Call your legislators! Bill to force fair pricing for data plans and semi-ban caps!

[her209]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Oh, and I used to work for a wireless provider. Guess where they make profit? Data plans, ringtone sales and other "extras". They run in the red for the first 9-11 months of a basic phone/voice contract.

Wireless companies also make many times over on text messaging.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Areacode, that does not address reality. The current, living reality is that we are overcharged by a monopoly that has been breed and strengthed for 100 years.

It ain't going away, so we gotta reign it in.

Actually you are being undercharged, that's the problem.

If the graphs represented in the Time Warner article are correct it looks like they're making a pretty good chunk of change. Just how much of a profit margin should they expect?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

I'm quite happy with the service and cost of my government sponsored/regulated electricity and water utilities.

But that's because you're a partisan tool who'd be giddy about being raped with a broom handle as long as it was government holding the other end of the broom.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Oh, and I used to work for a wireless provider. Guess where they make profit? Data plans, ringtone sales and other "extras". They run in the red for the first 9-11 months of a basic phone/voice contract.

Wireless companies also make many times over on text messaging.

Yeah text messaging is a joke, but oh well. People are willing to pay for it, and at least the money seems to be going back into the network, 4G rollout is supposed to start here in the next year or two I think. Wireless data has improved so much over the last few years and is becoming a good option for people who cannot get other broadband services.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

they're a monopoly because of a cost structure where variable costs are ridiculously low in comparison to the fixed costs. once anyone builds a line that does a particular thing out to your premises there is no reason for anyone to build a line that does the exact same thing to the same premises because the first guy there can threaten to drop his pricing to just above his variable cost. the only place the government comes in is deciding just what areas are covered by whose network, rather than the more organic method of real estate developers deciding just what network is going to be there.

Originally posted by: Phokus

I'm quite happy with the service and cost of my government sponsored/regulated electricity and water utilities.

low pressure and funny tasting!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

I agree looking back with 20/20 vision this is probably how our infrastructure should had been setup. Unfortunately it wasnt, and about this legislation. I can see both sides of the coin here. The problem is the infrastructure was built by private companies under govt mandate. There is a fine line in over regulating and allowing for the legal monpolies to make enough money to pass along better technology.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

I agree looking back with 20/20 vision this is probably how our infrastructure should had been setup. Unfortunately it wasnt, and about this legislation. I can see both sides of the coin here. The problem is the infrastructure was built by private companies under govt mandate. There is a fine line in over regulating and allowing for the legal monpolies to make enough money to pass along better technology.

Which is yet another reason I'm a huge fan of a federal infrastructure rebuilding plan. Put in a power grid that has some fault tolerance (unlike ours which the 2003 blackout showed). Put in water/sewer/steam lines that aren't made from brick, and aren't in states of disrepair. Do bridge repair work to upgrade the bridges and make the expensive repairs. Put in a rail system that WORKS, not this AmTrak bs. Get some high speed rails between some major cities (especially on the Eastern seaboard) to start with and expand from there. While we're doing all this work, put in real conduit and data cables that are then leased to companies.

Our infrastructure is pretty shitty right now, and is in great need of some major work.

 

[spidey07]

As suspected, this will harm consumers and take away consumer friendly pricing options.

http://www.lightreading.com/do...doc_id=178193&site=cdn

WASHINGTON -- The American Cable Association issued the following statement on the introduction today of the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902) by Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.):

"Consumption-based billing plans will give consumers the ultimate control over how much they spend each month for their Internet access. Rep. Massa's bill would have a chilling effect on broadband operators offering these types of consumer-friendly options,? American Cable Association president and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. ?During his Senate confirmation Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell noted that Americans today are watching a staggering 17 billion online videos each month, a use of the Internet that he said is growing at 16% per month. With these increases coming, Internet usage payment models will allow broadband providers to better manage their networks by imposing higher costs on the heaviest users who often are the ones responsible for slowing speeds for all users on the Internet.?

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: spidey07
As suspected, this will harm consumers and take away consumer friendly pricing options.

http://www.lightreading.com/do...doc_id=178193&site=cdn

WASHINGTON -- The American Cable Association issued the following statement on the introduction today of the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902) by Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.):

"Consumption-based billing plans will give consumers the ultimate control over how much they spend each month for their Internet access. Rep. Massa's bill would have a chilling effect on broadband operators offering these types of consumer-friendly options,? American Cable Association president and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. ?During his Senate confirmation Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell noted that Americans today are watching a staggering 17 billion online videos each month, a use of the Internet that he said is growing at 16% per month. With these increases coming, Internet usage payment models will allow broadband providers to better manage their networks by imposing higher costs on the heaviest users who often are the ones responsible for slowing speeds for all users on the Internet.?

You're quoting a press release from a cable trade (lobbying) organization?!? WTF do you think they would say?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: tw1164


You're quoting a press release from a cable trade (lobbying) organization?!? WTF do you think they would say?

Did you miss the part from the FCC member?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: spidey07
As suspected, this will harm consumers and take away consumer friendly pricing options.

http://www.lightreading.com/do...doc_id=178193&site=cdn

WASHINGTON -- The American Cable Association issued the following statement on the introduction today of the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902) by Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.):

"Consumption-based billing plans will give consumers the ultimate control over how much they spend each month for their Internet access. Rep. Massa's bill would have a chilling effect on broadband operators offering these types of consumer-friendly options,? American Cable Association president and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. ?During his Senate confirmation Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell noted that Americans today are watching a staggering 17 billion online videos each month, a use of the Internet that he said is growing at 16% per month. With these increases coming, Internet usage payment models will allow broadband providers to better manage their networks by imposing higher costs on the heaviest users who often are the ones responsible for slowing speeds for all users on the Internet.?

You're quoting a press release from a cable trade (lobbying) organization?!? WTF do you think they would say?

Also, 17 billion videos spread across how many subscribers? 100 million subscribers means 5-6 videos per day.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: tw1164


You're quoting a press release from a cable trade (lobbying) organization?!? WTF do you think they would say?

Did you miss the part from the FCC member?

What part of the above message came from the FCC member? It certainly isn't a "quoted" section from the FCC member other than to say he noted that Americans are watching a staggering 17 billion online videos each month, a use .....per month.

 

[StageLeft]

It makes sense to have tiered pricing in a competitive environment. Like, for example, not Rochester, NY, which is where they wanted to do it. Time Warner didn't want to do this where it has competition because it would have been brutalized and seen customers run for the hills. That is my main issue with what they tried; they didn't pick a fair area to try it in.

Otherwise use-based fees are fair, like cell providers use. However, given the criticality of the interwebs to so many people (more so than cell), we do need to keep an eye on silly things going on.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: tw1164


You're quoting a press release from a cable trade (lobbying) organization?!? WTF do you think they would say?

Did you miss the part from the FCC member?

You quoted a lobbyist who was citing a FCC member.

Here's Mr. McDowell's full quote.

Today, Americans watch nearly 17 billion online videos each month ? and that figure is growing 16 percent per month. Furthermore, nearly 15 million Americans are watching video on their mobile devices, and that figure is growing by more than 50 percent per year. At the same time, traditional media have witnessed a dramatic decline in the face of the competitive pressures coming from new media. So much has changed so fast.

Text

 

[Engineer]

Also, once the caps start (assuming the do), I want a guarantee from the broadband provider that I'll get no "data sending" virus nor will I receive any internet based ads (for example: ads on Yahoo home page)!

I'm not paying extra for that shit!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

I'm quite happy with the service and cost of my government sponsored/regulated electricity and water utilities.

But that's because you're a partisan tool who'd be giddy about being raped with a broom handle as long as it was government holding the other end of the broom.

Hmmm yes, low prices and good service from 2 government regulated monopolies. Kinda goes against your premise of 'mediocre prices for bad service'. Maybe you feel that way because you're a fucking moron. I've never had problems with my electricity or water. Whereas California, who deregulated their electricity, got fucked in the ass. You imbecile.

edit: also natural gas too

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: PhokusHmmm yes, low prices and good service from 2 government regulated monopolies. Kinda goes against your premise of 'mediocre prices for bad service'.

Low prices... compared to what? How do you know if you're paying low prices when there is no frame of reference? How exactly do you know you're not paying a super high price compared to what you would have paid had there not been a monopoly?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: PhokusHmmm yes, low prices and good service from 2 government regulated monopolies. Kinda goes against your premise of 'mediocre prices for bad service'.

Low prices... compared to what? How do you know if you're paying low prices when there is no frame of reference? How exactly do you know you're not paying a super high price compared to what you would have paid had there not been a monopoly?

Because water and electricity are natural monopolies?

In economics, a natural monopoly occurs when, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier.

Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale which are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include water services and electricity. It is very expensive to build transmission networks (water/gas pipelines, electricity and telephone lines), therefore it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist's market.

Historical example

Such a process happened in the water industry in nineteenth century Britain. Up until the mid-nineteenth century, Parliament discouraged municipal involvement in water supply; in 1851, private companies had 60% of the market. Competition amongst the companies in larger industrial towns lowered profit margins, as companies were less able to charge a sufficient price for installation of networks in new areas. In areas with direct competition (with two sets of mains), usually at the edge of companies' territories, profit margins were lowest of all. Such situations resulted in higher costs and lower efficiency, as two networks, neither used to capacity, were used. With a limited number of households that could afford their services, expansion of networks slowed, and many companies were barely profitable. With a lack of water and sanitation claiming thousands of lives in periodic epidemics, municipalisation proceeded rapidly after 1860, and it was municipalities which were able to raise the finance for investment which private companies in many cases could not. A few well-run private companies which worked together with their local towns and cities (gaining legal monopolies and thereby the financial security to invest as required) did survive, providing around 20% of the population with water even today. The rest of the water industry in England and Wales was reprivatised in the form of 10 regional monopolies in 1989.

Why yes, we don't have any frame of reference (uh, just ask california about electricity deregulation)

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

I'm quite happy with the service and cost of my government sponsored/regulated electricity and water utilities.

But that's because you're a partisan tool who'd be giddy about being raped with a broom handle as long as it was government holding the other end of the broom.

Hmmm yes, low prices and good service from 2 government regulated monopolies. Kinda goes against your premise of 'mediocre prices for bad service'. Maybe you feel that way because you're a fucking moron. I've never had problems with my electricity or water. Whereas California, who deregulated their electricity, got fucked in the ass. You imbecile.

edit: also natural gas too

Haha, you actually think California deregulated. You truly are an imbecile.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

I'm quite happy with the service and cost of my government sponsored/regulated electricity and water utilities.

But that's because you're a partisan tool who'd be giddy about being raped with a broom handle as long as it was government holding the other end of the broom.

Hmmm yes, low prices and good service from 2 government regulated monopolies. Kinda goes against your premise of 'mediocre prices for bad service'. Maybe you feel that way because you're a fucking moron. I've never had problems with my electricity or water. Whereas California, who deregulated their electricity, got fucked in the ass. You imbecile.

edit: also natural gas too

Haha, you actually think California deregulated. You truly are an imbecile.

Haha, you actually think regulated monopolies don't produce low prices and good quality service, you're a fucking idiot.

edit:

Also: "In economics, a natural monopoly occurs when, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier."

You = owned, sit down.

 

[lupi]

these growingly outrageous rates for data planes are just another way so many companies are playing this covert game to nickel and dime everyone to death. Compare average family monthly cost excluding car/home of now and 40 years ago and the results would not only be shocking, but would go to explain why so many go down the toilet so quick.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Phokus
you = owned, sit down.

You haven't owned a thing since you started you spreading your shit around this forum you diarrhea gargling moron.

Your overblown sense of importance is only matched by Craig. You think you have a clue, which is hilarious.

Phokus.txt

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
you = owned, sit down.

You haven't owned a thing since you started you spreading your shit around this forum you diarrhea gargling moron.

Your overblown sense of importance is only matched by Craig. You think you have a clue, which is hilarious.

Phokus.txt

Two birds with one stone, I like.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
you = owned, sit down.

You haven't owned a thing since you started you spreading your shit around this forum you diarrhea gargling moron.

Your overblown sense of importance is only matched by Craig. You think you have a clue, which is hilarious.

Phokus.txt

I own the hell out of you because you just type whatever garbage that fits your own personal agenda whereas i backup my posts with facts and logic that completely obliterates you. You get embarrassed talking about topics meant for adults, perhaps there should be a dedicated Pokemon forum here at AT for you to post in. That's more your speed. Notice how you can't even refer back to the argument at hand because you've been shamed to hell? Lemme give you a refresher:

"Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service." <--- You

"In economics, a natural monopoly occurs when, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier." <--- Me

Take a fucking seat, son ----> \__

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: spidey07
As suspected, this will harm consumers and take away consumer friendly pricing options.

http://www.lightreading.com/do...doc_id=178193&site=cdn

WASHINGTON -- The American Cable Association issued the following statement on the introduction today of the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902) by Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.):

"Consumption-based billing plans will give consumers the ultimate control over how much they spend each month for their Internet access. Rep. Massa's bill would have a chilling effect on broadband operators offering these types of consumer-friendly options,? American Cable Association president and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. ?During his Senate confirmation Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell noted that Americans today are watching a staggering 17 billion online videos each month, a use of the Internet that he said is growing at 16% per month. With these increases coming, Internet usage payment models will allow broadband providers to better manage their networks by imposing higher costs on the heaviest users who often are the ones responsible for slowing speeds for all users on the Internet.?

It's interesting that you bolded that entire last block instead of the only part that was quoted by the FCC member. That's misleading.

The part in italics is all ACA but you try to lump it in to the FCC's quote by saying "Did you miss the part from the FCC member" referring to the bolded block of text of which the entirety was not a quote from the FCC.

So stop.