Slashdot Mirror


Why Everyone Should Hate Cellphone Carriers

The Byelorrusian Spamtrap writes "Wired Magazine's made its position clear on the state of play in America's cellular industry, delivering a long, satisfying screed on why all of us should stop complaining and do something about it. 'They own politicians - Sure, it's just phones. In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it? You can (and should) opt out, and not sign on the dotted line to begin with. But today's cell towers might be tomorrow's Pony Express: they're TV stations, internet access, emergency 911 and news networks all rolled into one. WWAN could well end up supplanting copper sooner than anyone expects: do you want these companies in charge of it?'"

4 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. out-innovated? by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The first reason out of the given 10/15/whatever... was amusingly self-defeating.

    To witness Sprint's $5bn investment in WiMax is to witness a future planned so far in advance no-one should be comfortable with it.

    Such futures can't be relied upon if innovation is permitted So, no company should invest heavily in innovation because that stifles progress. Check.

    The remaining [author couldn't be bothered to count] reasons are similarly kvetching and dripping with angst.
  2. Re:How about the source of the problem... by vimh42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with realists is they admit the democracy is dead in America. The problem with idealists is they believe the system works. The problem with America is that...never mind, my TV show is on.

  3. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be such an idiot.

    In the "real world" people get along just fine without cell phones.

    Many people have jobs which require them to be on call. What would you say to them? Quit? I guess you don't really want medical care, right?

    In the "real world" people make ethical decisions for their company every single day even when the "real world" makes that supposedly impossible.

    What does this have to do with anything? I never advocated making unethical decisions while on the job.

    However, lots of companies make unethical decisions all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it.

    In the "real world" people get the companies they pay for and the government they deserve.

    Maybe so, at the societal level, but at the individual level, there's nothing you can do about what everyone else does. You can become a hermit if you wish.

    In the "real world" not everyone waffles on their principles because they are afraid or because someone waives a dollar under their nose.

    Right, those are the hermits. Everyone else has to compromise because they have to live in a society with other people, who don't abide by the same principles. Do you buy services from any large, evil company like Comcast, Cox, Verizon, etc.? After all, you're here on Slashdot, so I presume you have an internet service provider. Well, you just compromised on principles by buying from a company with poor ethics. Do you grow your own food? If not, you're probably buying from some large agribusiness with poor ethics. I can cite lots of other examples.

    And in the "real world" claiming something is unavoidable and not in our control (especially when we're funding it!) is just a way to apologize for our own hypocrisy.

    So you think you're not a hypocrite? How do you explain your post here? You're using the products and services of large companies which have committed ethical transgressions in the interest of profit. It sounds like you're the hypocrite.

  4. Re:How about the source of the problem... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt."

    Incumbents don't lose. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).
    The problem is that too many people vote for the familiar when they don't know anything about either candidate. If people would follow a simple rule, "Vote the ins, out," it would change things immensely. If you don't have an overwhelmingly compelling reason to vote for the incumbent, you should vote against him/her, even if you think the other guy is a bad choice. You can always vote him out next election. He won't have the chance to do much harm in one term. The longer a person is in the legislature the more harm he/she can do.
    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison