>
> So why are the interests of "consumers" more progressive
> than the interests of union workers?
They're are not, necessarily, but neither is the reverse necessarily true. See union support for Star Wars and ANWR.
> And by the way, I think the CWA position is in the
> interests of consumers as well, a position shared by a
> bunch of representatives of poor and rural districts who
> are less interested in the middle-class tech concerns of
> opponents and more in getting broadband deployment in
> the first place to their constituents.
Well I'm not poor, but I'm rural, and I will never have cable where I live (due to lack of density), and AFAICT, will never get DSL either as long as: a) ILEC's remain w/o competition, or b) DSL becomes a tariffed service.
> -Hah, hah -- yer a funny guy! The RBOC's have been driving
> -the CLEC's to bankruptcy with their monopolistic, foot
> -dragging on opening up their networks.
>
> No one knows what the hell that sentence means, unless
> they are embedded in the intermural corporate battles
> involved.
RBOC's have drug their feet opening up the last mile (access to the wires that actually go to your house) until they had built the infrastructure to provide their own DSL service. They did this because in spite of the legal fiction that they separate regulated and non-regulated services, the fact is they are sitting on shitloads of $$$$ they can build out networks with.
> And if the Baby Bell unionized workers have won out over
> the non-union financial speculator competitors, I say
> hurrah.
Financial speculator competitors? What kind of straw figure is this? You call people who build a network, install equipment, and provide service financial speculators?
BTW: SBC here in TX got hauled before PUC and got handed a class action lawsuit a year or two ago for selling consumers 384 kbps service and but delivering service rate-limited to 128. While refusing COVAD and Northpoint access to their lines.
-- no Onan
Undefeated, everybody goes home