[TriLUG] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in Thursday's Finance Committee!

[matt at noway2.thruhere.net]

... Putting an American Capitalist hat on my left-leaning head here ....

Isn't one of the founding premises of "free market capitalism" that
competition should drive innovation and efficiency of operation, leading
to greater profitability?

If so, why should a company be allowed to buy legislation that stifles
competition by ensuring that the entry costs into their market are higher?
 By their own standards shouldn't they be forced to either adapt and
provide the superior product or go under?

By way of contrast, from what I recall being taught back in school, some
industries, predominantly those involved in infrastructure, had such high
capital costs of ownership that real competition is not feasible.  In such
instances it made more sense for both the producer and the consumer that a
monopoly should be allowed to exist.  At best one would wind up with an
oligopoly, much like the airlines or car manufacturers. To prevent the
monopoly from taking excessive advantage of the position, they would be
regulated - or rather their "profits" would be regulated (limited) by
putting caps on the price they could demand.

Unfortunately, so much of American business is so tied to the stock market
and the monthly-quarterly profits that long term thinking is non existent.
 In this environment, few if any companies would be willing or able to
take on an infrastructure level project.  Should they even try, it is
doubtful whether they would be able to get (private) funding.

I also agree that Internet access is becoming, if not has already become
infrastructure of the present day.  How much of our nation's gross
productivity flows over a wide-area network daily?

If internet is modern infrastructure, we can't allow an individual or by
extension a corporation of individuals to have a choke hold on it.  The
ability for information to pass freely is necessary for the survival of so
many other businesses.

> No argument here, this move really blows!  I read somewhere it was only a
> few users but further reading indicates this is applied to all user and
> the amount of cap are based DSL or U-Verse.
>
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 3:27 PM, matt at noway2.thruhere.net wrote:
>
>> How much would you like to bet that the caps are aimed at preventing the
>> downloading streaming media?
>>
>>> The cap is not for everyone and you will get a letter stating you are
>>> now
>>> metered.