GAWire is delusional enough to think the General Assembly actually did something this session, so, that says a lot.

1) Send me your real name and/or the lobbying firm you represent, and I will consult both the State of Georgia lobbyist registration file, as well as the federal file to see if you are telling the truth.

2) That point aside, while it may be true that no one has a “right” to use the Internet, the fact is ALSO true that a company (or, a consortium of companies) does not have the right to takeover the Internet and carve-out special access and sell those to one group of people (e.g., the ones who can afford to pay for that) while degrading the service of other users.

That is why they hate the concept of “Net Neutrality.” They view the Internet as a land yet to be strip-mined of all valuable resources.

Of course, YOU might think that is perfectly okay…and, of course, you probably agree with China stuffing plastic pellets into dog food and toothpaste to make-up for the lack of volume of quality ingredients.

After all, it is FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, isn’t it? No one has a “right” to eat prepared food that won’t kill them or make their animals sick, do they? I don’t see that right in the US Constitution anywhere.

Under your thinking, everyone should be subject to the risks and windfalls of the “free enterprise system” with no controls or boundaries restricting them.

If you are are not a lobbyist for AT&T, I suggest you go get a job as one for them. You’re callous enough about life that you would gladly work for money to allow one corporation (that once, coincidentally enough, had built-up a similar lock on long-distance phone service) to rape and pillage the Internet in order to maximize their profits in the short run, all the while screwing-up what is a well-run system where everyone contributes to its success.

Yes, if I were you, Wire, I would continue to operate in anonymity.

And I understand how frustrated you must get when they voice their “idiotic” opinions. (Who do they think they are making you, you, of all people, listen to them?).

Look at one of your first few comments for an example of you belittling a voter. And your condescending tone replete this thread (and many others) is evidence enough of you talking down to “the people”.

Seriously, there’s a music industry blogger named Bobby Lefsatz who c0uld likely answer a lot of these unknown economics questions you’re presenting:
http://www.lefsetz.com/wordpress/

And who better to get all in a frenzy about rights, perceived or otherwise, than the audience at a Pearl Jam concert? Economics, freakanomics, yadayadayada…

That’s more of a ratings discussion too. If the market said that the market doesn’t want to hear Pearl Jam bash W, then wouldn’t shutting him up be the smart thing to do, strategically speaking?

If the market says they want Hannity to rant, rave, foam, etc (for whatever reason), then shouldn’t they do the thing that brings most value to shareholders and let him go on?

Remember, it’s economics driving this issue … not your perceived right to watch what you want.

Excellent arguement point, and if I was a real journalist who got a real paycheck and not just another hack blogger, I’d call up Hannity and ask him if he:
a.) broadcast his Freedom concerts over the Internet?
b.) who was the ISP if so?
c.) did they shut him down when he went all “political?”

This is a job for someone with some actual resources, but if anyone has a “real” (non-published in other words) number for Mr. Hannity, or his concert production crew, I’d love to ask him a few questions about this very issue.

You actually do have a right, but it isn’t the right to watch whatever you want on the internet when someone else is bringing the coverage to you. Your only rights are to either 1) leave the company as a customer; 2) sell ownership as a shareholder; or, 3) start an alternative.

I conceded to Spacey’s point of being a shareholder and leaving – that’s her right and she took action. But blogging about how it is unethical or unresponsible for a company to sensor footage of some concert which they have full rights to do is absurd.

And if you make valid arguments, I won’t belittle you, although I don’t think I’m belittling anyone. For once, I’d love it if voters would quit complaining about EVERYTHING! Why don’t you actually DO something or at least put forth an alternative?

And again, the idea of going out and starting a new company as an alternative is a cornerstone of our free market economy. It might sound extreme and difficult for little rugby to start a telecom company and granted, it wouldn’t be easy, but you have the right to do it (see the rights I listed above). Just b/c it might be difficult doesn’t mean it ain’t an option! My statement which you think is “stupid” (great argument by the way) may sound a little unrealistic and oversimplified to a young college grad sans applied experience, but the main point I’m trying to get across is that it IS an option, and it is done all the time, everyday, day in/day out.

You were incredulous at Spacey’s frustration over what she felt was censorship (I wonder though, if she would be as critical if the censorship was applied to a political foe) by AT&T and said all she had to do was create her own company or move.

Neither one is easy, that’s my point. It is stupid to suggest that one can just start their own company, especially one that requires millions to start up.

Statements like this: “if you don

I guess my main argument, which I still believe is looking from a global, 30,000 foot view of the market, if you will. Of course when I say that anyone can go out and start another company if they don’t like at&t, I am speaking from more of a theoretical viewpoint, b/c the reality of that being successful is limited. Still, people have every right to try and they have no right to succeed, nor should the gov’t hold their hand to make sure they can succeed.

I will say however that I’m not sure the Worldcom example is a good one. MCI/Worldcom made acquisitions and were becoming a powerhouse competing with the big ones. Clearly, though, they were doing it illegally, to the point where the shareholders sued mgmt and/or sold the ownership for whatever little amount the shares were worth. It wasn’t anyone’s fault except those directly involved. It is however a perfect example of the market humbling players when inbalance occurs, inbalance in this case being breaking the rules of the market.

There is no free market in communications (or very very little). Remember what happened to the last big challenger to the Ma, baby and cousin bells… Worldcom/MCI. Once they started competing everyone (in the industry … the bells) knew there had to be something illegal going on. In order to have scaled the hurdles of government regulations and licensing requirement, one has to have cheated.
Regulations and licensing requirements are always sold to the public as for their benefit. When in fact the biggest benefactor are those already in business. Resulting in less competition. The industries where this protectionist behavior is practiced is easily recognizable. It is where the product or service prices never go down. Auto, communications, insurance and real estate sales to name a few. Keep in mind I’m not saying that there is no competition in some of these areas. All I’m saying is that it has been very much limited by government involvement.

The point of my original argument is that I get tired of people complaining about something they have no right to. No one has a right to the internet [CORRECTION: no one has a right to the internet that is provided by at&t, or any other company. This is a service provided under circamstances and managed by the company, in this case at&t]. That broadcast was made available b/c those that have the infrastructure in place to bring it to you made it available. Thus, if they want to cut it, they can. If shareholders do not like it, then they will pay a price (i.e., PR spin afterwards), as they will if the market doesn’t approve and decides to do something about it.

Again, if you’re a shareholder and you do not approve, you have a right to depart yourself.

If you are like most people and are simply a component of the larger market (i.e., customer), then you also have a lot of power – you can go to another provider.

And just because they are the only provider in your neighborhood or because Comcast sucks does not in any mean that at&t monopolizes the market (in fact, it means they have done their duty to shareholders). Again, the FCC and more importantly, the SEC – both government regulating bodies – both agree.

Finally, for the more extreme (but still realistic) response, if you really want to do something, you can always provide an alternative yourself (i.e., start or purchase your own company). This may not sound realistic, but it is one of the cornerstones of our free market economy and it happens a thousand times a day.

Again, the market will balance things out. But remember, you do not have a RIGHT to watch whatever you want. Just like you don’t have a RIGHT to get healthcare anywhere you want (but that’s another debate for another day).

And in all seriousness, economics is what drives the issue. It always does.