competition? I'm all for gutting the FCC, but if their "help" consists of continuing to prevent competition in the form of municipal monopolies, what is the point? I would like a free market, but free market means the politicians stay out of both ends of the market.
There needs to be less regulation in this industry.
Comcast's monopoly comes from local governments allowing only Comcast in a particular area. Why not remove the government's ability to restrict competition? Then you don't need MORE government (FCC) watching the company, but competitors willing to provide better service. I've never understood why we put in regulations, then demand more regulations when those first regulations don't work--as if that's the solution.
Why is it the governments job to control the economy? Why argue about ridiculous rules and regulations that are completely arbitrary? These men shouldn't be allowed to do what they're doing is the important point to consider.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by slowgreenturtle.
The Monster in the Mirror
"Of course AT&T didn't "re-invent" itself as-so-much as it got blown up by government for being a predatory monopoly..." It was a government created monopoly. No one was able to compete with AT&T because the government prevented them. Wasn't the companies fault.
Why is AT&T requesting so many tax cuts? Because the taxes exist. We've buried our companies under billions of dollars in taxes and fees and wasted hours trying to put all these forms together so they can pay their taxes.
We need to stop regulating these companies, get out of their way--stop trying to give them special favors and take favors away--let them succeed or fail based upon their ability.
The whole approach of the article is wrong. Yes, AT&T is incompetent, but as long as we have regulated markets, they're going to continue to be.
Re: Re: Political Pull
Sorry, not sure I'm following your point.
What I'm suggesting is we remove our politician's ability to make special deals with companies. This way no one gets special favors or monopolies. This way there's unfettered competition. As for existing infrastructure, it remains private property in the hands of the current owners. No time travel needed since laws and policies can be changed for the better and what is an ideal situation.
Political Pull
If you think running to the government is the solution, then don't be surprised when the next person or company does the same thing.
Free up the market, let the cable companies raise their rates (not only do you not have a right to a good or service, they don't have a right to force you through government exclusivity laws), you can then start your own company to compete with them. Since you'd now be working on an equal political field (no special favors for anyone), they would have to compete properly (on economic grounds).
Another Perspective
Could the FCC stop all subsidies, please?
If you'd like to support giving broadband to the poor (I'm all for it), do it through a private charity; stop using the government to take money from one group of people and give it to another in the form of goods and services.
Charity should be private, not mandated by the government.
Privatization
This is yet another reason why the government needs to get of education. This would be non-news if it was a private organization which decided to revoke it's approval for a program or group. Since this is a government school everyone gets up in arms when the politicians (aka the government) gets involved with running its schools.
Monopoly
Does this mean the politicians will be removing their own ability to make "exclusive" deals with Internet providers which restrict competition? I'm all for gutting the FCC, but if their "help" consists of continuing to prevent competition in the form of municipal monopolies, what is the point? I would like a free market, but free market means the politicians stay out of both ends of the market.
Monopoly
There needs to be less regulation in this industry.
Comcast's monopoly comes from local governments allowing only Comcast in a particular area. Why not remove the government's ability to restrict competition? Then you don't need MORE government (FCC) watching the company, but competitors willing to provide better service. I've never understood why we put in regulations, then demand more regulations when those first regulations don't work--as if that's the solution.
Bailout Money
Also, isn't Wells Fargo one of the banks which did not take any bailout money by thier own choice?
The government's job
Why is it the governments job to control the economy? Why argue about ridiculous rules and regulations that are completely arbitrary? These men shouldn't be allowed to do what they're doing is the important point to consider.