Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Marco Rubio pushes to allow Telecom to keep bending over consumers

bbedward

By bbedward
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
Posted

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/14/marco-rubio-pushes-to-block-low-cost-high-speed-broadband/

 

I HATE that all of our politicians do absolutely nothing to fix the horrendous telecom industry that is such a slap in the face to free market competition and consumer benefit.

 

Most recently I got P/O'd about it since I'm moving to a new house in a month where Time Warner is the ONLY option for cable/internet.

 

Anyway, basically you have local cities, companies who are implementing infrastructure/internet locally using fiber optic networks (Chattanooga's "The Gig" - $70/mo a month for about 20x the speed of what time warner offers for $70/mo, Google Fiber - $100/mo for 20x the speed of time warner's $70/mo internet speed - including TV, etc.)

 

In some places where google fiber exists - it's killing the cable companies and ATT. Why? Because people pay $70-100/mo and get infinitely better service. The consumer should and does LOVE IT. The cable companies/ATT however, do not.

 

So what's the logical thing that should happen in a "free market"

 

You guessed it, the cable companies and ATT should upgrade their infrastructure or change their plans and pricing in order to be competitive.

 

Of course, they don't do that. Instead they hire lobbyists, who then employ politicians such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz to lobby against changes to the system because it'd hurt some great companies and it's bad for the environment to develop new infrastructure and cities won't let us blah blah. Just eliminate the competition so big cable and telecom can keep fucking people. K Thx Bye.

 

Maybe people don't know, but cleveland has a TON of fiber infrastructure laid out by UUNet, Level3, Cognet, and OARnet during the 90s mostly (OARnet seems to be what ATT is using for their "gigapower") that we could use to be a "Gig city"

 

So to recap:

- Cities and Companies tap into unused fiber that already exists in several cities, produce affordable and insanely fast internet service for a lower price than the competitors that offer a lot less

- Telecom doesn't wanna lower their prices to compete

- Telecom doesn't wanna upgrade their infrastructure to compete

- Lobbyists, on behalf of lobbyists, buy people like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and they fight against the interests of the consumers

 

/rant

 

Fuck Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton - the 3 candidates receiving the most blow jobs from telecom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Is there not a competition commission or some such that stops that kind of thing?

 

It's a complicated situation. This particular situation is Rubio and friends fighting against municipal networks that essentially crush the competition.

 

At the local and state level the government makes it virtually impossible to compete with the existing cable guys. There's insanely high cost to get permits, fit regulations, etc. not including the cost of creating infrastructure to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

wait, the article mentions rubio, who I don't care for all that much.

 

Where does Cruz come in?

 

"Big Cable" has been a top contributor to Cruz throughout his political career (more so than to Rubio). He loves the clusterfuck micro monopolies cable has. I cluster him in the group of politicians who will do whatever you want if you put enough quarters behind their ear.

 

He also once said "net neutrality is obamacare for the internet"

 

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141115/07454429157/ted-cruz-doubles-down-misunderstanding-internet-net-neutrality-as-republican-engineers-call-him-out-ignorance.shtml

 

Rubio never goes to work, unless it's on someone's dime. Cruz seems to be largely the same way but nobody talks about his attendance for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

somehow republicans have duped their constituency into believing they are the sole protectors of the free market.When in fact they are often the ones subverting free market competition the most. There are times when democrats have introduced regulatory measures that ensured a fairer playing field in the market but are screamed at for being commies. What republicans won't allow their people to understand is that capitalism has to be looked after to preserve it. Unfettered capitalism leads to the dissolution of society. Eventually there's no one left to eat. What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

somehow republicans have duped their constituency into believing they are the sole protectors of the free market.When in fact they are often the ones subverting free market competition the most. There are times when democrats have introduced regulatory measures that ensured a fairer playing field in the market but are screamed at for being commies. What republicans won't allow their people to understand is that capitalism has to be looked after to preserve it. Unfettered capitalism leads to the dissolution of society. Eventually there's no one left to eat. What then?

 

They don't want to regulate gun companies, oil companies, drug companies, banks, coal mines.

 

But they are happy to regulate the internet, cable industry, etc.

 

Not every republican, but guys like Rubio, Bush, and Cruz just do what they're told. Democrats are not exempt either - they are equally bought and paid for by the same people.

 

They are funded by the NRA, Exxon and co, Pfizer and co, goldman sachs and co., etc. All of those guys benefit from de-regulation.

 

They are funded by the cable industry. Several other industries who don't want net neutrality to protect "intellectual property". Those guys benefit from regulation.

 

It's no secret why any of these guys (and gals) support the things they do, it's all about the Benjamins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

oh I agree with you i'm not exempting all democrats nor am I implicating all republicans. Rand gets it, which is why i'd vote for him. But some of the loudest "free market' voices on the right are actually snakes in the grass, and I intensely dislike a lot of republicans for constantly screaming about free market this and that when they have so many snakes crawling around subverting that very free market on a daily basis. The tea party people exasperate me for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

oh I agree with you i'm not exempting all democrats nor am I implicating all republicans. Rand gets it, which is why i'd vote for him. But some of the loudest "free market' voices on the right are actually snakes in the grass, and I intensely dislike a lot of republicans for constantly screaming about free market this and that when they have so many snakes crawling around subverting that very free market on a daily basis. The tea party people exasperate me for that reason.

 

If the Tea Party base wasn't so easily swayed by bible thumpers and good speakers then maybe Rand would get a lot of traction.

 

He's the most free market guy in the race, by far. Though I don't believe everything should be de-regulated, Rand would be a good start to clean the mess up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Out of curiosity, which big cables companies have given to Cruz/Rubio, and how much? I couldn't find much.

 

ATT lobyist Scott Weaver has raised $33,324 for Rubio according to the article.

 

I'd look more up, but I'm going on lunch. There's an opensecrets website that shows all contributors I believe.

 

around november last year, Cruz was ~$50,000 or so for his senate seat and Rubio was again ~$30,000 or so but I'm not sure the numbers on the presidential campaign/super PAC contributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So those who are infuriated, what would you do? What's the best way to address the situation? Nationalised the Internet? Federal light pipe buried on every street?

 

I'm serious. Someone's ox will be gored anyway you look at it now?

 

WSS

 

Outlaw local governments from charging outrageous pole attachment fees, right of way fees, and the other parts of a generally painful process it is for a competitor to create competing infrastructure.

 

Either way, I don't like a presidential candidate who likes the current system of force monopolies and kickbacks to government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

 

If the Tea Party base wasn't so easily swayed by bible thumpers and good speakers then maybe Rand would get a lot of traction.

 

He's the most free market guy in the race, by far. Though I don't believe everything should be de-regulated, Rand would be a good start to clean the mess up.

 

I like Rand Paul but he is probably on life support right now with his campaign going nowhere. He made a huge tactical error early in the primaries by attacking Trump. The same error Jeb Bush made and I believe both have suffered for it. Trump has tapped into a huge discouragement with voters in politicians in general and politics as usual and Cruz (who is surging in the polls right now) was (and still is) wise not to attack Trump....yet. Rand Paul by attacking Trump alienated a huge amount of voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

"Big Cable" has been a top contributor to Cruz throughout his political career (more so than to Rubio). He loves the clusterfuck micro monopolies cable has. I cluster him in the group of politicians who will do whatever you want if you put enough quarters behind their ear.



He also once said "net neutrality is obamacare for the internet" edw


*************************************************************


Just because "big cable" is a big contributor to Cruz. it doesn't mean that Cruz stands for no competition


to big cable.



And, edw, "net neutrality" isn't about stopping competition vs big cable. It's about government regulation.



And this gov, this obamao regime, says "net neutrality"..but it MEANS a bunch of crap.



http://www.rawstory.com/2014/11/tea-party-group-attacks-net-neutrality-treating-all-websites-the-same-isnt-fair/


Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

baloney, then, Cleve. Check THIS out:

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

 

So, bashing Rubio I get, but bashing Cruz?

 

Total individual paks

Citigroup Inc $824,402 $816,402 $8,000

Goldman Sachs $760,740 $750,740 $10,000

DLA Piper $700,530 $673,530 $27,000

JPMorgan Chase & Co $696,456 $693,456 $3,000

Morgan Stanley $636,564 $631,564 $5,000

EMILY's List $609,684 $605,764 $3,920

Time Warner $501,831 $476,831 $25,000

Skadden, Arps et al $469,290 $464,790 $4,500

University of California $417,327 $417,327 $0

Sullivan & Cromwell $369,150 $369,150 $0

Akin, Gump et al $364,478 $360,978 $3,500

Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000

21st Century Fox $340,936 $340,936 $0

Cablevision Systems $336,613 $307,225 $29,388

Kirkland & Ellis $329,141 $312,141 $17,000

National Amusements Inc $328,312 $325,312 $3,000

Squire Patton Boggs $328,306 $322,868 $5,438

Greenberg Traurig LLP $327,890 $319,790 $8,100

Corning Inc $322,450 $304,450 $18,000 Credit Suisse Group

 

Gosh, I wonder why edw didn't bash higgardly clinton for getting donations from "big cable".

 

Of course, everybody knows why, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...