[jlsparks]

^^ You must not get out much, or associate with those of different political/socio-economic classes from yourself if, truly, in 6 decades you haven't met a liberal who was an "intelligent soul." LBJ? Nah, must be a commie. JFK? Crazy moon-seeking liberal. He was probably just trying to find more Catholics up there to support his wacky civil rights agenda. I won't go on.

I'm not so conceited as to believe that there *might* be someone right-of-center who is an "intelligent soul." It's too bad that you're so locked into your positions that you can't see the other side, or that the "other side" might have a clue what they're talking about. And I'll note that your prior arguments regarding the constitutionality of regulatory agencies seem to have stopped. Perhaps in the face of the facts? Facts have a way of doing that to illogical argument.

EDIT: BTW, we tried that whole no regulation scheme during the last Administration. Remind me again how well that's worked out?

[TwinsX2Dad]

^^ You must not get out much, or associate with those of different political/socio-economic classes from yourself if, truly, in 6 decades you haven't met a liberal who was an "intelligent soul." LBJ? Nah, must be a commie. JFK? Crazy moon-seeking liberal. He was probably just trying to find more Catholics up there to support his wacky civil rights agenda. I won't go on.

I'm not so conceited as to believe that there *might* be someone right-of-center who is an "intelligent soul." It's too bad that you're so locked into your positions that you can't see the other side, or that the "other side" might have a clue what they're talking about. And I'll note that your prior arguments regarding the constitutionality of regulatory agencies seem to have stopped. Perhaps in the face of the facts? Facts have a way of doing that to illogical argument.

You are really stretching it there - typical for your kind. Not only have you not understood that the FCC is not a commerce regulating authority, you seem to think that all Democrats are liberals. JFK was not a fiscal liberal - he was a fiscal conservative. From that point forward, you should just shut up - because you're obviously clueless & here only to start trouble, whine, cry & call names.

[hal1]

Hey, jlspark, it appears that Twinsx2dad is speaking form his emotions, and the "knowledge" he has gained listening to talk radio. While I may or may not agree with you (I do), your points seem to come more from real education and thought, not the way others regurgitate Glenn Beck's prose.

Also, notice how those desperate in an argument have to keep thowing out the insults. Can you count the number of time he uses the words leftist and communist. Oh, and I'm sure he'd like to point out my typo's and incorrect grammar

[jlsparks]

Hey, jlspark, it appears that Twinsx2dad is speaking form his emotions, and the "knowledge" he has gained listening to talk radio. While I may or may not agree with you (I do), your points seem to come more from real education and thought, not the way others regurgitate Glenn Beck's prose.

Which is unfortunate. It's a shame to seem him resort to insults but, as we know, that's what happens when many folks are challenged. In any event, it's most unfortunate because I'll be the first to admit that, in many regards, Twins has exponentially more technological and comparative knowledge regarding USA-based cell carriers than I have. I'm sure his technical prowess reaches beyond that realm as well. I've read with a great deal of interest many of his thoughtful threads and posts, most recently his careful analysis and comparison of Sprint Nextel Corp's service (and costs) as compared to VZW's. I'll chalk it up to him having a bad day.

[jlsparks]

You are really stretching it there - typical for your kind. Not only have you not understood that the FCC is not a commerce regulating authority, you seem to think that all Democrats are liberals. JFK was not a fiscal liberal - he was a fiscal conservative. From that point forward, you should just shut up - because you're obviously clueless & here only to start trouble, whine, cry & call names.

That wasn't my point. But this is getting old:

The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It is an important factor in U.S. telecommunication policy. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. Due however to close geographic proximity to the United States, the FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC has a 2009 proposed budget of $466 million which is funded by $1 million in taxpayer appropriations and the rest in regulatory fees. It has 1,899 "full-time equivalent" federal employees.[2]

Are you done yet?

[TwinsX2Dad]

Hey, jlspark, it appears that Twinsx2dad is speaking form his emotions, and the "knowledge" he has gained listening to talk radio. While I may or may not agree with you (I do), your points seem to come more from real education and thought, not the way others regurgitate Glenn Beck's prose.

Also, notice how those desperate in an argument have to keep thowing out the insults. Can you count the number of time he uses the words leftist and communist. Oh, and I'm sure he'd like to point out my typo's and incorrect grammar

Sorry. but I don't watch TV news, so no Glenn Beck there. And the local station that carries Beck is off limits for other reasons. Not to mention the fact that while I don't really like Mr. Beck, he is far smarter than either of you.

Care to show some intelligence in your writing or is mud-slinging ad-hominems based on ill-advised assumptions the best you can do?

[TwinsX2Dad]

That wasn't my point. But this is getting old:


Are you done yet?

You still haven't pointed out where they have jurisdiction to regulate the revenues, charges or finances...

You really shouldn't leave your job flipping burgers, because you really don't have a grasp as to who is responsible for what. In the end, if there is anything done, it would be DoJ & not FCC.

[TheScionicMan]

Seems like this would be more of a job for the FTC, not the FCC.

[jlsparks]

You still haven't pointed out where they have jurisdiction to regulate the revenues, charges or finances...

You really shouldn't leave your job flipping burgers, because you really don't have a grasp as to who is responsible for what. In the end, if there is anything done, it would be DoJ & not FCC.

Then allow me to do so through merely one example here :

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



FACT SHEET


October 1995

CABLE TELEVISION FACT SHEET

THE CONSUMER'S R OLE IN RATE REGULATION



Q: Does the Commission regulate all cable television rates?

A: No. This authority is shared between the Commission and your local franchising
authority, which is the local city, county, or other government organization that granted the
cable operator the right to provide cable service to your community. The name of your local
franchising authority should be on your cable bill. If it is not, contact your cable company
or your local government.

Q: What do local franchising authorities regulate?

A: In most instances, your local franchising authority is responsible for regulating:

Rates for basic cable service, equipment used to receive basic cable service, and
installation and service charges related to basic cable service. The term "basic cable service"
refers to the lowest level of cable service you can buy, and is the program package that
includes signals from local television stations (such as ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliates;
educational stations; and independent television stations) and public, educational and
governmental access channels. Your cable system may use other terms to describe this
service.

Customer service--for instance, complaints about bills, a cable system's response to
inquiries about signal quality, and a cable system's response to service requests.

Franchise fees--the fees paid by the cable system to the franchising authority for the right
to offer cable service.

You should contact your local franchising authority, and not the FCC, with complaints
regarding rates for basic cable service, customer service and franchise fees.

Q: What cable rates does the FCC regulate?

A: The FCC regulates the rates you pay for certain programming that the FCC refers to as
"cable programming service." "Cable programming service" includes all program channels
on your cable system that are not included in basic service and are not separately offered as
pay-per-channel programming or pay-per-program services.

The FCC also regulates rates for equipment used solely to receive cable programming
service, as well as installation and service charges related solely to cable programming
service. However, since most equipment used to receive cable programming service is also
used to receive basic service, equipment complaints should generally be directed to your
local franchising authority.

[jlsparks]

And, in closing, from June 2008, before the lefty commie pinkos took over:

AT&T: termination fees ultimately a great deal for consumers

[strunke]

Do not get me started on how wrong you are Sparks and Hal about the history of liberalism and the modern "liberals".

But for the sake of this thread I will not delve into that. Because it never ends well. Regulation can actually hurt the consumer. If anyone here has taken economics and actually had a decent teacher then you would know the dynamics of this. However, some regulation is necessary. The problem is, excessive regulation. Which is yes the road we are heading down as a republic currently. The only good thing is, we are still a republic, and that these can all change back. Twins has a very valid point. You and Hal are spouting partisan talking points while insulting with personal attacks and it's quite pathetic. Twins is attacking an ideology, and is obviously frustrated about it and has every right to be. I think you all could get a lot further in this conversation if we discuss the topic at hand. Because trust me I can "spit-it" as my brothers call it, just as well as anyone here, but it would ultimately end in a useless but albeit humorus thread. I think it's time to start debating the merits of the point twins is making instead of name calling and projecting both of your own frustrations and personal feelings into the argument. I happen to agree that the FCC is completly wayinh time here. The etf is a little excessive yes. But it is fully disclosed and private businesses and corporations have a right to defend themselves from loss and what not just as an individual has that right. That is what is so often lost in the debates about corporations in America today. You name it, big oil, big telco, big and small whatever. They have a right to make money just as you and I do. Anyway......

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[larrygump]

I really cant say im suprised this forum supports the corporate greed and wont side with the little guy.....haha.....were all you crying about govt regulation when mortgage backed securities failed due to "de regulation?........lack of oversight leads to what we have today.....corporations like vzw run amok.....no matter we the majority spoke and we have who we want in office now....and we will continue to bombard the fcc with demands that corporations like vzw who are enemy's to free market and who have nothing but contempt for the consumer are continued to be investigated and held accountable for their shady business practices......we already won the arbitration fight.......i look forward to vzw being spanked again........oh and I am HAPPY to report that my family and our 5+ lines did leave VZW months ago.....

to those of you crying about the U.S becoming socialist......you need to educate yourselves.......the U.S. is headed for libertarianism....but we have govt for exactly this reason.....to prevent powerful corporation from abusing a consumer base that has 4-6 service provider choices......this is exactly hat the govts. job is.......investigate,question look into whatever you want to call it ...i call it corruption and anti trust........and to leverage punitive action if the corporation is acting in bad faith.......Ill agree consumers "SHOULD" decide.....but when theres limited choices the govt has a duty to protect its citizens from predatory business practices......so go get em FCC.......spank VZW just like the NY attorney general did......make em pay....make em play fair !!!!!

[Terry K]

<snips all the political crap>

The issue with VZW doubling smartphone termination fees is to make it HARDER to go to Sprint, ATT or T-Mo. (Namely ATT for the Iphone)

In the Cell Phone business, if one carrier does it the other 3 usually follow. I really don't want to see Sprint, ATT & T-Mo adopt this crap. The fact is Verizon is doubling its ETF based on device, and this is downright scary.

Let me ask another theoretical question: When we get a year or more into our cell contracts, how much is that phone really worth!? Now, Iphones we know keep their value, but let's talk Blackberry. 8330m units will be practically worthless in a year after the 8530 officially launches. Same for the Tour when the Essex comes out.

In Verizon's world those phones still hold their value and I don't necessarily agree with that. I buy a cell phone with the expectation that in 2 years its going to be outdated if not a year. Let's also think about the cost of a phone...phone costs DROP based on how long they're on the market (Except for some reason the you-know-what)

One *reasonable* solution is either waive the ETF or greatly discount it if you return the phone to the carrier if you cancel early. That would stop the scammers, and also provide reconditioned models for insurance claims or replacement phones.

[larrygump]

twins im gonna have to agree with jl sparks....i hold a fcc license albeit just a standard one.......its always been common knowledge that the fcc is the policy and decision maker with regards to any entity using spectrum and DoJ was the enforcer.......moreover the FCC's decision to fine someone or something is absolute.......

[larrygump]

You know, VZW could avoid this by simply abandoning their contract rates altogether and sell devices at retail and month to .month...no etf...no worries...

Wouldn't phase me in the least.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

now thats what im talking about.....but gasp.......vzw lose the stranglehold currently held on its subscriber base?.......never!!!

lmao

[jlsparks]

now thats what im talking about.....but gasp.......vzw lose the stranglehold currently held on its subscriber base?.......never!!!

lmao

What stranglehold? The fact that they have 2X more lines than their closest competitor doesn't mean they have a stranglehold. Last I checked the other major carriers have the same *basic* key term and condition as VZW: 2 yr (give or take) contract commitments. Consumers have choices. The fact that 89M or so of them choose VZW doesn't mean that VZW has been gifted anything by anyone... they earned their base through solid service, smart acquisitions, and more smart acquisitions :P

[jlsparks]

<snips all the political crap>

The issue with VZW doubling smartphone termination fees is to make it HARDER to go to Sprint, ATT or T-Mo. (Namely ATT for the Iphone)

In the Cell Phone business, if one carrier does it the other 3 usually follow. I really don't want to see Sprint, ATT & T-Mo adopt this crap. The fact is Verizon is doubling its ETF based on device, and this is downright scary.

Let me ask another theoretical question: When we get a year or more into our cell contracts, how much is that phone really worth!? Now, Iphones we know keep their value, but let's talk Blackberry. 8330m units will be practically worthless in a year after the 8530 officially launches. Same for the Tour when the Essex comes out.

In Verizon's world those phones still hold their value and I don't necessarily agree with that. I buy a cell phone with the expectation that in 2 years its going to be outdated if not a year. Let's also think about the cost of a phone...phone costs DROP based on how long they're on the market (Except for some reason the you-know-what)

One *reasonable* solution is either waive the ETF or greatly discount it if you return the phone to the carrier if you cancel early. That would stop the scammers, and also provide reconditioned models for insurance claims or replacement phones.

But see the point is that VZW made it explicitly clear that they weren't just arbitrarily raising the ETF. They did so after a specific date, which was well-publicized. If a customer didn't like getting roped into a higher rate all they had to do was go to a different carrier or sign a 2 yr before the conversion date. If they didn't do either of those simple things then they deserve to pay the higher ETF if they don't fulfill the contract they signed, if contracts are to have any meaning.

[jlsparks]

Do not get me started on how wrong you are Sparks and Hal about the history of liberalism and the modern "liberals".

But for the sake of this thread I will not delve into that. Because it never ends well. Regulation can actually hurt the consumer. If anyone here has taken economics and actually had a decent teacher then you would know the dynamics of this. However, some regulation is necessary. The problem is, excessive regulation. Which is yes the road we are heading down as a republic currently. The only good thing is, we are still a republic, and that these can all change back. Twins has a very valid point. You and Hal are spouting partisan talking points while insulting with personal attacks and it's quite pathetic. Twins is attacking an ideology, and is obviously frustrated about it and has every right to be. I think you all could get a lot further in this conversation if we discuss the topic at hand. Because trust me I can "spit-it" as my brothers call it, just as well as anyone here, but it would ultimately end in a useless but albeit humorus thread. I think it's time to start debating the merits of the point twins is making instead of name calling and projecting both of your own frustrations and personal feelings into the argument. I happen to agree that the FCC is completly wayinh time here. The etf is a little excessive yes. But it is fully disclosed and private businesses and corporations have a right to defend themselves from loss and what not just as an individual has that right. That is what is so often lost in the debates about corporations in America today. You name it, big oil, big telco, big and small whatever. They have a right to make money just as you and I do. Anyway......

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

With all due respect, I'm impressed you banged that out on your phone... kudos!

I'm not the one projecting frustrations (to the extent they aren't caused by Twins blinders), nor am I spewing insults. If you'll read the entire thread you'll see that Twins joined in with a rampage that was all over the board, but from what I gathered, aimed to lay the blame for the ETF at the "socialist" "left-wing" "liberal" "commie" FCC. How's that for getting things started? Further, he inaccurately first stated that the FCC granted with regulatory authorities under the Constitution, which as you know they plainly are. When faced with clear and convincing evidence of his inaccuracy he persisted with the whole left-wing blah blah blah stuff, to which I simply pointed out that the ETF discussion started with the FCC (at least publicly, at least as early as mid-2008). In an attempt to lighten things up I pointed out that this was before the lefty commie pinkos took over the FCC. Again, when faced with fact Twins resorted to insults, including my favorite about returning to flipping burgers... that was worth a chuckle.

More substantively, I completely agree with you that there's a fine line between too much and too little regulation. We have an economist's, and Constitutional law professor's, dream example of what happens when regulations become too lax (eg: financial services over the past few years.) Hopefully we won't see a swing of the pendulum too far the other way, though history tells us that that is what we should expect.

[tsguy52]

Bottom line is the fact that the FCC is wasting time and money looking into this matter.

You cannot compare the financial fallout to VZW simply increasing fees - they have absolutely nothing to do with one another. So why bring it up?

I don't mind the government keeping companies check in regards to the scams that go on everyday, but don't question free market practices when they don't have a clue as to how a business is operated. Asking questions that are readily available - really?

I don't mind the FCC *looking into* the way VZW makes the information available, but why bring up NY Times and blogs? How unprofessional and lame? Then ask why VZW can justify it when there is still an ETF left over after 23 months. What sense does that make? If an ETF was to run out after a period of time based on the subsidized price, then you wouldn't be signing 2 year contracts each and every time. Maybe they don't understand the concept of a contract and penalties for breaking that contract?

Ultimately the consumers will make the choice like they should - hopefully as adults. VZW does not have a monopoly on the wireless industry and people can go elsewhere. There are checks in place to make sure these companies do not monopolize the industry (Alltel divested anyone?).

[larrygump]

What stranglehold? The fact that they have 2X more lines than their closest competitor doesn't mean they have a stranglehold. Last I checked the other major carriers have the same *basic* key term and condition as VZW: 2 yr (give or take) contract commitments. Consumers have choices. The fact that 89M or so of them choose VZW doesn't mean that VZW has been gifted anything by anyone... they earned their base through solid service, smart acquisitions, and more smart acquisitions :P

No actually TMO seems to be the pioneer with their new EM+ plans where you get device of your choice at retail spread over 20 months......

stranglehold meaning locked into contracts.....don't play word games pal....you know good and well i was replying to a quoted post......and the discussion was the entire industry doing away with contracts......oh and those acquisitions.....alltel in particular.....im hearing lots of unhappy alltel folks talking about moving in the next 12 months.....say bye bye vzw to low churn

[tsguy52]

But see the point is that VZW made it explicitly clear that they weren't just arbitrarily raising the ETF. They did so after a specific date, which was well-publicized. If a customer didn't like getting roped into a higher rate all they had to do was go to a different carrier or sign a 2 yr before the conversion date. If they didn't do either of those simple things then they deserve to pay the higher ETF if they don't fulfill the contract they signed, if contracts are to have any meaning.

I agree with this and this is where I was going with my point about socialism - although a bit of an extreme example.

When the government has to question simple business practices because adults cannot seem to make correct decisions that's a problem. Especially when there are other choices available.

[jlsparks]

I agree with this and this is where I was going with my point about socialism - although a bit of an extreme example.

When the government has to question simple business practices because adults cannot seem to make correct decisions that's a problem. Especially when there are other choices available.

I understand where you're coming from, and can't disagree with you 100%. Where I do respectfully take issue is when people try to turn the ETF debate into another unfounded accusation against this administration, in spite of the fact that - as I've mentioned in a few posts (including a link to a 6/08 article about it), the FCC started looking at this long before the current administration was elected with 54% of the popular vote (OK sorry, that was gratuitous :P )

[Branta]

Party politics has no place in this discussion. On Topic please, or the thread closes.

Remember the origin of politics

"Poly" - (greek) Many
"Tick" - a blood sucking parasite.

And FTC and FCC are not government, just another load of uncontrolled burrocrap. At least I *think* thats how you spell it...

[jlsparks]

You may as well close it then, since Twins is incapable of attempting to make a point without including a snippy partisan comment. The loss of this thread would probably be a good thing for CB anyway.

And the fact that they're regulatory agencies doesn't make them non-governmental. They are empowered by Congress and accountable to Congress through routine in-person reporting to the appropriate oversight committees in Congress, and their members are appointed by whichever President is in office. So they're hardly apolitical or non-governmental.

[bucky716]

I'm sure the other carriers have wanted to do something like this but don't have the ball$ that VZW does to actually make it happen.. just like a lot of other changes carriers have made after VZW did.

Like others have said, this did not effect anyone already under contract, just people who had to agree to a new one. You agreed, deal with it.

I agreed to a high interest rate on a credit card so I could buy a new TV, i can't call and cancel and expect to get out of paying the balance which is essentially what people try and do with cell phones.