Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land

Tue Jan 29 13:30:06 UTC 2013

On 1/29/2013 7:43 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The graft and corruption was in *private* industry, not the Federal
> government, due to lack of regulation and oversight.

I never said there wasn't graft and corruption in private industry...
but that is anecdotal... "hit and miss". In contrast, graft and
corruption in the Federal Government is widespread and rampant. Finding
one example of graft and corruption in private industry is a silly way
to try to disprove my point.

>> (B) In the US, we have this thing called the 4th amendment.... which
>> ensures a certain level of freedom and civil liberties and privacy.
>> Unfortunately, 4th amendment rights essentially disappear if the US
>> Federal government owns and operates broadband access. [...]
>
> No, this isn't true either.  The 4th Amendment applies to the US
> government.  What happened is the end-around allowing *private*
> industry to collect personal data and infringe civil liberties.
>
> That should not happen with direct US government ownership.  It could
> be a boon to civil liberties.

(A) If XYZ ISP gets frisky with my data, I can vote with my wallet to
another ISP.

(B) Furthermore, the Federal Government DOES make an excellent
"watchdog" for policing privacy violations by ISPs... that is, IF they
are on the field as "referee",  and NOT as "another player". Plus, them
NOT being "another player" helps them maintain impartiality as their
role as "referee". (there are ALREADY examples of their role as
"referee" being "compromised" in the auto industry.. where Government
Motors got a break on a certain law, but Honda was slammed hard over the
SAME law!) Also, if the Federal Government owns/operates broadband, then
there is a high likelihood that their operation is subsidized to a point
where it becomes extremely difficult for a private business to compete
against them--as happens in area areas where the Federal Government
stepped out into the field as "player". "gravity" then "pulls" the
Federal Government into a monopoly position... then, after that happens,
if THEY get frisky with my data, the ISPs I would have voted for with my
wallet... no longer exist.

(C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT
owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment
provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a "firewall" of
protection against Federal gov't trampling of civil liberties... but if
they own the network, then that opens up many doors for them.

(D) Finally, the potential damage/intrusion/civil-liberties-violations
that can happen from the Feds owning/operating broadband vastly
surpasses what generally occurs in the worst-case-instances of private
ISPs going too far in selling data to make a buck. There is no
comparison. Last I checked, my ISP doesn't have the authority to throw
me in jail... or audit my taxes... doesn't control the FBI or ATF, etc.
The Federal government has the police state powers to throw me in jail.
An ISP cannot. Not that I'm a lawbreaker with things to fear... but
there is this really smart guy who wrote a book called "Three Felonies A
Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"... it basically details how there
are so many ridiculous laws on the books that nobody follow (or even
know about)... that if the Feds want to make an example out of someone
or some business, they can ALWAYS find SOMETHING. Even in fortune 500
companies... if one of them decides to get real serious and follow ALL
such laws "to a T"... then they go out of business because their
overhead costs soar beyond their direct competitors, who are then able
to sell more products/services at a higher profit. My sister used to
work for GE... and she said they had this phrase there called
"substantial compliance" with Federal Laws. They couldn't be totally
compliant or they'd go out of business.

> Ummm, none of these were on the FCC.  Some were on the "stacked"
> Republican F*E*C.  And nobody trusts Spakovsky, the architect of
> voter caging, purges, and suppression -- who was (as we now know)
> illegally recess appointed to the FEC, and whose nomination was
> withdrawn after disclosure of conflict of interest and the
> resignation of half the Justice Department voter section staff!

I think you've gone off topic here. The bottom line is that the FCC of
the past few years has TRIED to make a crusade out of supposedly
protecting us against those meany ISPs' allegedly unfair bandwidth
allocation practices... with their proposed solution of "net
neutrality"... but, in reality, "net neutrality" is really just a
Federal Government power grab where they can then trample the 4th
amendment. Why would they do that? Because the current administration is
crawling with statist thugs, that is why. They can't help themselves. it
is in their blood. (notice that I'm NOT defending the Republican
administration FCC, nor do I care to. Your example is besides the point
and not relevant to this conversation. But the attempted "net
neutrality" power grab is relevant. Notice ALSO that neither do I defend
all practices of ISPs' bandwidth allocations. But, again, their
customers do have the option to "vote with their wallets". Such options
are lost with a Federal Gov't monopoly.)

>> Finally, while I've witnessed incompetence amongst certain unnamed baby
>> bells, there ARE... MANY... bright spots in Internet connectivity.
>> Frankly, we're spoiled by our successes. And the worst of the baby
>> bells, like all baby bells, do NOT have a monopoly. [...]
>>
> You seem to be living in an alternate universe.  Those of us who
> actually owned an ISP know the ILEC oligopolies well.

Nope. I've seen it where I live... where I routinely notice some of the
most incompetent behavior/service from our baby bell... yet I've often
seen very excellent and competent service from Cox Communications.

-- 
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
rob at invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032