Comments for Net Competition http://www.netcompetition.org Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:53:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Top Ten Flaws in DOJ’s Case Against AT&T – T-Mobile by Jim http://www.netcompetition.org/antitrust/top-ten-flaws-in-dojs-case-against-att-t-mobile#comment-280 Jim Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:53:38 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=1367#comment-280 I agree with Jeff. Well said! I agree with Jeff. Well said!

]]> Comment on Netflix’ Negative Growth Story by Anon http://www.netcompetition.org/resource-center/competitive-evidence/netflix-negative-growth-story#comment-281 Anon Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:50:33 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=1491#comment-281 Isn't the issue here with the media companies that netflix has contracts with? As far as my understanding goes, many of the contracts that Netflix had with the media companies were ending and for netflix to resign with them they forced netflix to increase their fee's and separate streaming and DVD to make media companies more money. That's why after increasing revenue with the fee hike netflix is still resulting in a loss of profits because they have more to pay the media companies. Isn’t the issue here with the media companies that netflix has contracts with? As far as my understanding goes, many of the contracts that Netflix had with the media companies were ending and for netflix to resign with them they forced netflix to increase their fee’s and separate streaming and DVD to make media companies more money. That’s why after increasing revenue with the fee hike netflix is still resulting in a loss of profits because they have more to pay the media companies.

]]> Comment on FCC Needs to Update Sect. 652 to Conform with Market Reality & Congress’ Intent by The American Consumer Institute - » Outdated Merger Regulations Holding Back Competition http://www.netcompetition.org/resource-center/competitive-evidence/fcc-needs-to-update-sect-652-to-conform-with-market-reality-congress-intent#comment-72 The American Consumer Institute - » Outdated Merger Regulations Holding Back Competition Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:34:15 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=1127#comment-72 [...] proposal to lift restrictions under Section 652 which prevent Cable-CLEC mergers.  FCC officials would be smart to clarify Section 652′s intentions, which would remove any burden on CLECs and let telephony innovation [...] [...] proposal to lift restrictions under Section 652 which prevent Cable-CLEC mergers.  FCC officials would be smart to clarify Section 652′s intentions, which would remove any burden on CLECs and let telephony innovation [...]

]]> Comment on Top Ten Flaws in DOJ’s Case Against AT&T – T-Mobile by Jeff http://www.netcompetition.org/antitrust/top-ten-flaws-in-dojs-case-against-att-t-mobile#comment-73 Jeff Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:02:41 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=1367#comment-73 I'm the only comment? Wow... I'm glad no one is reading this crap. What department of AT&T PR do you work for? National or Local? There may very well be NEW precedents being set forth in this lawsuit. Have you thought about that? If the mobile wireless market is so dynamic and fast changing then why would the merging of AT&T & T better the marketplace? And when historically did the merging of two large companies ever "Create" more jobs? And to say that the merging of these companies are going to bring more innovation quicker to more people is laughable. AT&T will not bring high-speed wireless or wired internet connections to rural and poor sections to the country whether there is a merger or not, they have in fact fought local governments from providing those services. It is not in their best financial interests to "Invest" in poor and rural areas because there is no financial benefit... but then the block others from providing the service. Can you explain legally why that is possible? AT&T should not be allowed to just do what ever they want. This is more than a "Competition in the marketplace" issue to many people, it's about access to information and communication... and to say AT&T is looking out for the interests of ALL Americans when they merge with T-Mobile to provide more and better service is a joke. They want to remove competition and increase the barriers to entry and provide the same BS service that they already do. I’m the only comment? Wow… I’m glad no one is reading this crap. What department of AT&T PR do you work for? National or Local? There may very well be NEW precedents being set forth in this lawsuit. Have you thought about that? If the mobile wireless market is so dynamic and fast changing then why would the merging of AT&T & T better the marketplace? And when historically did the merging of two large companies ever “Create” more jobs?

And to say that the merging of these companies are going to bring more innovation quicker to more people is laughable. AT&T will not bring high-speed wireless or wired internet connections to rural and poor sections to the country whether there is a merger or not, they have in fact fought local governments from providing those services. It is not in their best financial interests to “Invest” in poor and rural areas because there is no financial benefit… but then the block others from providing the service. Can you explain legally why that is possible?

AT&T should not be allowed to just do what ever they want. This is more than a “Competition in the marketplace” issue to many people, it’s about access to information and communication… and to say AT&T is looking out for the interests of ALL Americans when they merge with T-Mobile to provide more and better service is a joke. They want to remove competition and increase the barriers to entry and provide the same BS service that they already do.

]]> Comment on FreePress McChesney’s Latest Collectivist Manifesto — Radical Fringe Series Part I by james john philon http://www.netcompetition.org/conflict-of-interest/freepress-mcchesneys-latest-collectivist-manifesto-radical-fringe-series-part-i#comment-71 james john philon Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:09:57 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=1088#comment-71 the world is free to live in, but enjoying it is expensive. the world is free to live in, but enjoying it is expensive.

]]> Comment on The FCC’s public wireless network blocks lawful Internet traffic by look it up http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-fccs-public-wireless-network-blocks-lawful-internet-traffic#comment-70 look it up Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:08:39 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=1077#comment-70 Try a fact check and look up a definition. Stop spewing "most people think", the problem is they don't. The fact is that outbound and inbound only refer to the direction of the first data packet, not all data packets. They are blocking traffic originating from external networks, not responses to requests from internal networks. Try a fact check and look up a definition. Stop spewing “most people think”, the problem is they don’t. The fact is that outbound and inbound only refer to the direction of the first data packet, not all data packets. They are blocking traffic originating from external networks, not responses to requests from internal networks.

]]> Comment on NetCompetition vs. FreePress Op-Eds in Network World by Steve Wilkinson http://www.netcompetition.org/resource-center/competitive-evidence/netcompetition-vs-freepress-op-eds-in-network-world#comment-68 Steve Wilkinson Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:03:30 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=990#comment-68 Hehe... what a debate huh? BTW, let me know when you see some competition! Cheers, -Steve Hehe… what a debate huh?

BTW, let me know when you see some competition!

Cheers, -Steve

]]> Comment on FCC on Retrans: Will it Miss the Forest for the Trees? by Bill http://www.netcompetition.org/resource-center/competitive-evidence/fcc-on-retrans-will-it-miss-the-forest-for-the-trees#comment-67 Bill Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:15:27 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=981#comment-67 Yes...the "The pay TV market is obviously competitive". Huh? Then why do I have 2 choices for my "pay TV" service? I get either DirectTV or Dish Network. Both are severely overpriced, quality often sucks, customer service is horrible, I've got to nail a freakin' dish to the top of my house, clean snow off that dish many times during the winter months, and live with the fact that the only 5 or so channels I really want to watch are in the most expensive packages they offer? That's really competitive isn't it? It's collusion is what it is. It's exactly what's going to happen to our internet service soon. I have ONE single choice for broadband internet access. Verizon DSL. There are no other choices at all. So what happens when there is no net neutrality and Verizon decides they don't like the fact that I'm also a Netflix subscriber, so they decide throttle Netflix to the point where it's un-watchable on my crappy DSL connection? Or they decide that I no longer need access to Facebook as part of my regular internet service and want to charge me an extra $10 / month for that service? I know you're sitting there saying "they haven't done it up to this point, they aren't going to do it because of competition". Well, there is no competition so I can take the extra fee or live without internet service. And they haven't done it before is a sad excuse to use when you're dealing with companies that only care about their bottom line and not about their customers. It will happen and it is going to happen as soon as net neutrality regulation is killed. When it does I'm going to scream to everyone "I told you so". Hope you all enjoy paying more for less. Yes…the “The pay TV market is obviously competitive”. Huh? Then why do I have 2 choices for my “pay TV” service? I get either DirectTV or Dish Network. Both are severely overpriced, quality often sucks, customer service is horrible, I’ve got to nail a freakin’ dish to the top of my house, clean snow off that dish many times during the winter months, and live with the fact that the only 5 or so channels I really want to watch are in the most expensive packages they offer? That’s really competitive isn’t it? It’s collusion is what it is.

It’s exactly what’s going to happen to our internet service soon. I have ONE single choice for broadband internet access. Verizon DSL. There are no other choices at all. So what happens when there is no net neutrality and Verizon decides they don’t like the fact that I’m also a Netflix subscriber, so they decide throttle Netflix to the point where it’s un-watchable on my crappy DSL connection? Or they decide that I no longer need access to Facebook as part of my regular internet service and want to charge me an extra $10 / month for that service? I know you’re sitting there saying “they haven’t done it up to this point, they aren’t going to do it because of competition”. Well, there is no competition so I can take the extra fee or live without internet service. And they haven’t done it before is a sad excuse to use when you’re dealing with companies that only care about their bottom line and not about their customers. It will happen and it is going to happen as soon as net neutrality regulation is killed. When it does I’m going to scream to everyone “I told you so”.

Hope you all enjoy paying more for less.

]]> Comment on The De-Competition Revolution by Kevin Chen http://www.netcompetition.org/resource-center/competitive-evidence/the-de-competition-revolution#comment-65 Kevin Chen Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:15:27 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=913#comment-65 Ha, good one! Guess what? You’re getting paid by a group of telecom companies to spew these made-up “facts.” Conflict of interest, no? http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/06/you-dont-want-isps-to-innovate/ Ha, good one! Guess what? You’re getting paid by a group of telecom companies to spew these made-up “facts.” Conflict of interest, no?

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/06/you-dont-want-isps-to-innovate/

]]> Comment on Apple’s Individualism vs. Google’s Collectivism by Xzibit http://www.netcompetition.org/antitrust/apples-individualism-vs-googles-collectivism#comment-62 Xzibit Fri, 05 Nov 2010 04:40:54 +0000 http://netcompetitionblog.org/?p=835#comment-62 Sup dawg, I heard you love traditional business so I put some traditional business up yo ass so you can do your traditional business while getting the traditional business from traditional business! Whaaaa?! Sup dawg, I heard you love traditional business so I put some traditional business up yo ass so you can do your traditional business while getting the traditional business from traditional business! Whaaaa?!

]]>