Big Ed's Swan Song

[mschroed99]

This guy is a corrupt fn lier.

[TTUAirRaid]

Probably the best C.E.O. in America straight up.

[Vstrat0]

bash this guy all you want, he's one of America's economic drivers, a brilliant mind, a ruthlessly forceful ceo.

He didn't trash at&t he brought it into the next hundred years like a sledgehammer. It's easy for slimedragging slugs to bash the T but it's not easy to bash what it does or where its going.

If anyone can fix GM it will be "last penny in my company's pockets" Whitacre.

[DrBPhD]

GM doesn't deserve to be fixed.

[DrBPhD]

It's a lame duck.

[DAWCRC]

please see his video for gm called ( when car dealers attack ) ED is cheap car salemen no see the assault video on youtube showing assault on women and children ( fritz mike wayne )

[FloridaBiker]

Ed Whitacre is a low life. He knows his ad for GM is dishonest and he is scared to meet me on TV because I can prove GM does NOT honor its warranties.

I am going to dog you on the internet until you have the courage to meet a victim of your rich man stealing on TV you low life.

[nwtx3973]

He looks just like George W. Bush! And probably acts like him too.

[polerbear1000]

u can go 2 shove ur cash up ur dick bitch

[Delta0prative]

Greedy corporate bastards...

[whateverlolawants]

Oh c'mon, there is nothing like the Internet out there. It has revolutionized our culture. The Internet is not the same thing as an economic market, where terms like "communism" and "capitalist" apply.

[J7frodo]

the debate is about what restrictions the govenment can or should apply to internet service providers. The way I understand it, Net Neutrality is the principle which says that service providers should not discriminate between what sites will load fast, slow or not at all. For instance, if your provider is AT&T they could choose to block a site which may expose negative issues with the company...

[J7frodo]

Therefore the issue is over government interferance in business (the socialism vs. lassez-faire Capitalism debate) Though this is definately intertwined with freedom of speech issues.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Ultimately, the only way the free market can work is if the government stays out of business and business stays out of government. If you want to get to the root of all problems, that is where to focus. The government's only function should be the protection of individual rights. With that protection, a free market can thrive. Protection of individual rights does not mean regulation. It means upholding the idea that a man has a right to his own life, and no other man can impede that basic right.

[J7frodo]

you seem to be against government regulation of any kind. But what about regulations on quality of health care at HMOs or perhaps regulations against child labour? Can anyone reasonably contest ALL regulation? Our economy is not a truely free-market economy. There's plenty of government interferance to the benefit of business (cotton subsidies for instance)

[J7frodo]

Cotton subsidies by the way help rich US farmers and lower the cost of cotton enough that poor african farmers can't compete to make a living. The myth is that ours is a free-market economy. it's big business friendly (and screw whoever gets in the way)

[MiniAmericanFlag]

I am in favor of a tiered ISP service because it means the more I pay, the better service I receive. The more money the ISPs make, the better the Internet will become. Progress and innovation are impossible without money. Heed my words, if net neutrality legislation passes, the speed of ISPs will degrade or stagnate. Why would the ISPs care about offering quality service if they are controlled at the point of a gun?

[J7frodo]

It seems that we are working on different assumptions about the nature of Net Neutrality. the tiered service (toll-booths seem to be the analogy) isn't about a user paying more to his provider and getting faster service. The tiered service (as I understand it) is about the content of the service (google, you tube, blogs, etc) being tiered. That would mean that those internet companies would have to pay a toll for faster service (not the internet user)

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the medium you use to express yourself. You can still get out on the street and say whatever you want. In order to protect rights, you must start with the basic right to allow individuals to pursue happiness. Without a free market, the pursuit of happiness is not possible. Without that right, other rights mean nothing. The ISPs do not owe you a medium to express your ideas.

[J7frodo]

In our society, we are (technically) all equally free to express our opinions and to have our say. In the real world though, being heard is a matter of how much money you can pay. Net Neutrality seeks to protect your voice on the internet and keep it from becoming a matter of how much you can pay to be heard.

[dafunkmonster]

Communications Corporations are greedy. Period. Remember that really big one, the monopoly, that they split up a few years back? yea. case and point. The point here is that the government should be protecting individual citizens against these corporate monsters. Yes, a certain amount of laissez faire is necessary for capitalism to thrive, but for christ's sake, regulate these greedy f***ers. Preserve the internet for what it is.

[JiayoJames]

Basically what you are saying is that people should be punished for being successful.

[RuddODragonFear]

No, he's saying that corporations should be punished for being coercive and harming the consumer. People != corporations. Beoing successful != Harming the consumer.

Nothing new there, though it might come as a shock to you, ideologue.

[JiayoJames]

Oh, I see. I didn't know the ISP's were forcing people to use their service at gunpoint.

"People != corporations" Now, as far as I can see, this keeps coming up in one form or another. Corporations are run by people; people who should have the right to run their business freely. When you regulate the freedom of a corporation, you are infringing on the rights of *people*.

[RuddODragonFear]

1. Circumstances FORCE you to use an ISP. Any of them.

2. ISPs are colluding to erect tollbooths. All of them.

So, technically, no one is forcing anyone, but it's the same as if we were.

People shouldn't have the right to run their businesses as freely and irresponsibly as you advocate, shill. Homeowners don't have the right to erect a tollbooth on public streets. Why should ISPs be afforded that right?

[J7frodo]

interesting point. Of course you one could make the same argument that businesses should be 'free' to serve whichever customers they choose (for example to Not serve African Americans). Would that be right? Should everyone be free to do Anything they like?

[J7frodo]

Don't even go on about laisses-faire capitalism. Laws exist to restrain people for a reason. As our good friend pointed out, corporations and markets are people too.

Humanity is capable of making the world a living hell. The most dangerous forces on earth are greed and power.

I'm not saying that businessmen are evil - they're just people. Laws protect consumers and workers from abuses of power which arrise when any person gets a bit too much of it. Unrestrained power is dangerous.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Unrestrained power is only dangerous if it uses force to gain power. Corporations don't force people to use the Internet. You have a choice to use the Internet or not. The Internet is not a free public resource either, and all of the Net Neutrality supporters seem to think it is. And to answer your other question: "Should everyone be free to do Anything they like?" Yes, as long as they don't initiate force on anyone.

[J7frodo]

So what you are saying is that if I don't physically force you to use the internet then you are not actually being forced to use it?

If I'm being robbed I have the choice to not pay and get my brains blown out if I want to. I have a choice. I could hand over the money and keep my life.

[J7frodo]

The problem with monopolies is that they effectively create the same kind of choice even though they do not have to resort to force. Of course if I want to be effective in my work, I litterally am forced to use the internet or else become irrelivant.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

The problem with regulation is that they effectively create the same kind of choice because they are forced to do so. You are not forced to use the Internet. If you think you are, you need to get outside. I will not address your other arguments because they stem from the same poorly thought out irrational idea: You feel that businesses owe you a place to express your ideas. They do not owe you anything.

[J7frodo]

It's not that they owe me a place to express my ideas. They do and it benefits us all. I am exposed to advertising when I use google and am more likely to buy whatever. Google gets paid and provides customers to the advertisers.

The problem here is that if I prefer to use some other site but because ISP's are charging more (and that company can't pay more) for better service, then my experience suffers. (not to mention the problem with direct discrimination against rivals)

[dcgrrl321]

They don't owe us? Are you suggesting that business owns the internet? Business didn't create the internet and they damn sure don't own it. Our tax dollars created the internet. So you're damn skippy that they owe me and everyone else access to whatever the hell we want to get to on the internet-- UNFETTERED by their interest in making more money and controlling my access to information that they'd prefer I not see!

[J7frodo]

It's really a question of what kind of society we want to make for ourselves. Do we want a society where maximization of profit is the highest concern at the expence of freedom of speach?

I thought that freedom and the ability of every man to persue happiness was the ideal of the USA, but maybe it's just greed...

[J7frodo]

The internet just so happens to have to cross wires owned by certain companies. the interent is what we make of it, but if it comes to those companies being allowed to decide who gets better access according to however much they can pay, this will push out the majority. the same thing that has happened in TV. How many normal people get a voice on TV or radio? the internet could go the same way and become a home shopping tool.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Tell the FCC to protect the Internet's level playing field!? LOL! The FCC?? The same government organization that REGULATES free speech on radio/TV airwaves!? I just realized how low you are all willing to go now... Wow, this is a new spin.

[RuddODragonFear]

And I certainly hope this Whitacre goes the way of Jack Valenti soon.

[RuddODragonFear]

Fact is, I don't care if regulation is the way to protect Net neutrality, but we must protect it at whatever cost. Whatever. If regulation is a particularly inefficient way, then let's look for another, but in the meantime let's regulate the hell out of these asshats.

[JiayoJames]

No. Freedom is more important than neutral bandwidth allocation.

[RuddODragonFear]

Preservation of freedom for the populace through neutral bandwidth allocation is more important to society than telcos' freedom.

1974. That was the year that government intervened on AT&T. Thanks to that intervention, we finally got the right to use modems on phone lines. And that govt. intervention was exactly what spurred the data bandwidth revolution.

Learn your history, ideologue.

[RuddODragonFear]

What anti-Net neutrality advocates have as a secret agenda is simply "fork over the cash, or we'll slow you down and your competitors get the expressway" -- no more, no less. They want to enact artificial inefficiencies to extract more monopoly rent -- like a highway builder purposefully laying metal shards on certain lanes of the expressway, then charging you for fixing your tires and the use of another lane.

[JiayoJames]

Then don't use their road.

[RuddODragonFear]

I wish you had executed your own suggestion so as not to see your comment, ideologue.

[fernacular]

anyone who tells you in a political/economic context that something ALWAYS works, or NEVER works, is an obvious ideologue and should be disregarded.

fyi

[JiayoJames]

o rly? Would you like to back that statement up?

[RuddODragonFear]

He's not necessarily right. Thing is, people like you could be either:

- ideologues, or

- paid shills

So fernacular stands a chance of being 50% right.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

What's wrong with holding an ideal? Seems like Net Neutrality are ideologues as well, as they think the Internet should be free... at any cost! And I am paid to have this view, but not by AT&T. I am paid by my ideals. I am a successful capitalist and a proud supporter of the ideals that lead to capitalism.

[RuddODragonFear]

The difference between your ideal and mine is that yours aims to further control of an oligopoly, and diminish general populace freedom, and my ideal is to empower the general populace.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

You know nothing about my ideals, so stop assuming. There is no room in my ideals to diminish the freedom of anyone. I can almost guarantee you that your next reply will be laced with logical fallacies, so don't bother replying. I am done arguing with you.

[RuddODragonFear]

Your ideal is economic freedom, as you stated it yourself. Your ideal is directly responsible for creation of artificial scarcity that serves the few and breaks the legs of the many. In effect, by purposefully proselytizing a "non-intervention" policy, people like you are letting others diminish our freedom. If you insist on turning a blind eye to that, I'll have no choice but to think you're doing it on purpose for personal gain -- I'd rather think that than think you're stupid.

[RuddODragonFear]

Your ideal is economic freedom, as you stated it yourself. Your ideal is directly responsible for creation of artificial scarcity that serves the few and breaks the legs of the many. In effect, by purposefully proselytizing a "non-intervention" policy, people like you are letting others diminish our freedom. If you insist on turning a blind eye to that, I'll have no choice but to think you're doing it on purpose for personal gain -- I'd rather think that than think you're stupid.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

You also have a 100% chance of using logical fallacies when arguing. Haha.

[lobsterdust]

deregulation is great, I mean just look at how Enron handled the de-regulated energy market, everyone wins!

[joconor]

Deregulation is the path that has been pursued, and the current status shows that it is not beneficial to the consumer. Deregulation has allowed the smaller companies to re-form into a new monopoly through mergers and acquisitions. The barrier to entry in communications services is so high, smaller companies cannot enter the market. This has destroyed any concept of an open market in the communications industry. How do you create a market where a monopoly exists? (hint: it requires regulation).

[MiniAmericanFlag]

No. Watch "Commanding Heights". It's an informative documentary on how the economy works. Regulation NEVER works.

[RuddODragonFear]

It does, when it's well done, and you're a wrong ideologue again.

I just need to posit one example to prove your hypothesis wrong, and I will. 1974 marks the year when the U.S. govt. regulated the control that AT&T had over its own phone lines, creating an explosive market for data transmission services using modems.

At least it worked there.

[joconor]

Ideally, the market *would* take care of this. The problem is, the 'market' doesn't exist. When one or two entities (e.g., phone company, cable company) constitute the 'market', there is no market. You need competition for a 'market' to exist, and competition doesn't exist. Lacking true competition (and therefore an open market), regulation is needed.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

p.s. I don't like AT&t either, but the answer is not more regulation. The answer is consumer action such as boycotts or simply exposure of issues like this. I am sick of people getting on socialist bandwagons like this in the name of freedom. Stop asking for the government for solutions, because they are not good at solving problems.

[RuddODragonFear]

Net neutrality is not socialism. Net neutrality is "every Web site delivered at the same speed". It's been like that for almost forty years now, and it's a basic infrastructural tenet of the internet. How is that "socialism"?

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Control of the free market is rooted in socialism. If you control the ISPs you are just begging for a degradation of service. Net Neutrality is NOT a freedom movement, it is socialist.  Do the research on your own. I am done arguing here. I have said what I wanted to.

[RuddODragonFear]

I'm sorry, but pit "every Web site delivered at the same speed" against "fork the cash or we'll slow *you* down", and the first one wins. People's rights must trump economic interests, every time.

Telcos want to extract more monopoly rents from an already stagnant market, and you're waiving the hollow threat of "degradation of service". How the fuck is the service gonna get any more degraded than now? Oh, yeah, I remember: when they PURPOSEFULLY degrade it so you fork over the extra cash.

[RuddODragonFear]

Oh, and let me defuse your initial argument:

Control of the free market is not rooted on socialism. Throughout the history and several economic systems, even before the invention of socialism and democracy, there's been controls on what free market can do. Socialism only coopted that mechanism, but it's by no means exclusive to socialism.

Relearn your logic and economy textbooks, dude, you're just a paranoid armchair economist talking out of your ass.

[UTBESUX]

CANCEL any A&T account you have. SEE my AT&T is spying on you clip. Enough of these greedy corporations. Look no further than the gas prices which will be going higer very soon. We have to start fighting these greedy fucks!

[merrittstewart]

great ad!

[knave2]

Who's gonna win American Idol. Anyone ?

[thomaspaine1809]

What a shame that only 202 people have viewed this. I guess when it doesn't have a pair of tits or ass in the video, nobody wants to watch. Some of these stupid videos that are loaded on here get millions of views, and yet this hardly has any. Everyone who does watch this needs to sign the petition at save the internet dot com.

[summitoaks]

fuck the phone company. dump at&t join me as a former bell south customer. dump the pigs

[connellystewart]

awesome video -- somebody put a lot of work into this!

[dgtubing]

Save the iternet. Support net neutrality. It's an issue of freedom.

[JiayoJames]

Yes, it is an issue of freedom. Any advocate of freedom will oppose coercive government regulation. That is, they will oppose forced net neutrality.

[dgtubing]

Remember this is a government For The People, not for the corporations. They're not people. their only motives are profits. Corporations exist to serve OUR interests by the rights we give them. They didn't create the internet and they don't have the right to create a situation where they create a false demand for increased profits. Remember that we live in a Democracy, not simply a system based on capital. It's our duty to regulate commerce -- this is not a new thing.

[dgtubing]

The internet is OURS not theirs. They should be glad they have the opportunity to innovate, make money and provide internet services. There's no reason the should have the 'freedom' as you say to create a false demand for profits. If they invent something, they're welcome to the profits from it. Too much of the profits in our country are based on corporate consolidation and limiting our choices rather than innovation and services.

[darnoriginalnames]

Wow. They have really gone down hill from the stuff they put out last year.

[ebunn1]

oh no