WWII, Korea, Vietnam
This will be my last post in this thread. It is obvious you are an expert on every matter know to man and are not open to others ideas since yours are already perfect.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Mobile Phone Carrier Practices Questioned
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WWII, Korea, Vietnam
This will be my last post in this thread. It is obvious you are an expert on every matter know to man and are not open to others ideas since yours are already perfect.
Absolutely, but there's certainly nothing about socialism or capitalism (terms that didn't exist at the founders' time). Just the injunction to 'promote the general welfare' and the power to regulate commerce among the states. Even your Lincoln quote leaves room for government activity. Can people individually maintain an efficient economic system, or do they need, for starters, rules enforcing patent protection, etc.?
As for WWII, you know we were allies with "Uncle Joe" Stalin, right? We were fighting fascists, not socialists.
I would add along the lines of the Lincoln quote, we the people can not individually provide for these natural monopolies. In other words I cannot provide my own interstate highway system. I, as an individual, cannot provide my own wireless cellular network.
The swindle is to pretend that "the people can individually do for themselves" because that individual is At&T or Verizon, or T-Mobile. These are not individuals, though they are doing for themselves. They are corporations that have been given the privilege of operating something that belongs as a part of our government for their own individual profit. They are doing the thing that we as individuals cannot do for ourselves, rather than us requiring our federal government to "promote the general Welfare" by providing us with the services of a nationwide telecommunications network.
In your economy, the foundation is not built on the pursuit of wealth, it's more towards doing the right thing to improve things for society. Unfortunately we do not live in that world and we are a long way from it. As long as the acquisition of wealth is the driving force behind our economy, none of this will change.
Ah, jarbake, by your standards I've some bad news for you: all your dead relatives died in vain. We already have lots of socialized programs in this country. Lots of institutions against your interpretation of the Constitution. I know, I know: Welfare, and I'd eliminate that in two seconds! Nope, not welfare, although you'd be crazy to eliminate it, and public welfare programs -- safety nets -- have a place in any civilized, compassionate society.
Your police department. Your fire/rescue department. Your county hospital system, especially in major urban areas, as they are most likely to have them. Your public libraries, not that anyone uses these much anymore. Your public school system -- funny, that one is actually guaranteed in the Constitution rather than prohibited. Your post office. All "socialized", chiefly based on the public good concept that rob@ has illustrated. Many of these socialized American institutions actually run rather well. The US Postal Service actually *makes* money, and does a fairly amazing job of quickly sending mail all over a very large geographic area for a reasonable price.
Also, we've not fought one war to keep our country from falling into the hands of communists -- unless you count the Cold War, but it being "cold", nobody went into battle. We've fought a couple "hot" wars to keep *other* countries from falling into the hands of communist factions within those countries, with the alleged goal of quashing the spread of communism, which could potentially, though perhaps not all that likely, cause our country to come under attack by communist invaders.
And who originally mentioned lazy road crews? Rob@ is right: these lazy, leaning road crews you seem to see when you're out on the highways are almost always private contractors hired by the government to complete projects. That's your free enterprise system at work for you -- or not, as you seem to regularly observe -- at your tax-paying expense.
Finally, the tax argument. This has been explained regarding public healthcare so much that everyone should get it by now, but here we go. Taxes would rise to cover various nationalized services. But out-of-pocket costs would come down. In many or even most cases this results in a net savings for the individual or family. It's at least a break-even proposition.
Also, you make something bordering on an ad hominem attack on rob@ by stating, just about in so many words, "if you're so smart and know so much about this and that, you'd think you'd have something better to do with your time". I can't speak for rob@, but I certainly have better things to do with my time. In fact, every couple days I pledge to swear off the Internet altogether -- except for maybe paying bills; it's good for that. The thing is, if you have the knowledge and education in particular areas, it's something you've studied formally or informally, well, there are basically two types of people in these matters. You've probably encountered them in physicians you've had in your life. The first type is the ivory-tower sort, people who seek to contain and control all knowledge they've gained. You know, the doctor who won't explain anything to you and when you ask a question he glares at you before providing some vague, worthless answer. The other type is the doctor who sits down and will expound at length on topics medicine, answer all your questions in detail using the technical language of his profession, then define any terms you don't understand. He's passionate about what he knows and his impulse when he's asked or notices someone is wrong about something in his field is to share that knowledge, rather than keep it locked up like some secret holy talisman. So that's why I'm here when I indeed have a dozen things I should be doing.
Again, I can't speak for rob@, but I'm not writing here to correct you to make myself feel better or prove myself right, but because there are some substantial, basic and rather large flaws in the understanding of economic systems of some people posting in this thread. Indeed I'd prefer not to correct people at all, because it often makes them defensive, angry and sometimes worse. But when you see it stated one way and you know it to be otherwise, it appears the best thing to do for everyone's sake to note the fallacy and explain why the statement is mistaken. So it's one thing to fully understand economic systems yet still argue for live-and-let-die capitalism; it's another thing entire to have a flawed grasp of these systems and argue what is and isn't acceptable in these systems and under American law.
Sadly, that is the way it is in the U.S. It's tantamount to buying a car and being told you can only drive every other day and from 4-8 am and 6-10 pm. The people that state the fact that you sign a contract for two years blah blah blah and you knew what you were getting into are not making any points. Having to sign a contract for service IS the initial problem, and as all the U.S. carriers have agreed to this ridiculous practice American consumers aren't given many other options (unless you count pay as you go, and I'm not sure if there is a contract for that service or not). Doesn't make sense.
Continuing this debate is pointless. Everything you mention above, while may be government funded/operated and does provide a service, is not by any means perfect and often not satisfying. Private hospitals and schools provide more complete/higher quality services than government operated ones. FedEx and UPS are faster and more reliable than the USPS, and often cheaper. Police, while only the military can rival, still often leave people unsatisfied and rival with bounty hunters and private detectives. Same can be said with attorneys, yes the government will provide you one, but they will not have near the education nor brilliance of a private attorney. The government is out to make money just like every corporation in the world, they are no different.
Allowing one entity absolute control over anything is not a good idea, but I will take the 3 or 4 corporations 'swindling' us(if that's what you want to call it) vs. the government taking things over and providing the same 2nd or 3rd rate service they do with everything else they control.
This debate has always been here and will continue to go unresolved long after our childrens' children are gone.
In my eyes the police department is a branch of government. I believe it falls under the executive branch. It enforces the laws the legislative branch creates.
Not saying you are wrong, but can you point out the exact text where it says a public school system is guaranteed?
Also, I can choose to ship my mail via a privet company ie. FedEX, UPS.
I am in no way trying to say "Get rid of the Federal Government". They do some pretty great things. We live in the greatest country in the world. The point of our country was to put the power into the masses hands. I just don't feel people should be so quick to give it back to the government. We are spoiled here in the US and we don't even realize it.
But jarbake, you are the one arguing for putting more power into the hands of the government. I and sanford are saying we should make the government accountable. In other words limit the power of government by making them accountable to the citizenry. You and applehero on the other hand are arguing that they should not be made accountable. If they want to swindle us, then let them. If the government does things 2nd or 3rd rate, then go ahead and let them. There's nothing inherent in government that makes it second or third rate. They are granted the power to be second or third rate from an apathetic public who pretends that there's something inherently second or third rate about the government. To drive this point home, imagine your an employer and you employ someone who convinces you that they're inherently second or third rate, and that the only way they can serve you is by pilfering from the warehouse and giving your goods to their friends. You give that employee an enormous amount of power (and take away power from yourself), by just shrugging your shoulders and thinking: "well I just can't expect anymore from that employee"
Well that's what you and applehero are doing with government: who should be serving us like our employee. You;re saying that it's ok for them to serve us in a 2nd or 3rd rate fashion. You're saying that yes, they will steel our national resources and give them to their friends. That's the price we pay for freedom. That's just insane. You've given everything to the government because you don't expect anything of them. If anyone has fought for our constitution in vane its only in vane if we let such lunacy continue: if we say well its too much trouble to change it or to keep it from declining further.
Wow! You would rather be swindled than demand government provide 1st rate service to us, its citizens. I would rather not be swindled AND expect 1st rate service from my government. At this point, you're only serving as an apologist for swindlers and 3rd rate government.
No, you're absolutely backwards in your assessment. WE are the ones who do not want government to take things over, you are AND you want/expect them to do a good job.
You believe AT&T and the government are 'in bed with each other'. You want these to take break up and you want the government to take sole possession of the telecommunications industry? I hope I am right so far. I've asked this question once but you seamed to dance around it. Please answer this and try and cut out some of the fluff. I guess you have to put it in layman's terms. How is cutting out half of your problem going to fix the whole problem?
And your socialized telecommunications. What happens when the government decides to jack up the prices on service and cites some stupid reason everyone can see straight through? Then what happens? If AT&T jacks the prices, we switch to someone who hasnt jacked their prices. What do we do when there is only once choice?
Most people on this board were unhappy with the service they were receiving from Microsoft and the other computer manufactories. They decided to switch to Apple in hopes of better service? Should they have lobbied for the government to take over computer manufacturing?
Now please, answer my questions, dont try to tell me I'm somehow wrong is some way of thinking, and I'm done.
And your socialized telecommunications. What happens when the government decides to jack up the prices on service and cites some stupid reason everyone can see straight through? Then what happens? If AT&T jacks the prices, we switch to someone who hasnt jacked their prices. What do we do when there is only once choice?
Most people on this board were unhappy with the service they were receiving from Microsoft and the other computer manufactories. They decided to switch to Apple in hopes of better service? Should they have lobbied for the government to take over computer manufacturing?
Now please, answer my questions, dont try to tell me I'm somehow wrong is some way of thinking, and I'm done.
My mom is a cellular consultant and has worked at several of the major US providers, and including her coworkers they've spent a little time at all of them.
It's generally recognized that everybody envies Verizon's network. It's the best in the US right now.
Well said, perhaps, but incorrect.
Our government was primarily founded on the principle of decentralization of power. That failed miserably, however (see Articles of Confederation), and we moved to a more centralized government form in 1789 with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The electoral college is a perfect example of how we don't trust "the common man".
I would further say that at no point in time since then was the government ever intended to put power into the hands of the masses. At all points in time, the government has typically been controlled by (and therefore favored) wealthier citizens. With only a few notable exceptions (Thomas Jefferson) the government has rarely sided with the "masses".
Everyone wants 1st rate service from the government, the problem is we can't seem to get people in Washington to provide it. The reason for that, they do not care about us, they care about getting paid by big business corporations. Sure, when election time rolls around we are all given hope by politicians promising the world to us, as soon as election time is over, back to the status-quo. I would prefer the government stick to law creation/enforcement and let business be run by the public. The government can continue monitoring business practices by protecting consumer rights (which is often tainted by big business) but they have no business trying to take things over under the impression that they can run a business better than corporate America. Last time I checked, the national deficit was still in the trillions because the government is the worst bank in the world. Let the public control business via our pocketbooks, not enforcement of government policy. That's what free enterprise is.
There is a quote from Men In Black that says it all, 'A person is smart, people are stupid.'
I am also done debating this as obviously we are not going to resolve the economic problems with our country. Wish we could, but we can't. I've enjoyed hearing the views of others and do take comfort in knowing there are people out there with such conviction towards the betterment of our country, whether I agree or disagree with how it should be achieved, I know that we all want to increase the strength of our nation and help it continue to prosper as the greatest nation in the world.
Almost. Its not just AT&T and the government. Its AT&T and Sprint and Verizon and T-Mobile and so on.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The problem is not the government and corporations. The problem is swindlers who operate by convincing a large majority that they are not colluding to swindle us: that they are at odds with one another. So my proposal is to get rid of the swindling: the whole problem. Get rid of all the swindling by government officials. Get rid of all the swindling by the big corporations. My proposal is to get rid of the whole problem. The way you're posing the problem would be like saying often I get mugged by people. If I can get rid of people I'll get rid of my problem. I would say don't get rid of people, but rather stop people from mugging. Don't get rid of of government or corporations. They aren't your problem. The problem is when certain government officials and certain corporations collude to swindle us. The difficulty you have in understanding what I'm saying isn't necessarily because I'm not explaining it well, and its not that you're incapable of understanding it. The very definition of the problem (by those in government and others) in terms of government is a big part of the swindle.
What happens when the socialized interstate system arbitrarily raises its prices for some faux reason (i.e., raise tolls)? Just apply the analogy, you should be able to answer these questions on your own by now. Sometimes consumers accept the reasoning. Sometimes they fight back and protest and write nasty letters to the decision-makers. Because we're talking about a natural monopoly, however, dividing it into several duplicate networks raises and then tacking on some hefty profits makes the prices many times greater than they would otherwise be. So offering customers the choice to choose whether they want to pay $60 a month or $50 per month is an empty choice if in the nationalized monopoly the would only pay $30 per month.
This is not how oligopolistic industries work. They move in unison. In the cell phone industry they also rely on a dizzying selection of services that is difficult for customers to decipher. Some may find a particular plan that works for them better from one provider than from another provider, but when the general pricing of one goes up, they all tend to follow.
The computer industry is not a natural monopoly: not even close. So this has nothing to do with interstate highways systems nor telecommunications networks.
What your calling for government to do is the very status quo that you're complaining about. In other words the politicians promise they will serve the citizenry at election time. However, when the election is over and they return to Washington, they only serve the corporations. In other words they give public goods to corporate monopolists; they pass laws that favor those corporatists over the general population. I don't even see why you complain about government. Unlike me, you seem to be very happy with what government is doing: in other words, for you, its first rate already.
When others will loan you trillions of dollars, that's an indication of how much faith they have in your business: and believe me they run the US government like a business (in the worst possible meaning of that phrase). If anyone would loan me more money, after I was trillions of dollars in debt, I would never take that as an indication of my failure. That is a sign of wild success: whether it is a government or a person (at least financial success).
Yeah that's true. It's just mind boggling that over 1/3 of the entire population of the United States has a cell phone through only one of two companies (Verizon and AT&T)
I can't contest your personal satisfaction with your own police and fire/rescue departments. My local police and paramedics saved my life one time, after I was mugged and severely beaten -- the police arriving on the scene in a timely manner caused the suspects to fell, and of course the paramedics stabilized me and quickly transported me to the nearest trauma center. I'm satisfied.
Bounty hunting is a profession serving the bonds industry, not because police forces aren't capable of doing the same thing. Police and constables serve failure to appear warrants all the time -- they just aren't paid for it by the bondsman. Private detectives rarely handle criminal matters. Some do -- in fact a family friend did just that, became rather famous in the 1980s for it, and wrote a few popular books about his cases. But he's the exception rather than the rule; although it's the exceptions we hear about in the media. Private detectives do what police forces are not charged to do, not what they can't get done.
As for healthcare, that's a blanket statement with no validity. *Some* private hospitals provide more complete or better services than public ones. My county hospital system provides some of the best care in the region. It's one of the top all-around residency programs for MDs and an outstanding teaching hospital -- private hospitals are teaching hospitals, too, so realize you're as likely to be treated by a resident at lots of private hospitals as in public ones. During the federal budget cuts of the 1980s, they had to cut their substance abuse program because they couldn't fund enough beds to matter; they kept an excellent psychiatric unit. Many private hospitals have neither psychiatric units nor substances abuse units, and less complete than some public hospitals.
In education, there are private schools that wallow in mediocrity compared to good public schools. The reverse is true, too, but paying tuition hardly assures your children a better education than some public schools offer.
FedEx and UPS don't deliver the mail. They're not structured to delivery the mail and therefore would very likely fail at it very quickly. They operate speciality freight and package services built around speedier delivery, although you pay more for that swiftness. FedEx does outstanding work in their market and in my experience are often worth the premium. UPS is hideous, the worst large delivery service in the nation. Neither are cheaper than the USPS for comparable services, and although USPS unlike FedEx only provides guaranteed delivery schedules for a few premium services, they're always less expensive than FedEx.
As for attorneys, I'm sure you mean public defenders. The quality of representation in general depends on the quality of the PD's office. Some are better than others. But there is a completely different system of public defense. My county has a very small public defenders office. The bulk of public defense is handled by rotation of the private criminal defenders practicing in this county's courts -- they are paid by the county, and though it's not what they make with private clients, most of them take it very seriously as their contribution to our system of justice. And these private criminal defenders and their supporting firms are the same "brilliant" men and women with JDs from top-tier law schools across the country; in other words, exactly who you'd pay tens of thousands -- or if you're a really bad guy, hundreds of thousands -- to represent you. So a mediocre PD's office is a bad way of providing a public service. The rotational system pulling from the pool of all the private criminal defenders in the local system works rather well.
The point is that picking a bad fashion by which the government provides public services and using it as example of how bad the government is at providing public services compared to private enterprise is an invalid argument. There's a good way to do it and a bad way to do it. We'd expect our government to do it the good way, and exercise our vote to put the sharp cookies in office to get it done with excellence.
The government does a lot of things well.
I agree the debate will last centuries, but we are reaching a maximum overload on the public and consumers in this country. We are, unfortunately and it brings me great sadness, on the decline as a highlight of contemporary Western civilization. (Anyone so inclined, save the "you're anti-American" rhetoric, please, as I am a committed American, my younger brother is a soldier ready for certain deployment to Iraq this autumn and I'm proud of his fearlessness in serving his country though I may disagree with the end goal of his mission. I'm dismayed by our decline and I wish only for improvement for our people.) So while the debate may last, I believe we are in watershed years, and things are going to get precipitously worse or, hopefully, many changes are forthcoming for the better.
There are at least two or three stunning insightful if not particularly original quotations from that movie. I almost find that frightening.
Applehero, despite our wide disagreement in matters of economic policy, I have to give you that you are a credit to your side of the fence. You're like the religious people who can see that people who aren't religious can still possess decency and a fine morality. You seem to see that what we of the other side of the fence are trying to achieve improvement and equity for the people of this country, not trying to undermine the nation. I appreciate that, quite a bit.