how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2011-02-02 10:49:07: You'll recall that when Time Warner Cable tried to impose low caps and high per gigabyte overages here in the States, they proclaimed the move was financially necessary because flat-rate broadband pricing wasn't sustainable. ..
|
 | | Help is on the way I am sure we will send some helpful industry clowns up north to help the poor Canadian ISP's with their PR issue. | |
| | | | Re: Help is on the way this type of price gouging is pure BS as all of us techie guys know and knew already.think hard before you answer.remember how much it cost for computer hardware years ago.i do remember the costs.
how about spending $500 bucks for a measly 8 megs of RAM.How about spending $800 for a 16 gig SCSI drive.i could go on and on but i am sure there are intelligent people on this forum who already know that UBB is a piece of krap.
and if it tries to come to the USA then we will see some crazy protests........................and then whoever offers the standard pay a monthly flat rate bill will come on top while the greedsters go the route of the dinosaur.
this law in canada has screwed me as an artist.i have not only a band website but i also run a holocaust site here.
»www.bigmeathammer.com/aushwitz.htm
this site is a memorial to all those jews who came from the carpathian mountain region.my full length 5 1/2 documentary is there for download.6 DVD images from my master 3/4" video tapes.
that will be a huge download but available to the world for free by me.
now wonder how many interested canadians might want to learn of their family routes and now find that to do this they must download
6 x DVD = over 24 gigs.
if the world goes to a UBB then you can kiss projects like mine goodbye.and of course steam games,online video,innovations,etc. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Help is on the way said by pandora:I hope someone writes a book about this some day. There seems to be a lot of history involved. Somehow a corporate monopoly seems to be regulating an industry to suit it's own desires, in a way that seems implausible. Even in the U.S. I doubt Comcast. AT&T or Verizon dare to dream of self regulatory power like this.
They don't dream it at all, it is de facto, and obvious! If you don't realize that, you're the starry-eyed one in the room. | |
| | | | | | | |  thomasr
join:2010-01-21
Winston Salem, NC
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | said by pandora:I hope someone writes a book about this some day. There seems to be a lot of history involved. Somehow a corporate monopoly seems to be regulating an industry to suit it's own desires, in a way that seems implausible. Even in the U.S. I doubt Comcast. AT&T or Verizon dare to dream of self regulatory power like this.
All major players here have spent the past ten years dismantling Internet Fair Use laws, peering regulations, etc.
They have gotten so used to getting things their way, they could not even wait for the FCC to make something fact, regulation or law. Just to show how high and mighty these greed bags are, Verizon has sued the FCC recently over Network Neutrality guidelines. The only problem?
These guidelines were still "just talk"! The FCC had not even had time to record their last meeting on file with public record before they were served with the lawsuit.
Of course the government now has to pony up so the FCC can fight this in the courts.
For now, the FCC has simply asked the courts to drop the case. Their valid point? "How can you sue to stop something that does not even exist yet?"
How do these corporate whack jobs sleep at night? Next week they will be right back in Washington, kissing butts left and right, fighting for every red cent that they can extract out of government incentives and possibilities for contracts to provide unreliable services -- all while proclaiming that these services are the best money can buy. It will happen, I will read about it and fume!
How can people continuously take it in their rears and not react?
Everyone knows what's up! We see how things have progressed, since this project was incepted and then shouted from every mountaintop by, Al Gore and the other figments of people's imaginations.
As with every good anything America has ever done for anyone -- it always revolves around Corporate Greed with the "something for nothing" attitude that DOES work great for them.
We pay $55 dollars or MORE for Internet today that is technically eight (8) years old for the vast majority of America. What has happen over the past years? On their end, not much has changed, except for deregulating themselves! Then, our bills have doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled for some in just a few years. These networks have long been paid for, time over time! CAPEX allows only that, or they would not be there in the first place.
Let's not even go into how under-performing these technologies really are.
So we pay $55 dollars for what results to nothing. - (OUR "something for nothing.")
The corporation pulling the strings receives said payments and laughs at us every time! - (Their "something for nothing")
They've been raking in pure profit for years in ways I will not even address. Never with us in mind, except for being fools to the matter. It has nothing to do with quality, actually being the best in reality, or anything relating actually providing what they claim.
They have simply run a-muck with greed and need to be reminded that the upgrades being performed or scheduled at later dates should have been done in the first place, as we have already paid them sufficiently for that to happen. They also need to be reminded that those upgrades had better be fixing their problems with not providing what they claim.
Update: It has been reported throughout the day - Verizon was trying to shop for judges, they wanted the same three judges that handed them their last victory against the FCC to hear this new case. How moronic is that? Cases like these are randomly assigned judges here in the states! What makes them think they could change yet another policy/law for their favor? They have too much money, it is just as simple as that.
Link to one of many news articles indicating where their request was denied: »news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20030479-38.html
2nd Update:
Verizon WAS back at the White House today, or at least having to deal with the White House today - the article did not specify any detail of what was wrong, just that they called Verizon. I do actually find this hilarious, considering my above opinions.
I am sure this was a simple hardware/software error, and they happen. It just shows you that Verizon does carry a little heft... right along with that unclassified mail.  Something like this would be contracted - of course... and you know they fought tooth and nail for it.
A link to a CNN article is: »politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20···lackout/ | |
| | | | | | | Re: Help is on the way said by thomasr:said by pandora:I hope someone writes a book about this some day.
How do these corporate whack jobs sleep at night? Next week they will be right back in Washington, kissing butts left and right, fighting for every red cent that they can extract out of government incentives and possibilities for contracts to provide unreliable services -- all while proclaiming that these services are the best money can buy. It will happen, I will read about it and fume! nothing.") *Great* post. 
But I think the question should be: "How do the corrupt whack jobs we elected to represent us sleep at night"- because without their collusion and co-operation, this type of thing would not be possible. | |
| | | | | | thomasr
join:2010-01-21
Winston Salem, NC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Help is on the way said by jazzlady:said by thomasr:said by pandora:I hope someone writes a book about this some day.
How do these corporate whack jobs sleep at night? Next week they will be right back in Washington, kissing butts left and right, fighting for every red cent that they can extract out of government incentives and possibilities for contracts to provide unreliable services -- all while proclaiming that these services are the best money can buy. It will happen, I will read about it and fume! nothing.") *Great* post. But I think the question should be: "How do the corrupt whack jobs we elected to represent us sleep at night"- because without their collusion and co-operation, this type of thing would not be possible. Thanks! And your comment is spot on!
I could not have said it no better myself. I hope they are not afraid of the dark.... oh wait... why should I care... I hope they are afraid! | |
|
| | Covering cost vs profit I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders. You can't really fault companies for wanting to make a profit and shareholders for wanting a decent return. It's not always about what's the consumer wants. If the price is too high for something I simply don't buy it. I'm sure if enough people did that the price of a product or service would adjust to where people would be comfortable buying it. | |
| | | | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by fifty nine:I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders. You can't really fault companies for wanting to make a profit and shareholders for wanting a decent return. It's not always about what's the consumer wants. If the price is too high for something I simply don't buy it. I'm sure if enough people did that the price of a product or service would adjust to where people would be comfortable buying it.
It is NEVER about what the consumer wants when monopoly or collusion conditions exist and governments do not enforce competition conditions in order to benefit customers, as they should. | |
| | |  TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Covering cost vs profit It is ALWAYS about that even in a "monopoly" situation.
Companies want more accounts not less as there is a chance to do more cross-selling.
Also;
If the government beats down the ISPs it will IMO set you back as potential competitors will not bother to set up shop or even try. | |
| | | | thecp
join:2004-07-15
Sacramento, CA | Re: Covering cost vs profit What is it with people who can't even do some basic research into monopolies in the past? Rockefeller mean anything? Old PacBell/AT&T? The only reason these companies could have accounts was because it WASN'T a CHOICE for the consumer.
And guess what, they were beaten down by the government. So naturally all of our petroleum supply, railroads, and phone services have all but disappeared right? | |
| | | | | TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Covering cost vs profit said by thecp:What is it with people who can't even do some basic research into monopolies in the past? Rockefeller mean anything? Old PacBell/AT&T? ... And guess what, they were beaten down by the government... Thats right and it has been said that AT&Ts beat down set us back over a decade as this resulted in less R & D for wireless, sat and cable technologies etc., to support telephony by the Bells and others. We are still trying to catch up. | |
| | | | | | thecp
join:2004-07-15
Sacramento, CA | Re: Covering cost vs profit It has been said... LOL. Ok, you've convinced me. Monopolies are the pioneers of innovation! | |
| | | | | | | TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Covering cost vs profit said by thecp:It has been said... LOL. Ok, you've convinced me. Monopolies are the pioneers of innovation!
Don't shoot the messenger...I am not the one who has come up with this. There are many technologists who agree with this.
TBH I don't care if you believe me or not. If Canada wants to repeat the same mistakes...more power to them.
After the break-up the telco's were forced to share infrastructure. This made us lazy. Enough said. | |
| | | | | | | |  firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by TechieZero:said by thecp:It has been said... LOL. Ok, you've convinced me. Monopolies are the pioneers of innovation!
Don't shoot the messenger...I am not the one who has come up with this. There are many technologists who agree with this. TBH I don't care if you believe me or not. If Canada wants to repeat the same mistakes...more power to them. After the break-up the telco's were forced to share infrastructure. This made us lazy. Enough said. They are capping and charging for overage. They get more money for less data. They have reduced loads. Nothing in this plan makes it even necessary for them to innovate because they have a government imposed handout so they don't care about making the pipe bigger or faster they just shop for existing tech that is cheaper.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | | | | | | | | TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | Re: Covering cost vs profit So the answer is more government? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by TechieZero:So the answer is more government?
yup, that's why we're in a democracy. A government agency allowed a horrible Idea to be implemented. We need the government Heads (i.e. the PM here/and his ministers of cabinet) to rescind that.
if you don't like it that way, you can just skip all the formal crap, and go straight to ARMed/violent revolt to over-throw the government and it's agencies, and then fix the issue once the new power is in place. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Actually, they'd still have it illegal to hook any non-Bell phone upto their network, and of course they'd look down on VOIP, email, cheap cell phones, and so on. After the breakup, we went to standards based on the existing infrastructure, custom phones (that fit that electrical standard), modems (that fit that standard) that can go upto 56k on downloads, thus a demand for broadband which bypasses those standards, thus VOIP that bypasses the need for a landline or cell, thus... Oh and the irony: They still controlled the markets so you were stuck with a limited local service. The national long distance fee essentially unlocked the lines for competition that allowed the Internet to go commercial.
Look into your history of Edison and Bell... They loved to stomp on any kind of competition with extralegal or lobbying actions. Burning telephones ring a bell, err no pun intended? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Don't shoot the messenger...I am not the one who has come up with this. There are many technologists who agree with this.
TBH I don't care if you believe me or not. If Canada wants to repeat the same mistakes...more power to them.
After the break-up the telco's were forced to share infrastructure. This made us lazy. Enough said.
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Covering cost vs profit Wow, someone that dislikes the incumbents more than me ! Good post. | |
|
| | | | | | | TechieZero  ]said by thecp:What is it with people who can't even do some basic research into monopolies in the past? Rockefeller mean anything? Old PacBell/AT&T? ... And guess what, they were beaten down by the government... Thats right and it has been said that AT&Ts beat down set us back over a decade as this resulted in less R & D for wireless, sat and cable technologies etc., to support telephony by the Bells and others. We are still trying to catch up.
| |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | I don't know what things are like in the US but up here we have a duopoly running the market. Their are caps on foreign investment and to properly invest in new networks there needs to be a proper climate for investment. When the incumbents built their networks they had guaranteed ROI in government protected monopolies. These UBB charges will go straight to the incumbents profits, reduce make most Internet plans indistinguishable and reduce independents subscriber base and revenues. How can they then go and ask for millions for equipment? Add to that the incumbents can offer lower promo rates than the independents so while prices now many be high enough to justify investments, the risk that the incumbents will lower their prices to wipe out the competition is too high. For threes to be a real market the foreign investment rules need to be lifted or infrastructure separated from the retailers. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by Markff :I don't know what things are like in the US but up here we have a duopoly running the market. Their are caps on foreign investment and to properly invest in new networks there needs to be a proper climate for investment. When the incumbents built their networks they had guaranteed ROI in government protected monopolies. These UBB charges will go straight to the incumbents profits, reduce make most Internet plans indistinguishable and reduce independents subscriber base and revenues. How can they then go and ask for millions for equipment? Add to that the incumbents can offer lower promo rates than the independents so while prices now many be high enough to justify investments, the risk that the incumbents will lower their prices to wipe out the competition is too high. For threes to be a real market the foreign investment rules need to be lifted or infrastructure separated from the retailers.
Right on the dime! Superior, lucid post! A pleasure to read. | |
| | | | | thomasr
join:2010-01-21
Winston Salem, NC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Markff :I don't know what things are like in the US but up here we have a duopoly running the market. Their are caps on foreign investment and to properly invest in new networks there needs to be a proper climate for investment. When the incumbents built their networks they had guaranteed ROI in government protected monopolies. These UBB charges will go straight to the incumbents profits, reduce make most Internet plans indistinguishable and reduce independents subscriber base and revenues. How can they then go and ask for millions for equipment? Add to that the incumbents can offer lower promo rates than the independents so while prices now many be high enough to justify investments, the risk that the incumbents will lower their prices to wipe out the competition is too high. For threes to be a real market the foreign investment rules need to be lifted or infrastructure separated from the retailers.
Here in the states, there are actually multiple companies. Don't read in between those words though! The reality is that these companies are spread out in their respective territories.
For many people, we have the option of one power company, one cable company, and one phone company.
How's that for choice?
Of course there are a few ILEC's remaining that can re-sell our phone companies phones or DSL and corporate deals that allow EarthLink to ride along our cable operators lines. But never try to order these offerings! You get run around after run around just trying to figure out how to get what you want.
If you are lucky and get started with no issues, just wait until you need a technician to repair something, then it becomes a battle between the network operators and the smaller outfits your paying the monthly bill to.
Competition is a word that giants like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and others think it means buy anyone and everyone standing in your way just because they have the huge piles of cash to do so. We all see how for example Time Warner just treated the purchase of AOL. After dismantling the company, piece by piece over a few years time, they were cast away like yesterday's trash! | |
|
| | | | said by WernerSchutz:It is NEVER about what the consumer wants when monopoly or collusion conditions exist and governments do not enforce competition conditions in order to benefit customers, as they should.
Can you point us to a company that is looking to spend millions or even billions to overbuild on top of cable or telco in any location so that they can maybe grab 10 - 20% of existing customers?
Who exactly do we think is going to do that?
There is a reason there are only 2 major providers in any area. Because they were already there, and already spent the billions to have 100% of the customers. Anyone else that comes along isn't going to get even half of the available customers. New customers that no one had are few and far between. Existing customers barely move from where they are now.
Just look at FIOS TV. It is a great service, you'd think Verizon would have more FIOS TV customers in the areas they service, but they don't have as many as they should for their cash outlay.
Why do people think that the government or even the incumbent providers are limiting the competition? Sure, those incubment providers don't want the competition, who in their right business mind would?
Sure, they fight municipal fiber projects, and maybe they shouldn't. But is it fair for a local government, that sets rules and regulations for what the telco and cableco in an area can do, to step in and spend tax payer money to build a competing business without having to go through the same regulations hoops? Who in their right business mind would sit back and let that happen?
If a 3rd or 4th company want to come into an area and offer service, and play by the same rules that the telco and cableco had to, then they are free to do so everywhere. It's the money that is stopping them. They can't compete on price if they have to spend the money required to run to every household and business, and then just hope they can get 20% of the customers to switch. | |
| | | | | | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by skuv :said by WernerSchutz:It is NEVER about what the consumer wants when monopoly or collusion conditions exist and governments do not enforce competition conditions in order to benefit customers, as they should.
But is it fair for a local government, that sets rules and regulations for what the telco and cableco in an area can do, to step in and spend tax payer money to build a competing business without having to go through the same regulations hoops? So, is it fair for a local government to apply a "cable franchise fee" on top of already high cable bills to pay for pork projects?
Pocono Township, PA now charges us such a fee to pay for some pet projects that we suckers (taxpayers) had no say on.
Maybe we need some higher govt agency ought to regulate *this*. It is outright extortion.
And what choice do we have? None, as we live in an area with NO OTA reception whatsoever, and where most people can't use satellite because of LoS issues.
All I see is one big money grab, from the bottom of the food chain to the top, and it sucks! | |
| | | | |  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by jazzlady:So, is it fair for a local government to apply a "cable franchise fee" on top of already high cable bills to pay for pork projects?
Pocono Township, PA now charges us such a fee to pay for some pet projects that we suckers (taxpayers) had no say on.
Who exactly elected your representatives?
The franchise fee isn't a fee you pay to your local government...you pay it to your provider. They don't have to pass that fee along. You don't see a pass-through amount itemized for, say ESPN, do you?
Also, you're going to pay whatever amount of that franchise fee is to somebody, whether that's your local government or your provider...
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by jslik:said by jazzlady:So, is it fair for a local government to apply a "cable franchise fee" on top of already high cable bills to pay for pork projects?
Pocono Township, PA now charges us such a fee to pay for some pet projects that we suckers (taxpayers) had no say on.
The franchise fee isn't a fee you pay to your local government...you pay it to your provider. They don't have to pass that fee along. You don't see a pass-through amount itemized for, say ESPN, do you? Then why is it itemized on my bill as "Pocono Township Cable Franchise Fee"?
It most certainly is a fee imposed by, and for the benefit, of the municipality. They threatened to do this, and they got away with it. Who was going to stop them?
And it doesn't matter who you elect to represent you- they will all screw you. | |
| | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Covering cost vs profit said by jazzlady: Then why is it itemized on my bill as "Pocono Township Cable Franchise Fee"?
It most certainly is a fee imposed by, and for the benefit, of the municipality. They threatened to do this, and they got away with it. Who was going to stop them?
And it doesn't matter who you elect to represent you- they will all screw you.
It is itemized because the feds have allowed the providers to do so. The franchise fee is the rent cities charge for use of the right-of-way. Your city/township is not obligated to charge any fee for its use.
However, as I said, you're going to pay that amount anyway. Cable HSI service was also subject to the fee until 2002 when the FCC ruled it a information service. So, yes, the bill did go down for about 6 months, then went right back up to the old amount. As far as cable tv, your provider already figures in all fees and charges in setting the price point, so even if they didn't have to pay the fee, the price point would still be the same.
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|
| | | | | said by skuv :said by WernerSchutz:It is NEVER about what the consumer wants when monopoly or collusion conditions exist and governments do not enforce competition conditions in order to benefit customers, as they should.
Can you point us to a company that is looking to spend millions or even billions to overbuild on top of cable or telco in any location so that they can maybe grab 10 - 20% of existing customers? Who exactly do we think is going to do that? There is a reason there are only 2 major providers in any area. Because they were already there, and already spent the billions to have 100% of the customers. Anyone else that comes along isn't going to get even half of the available customers. New customers that no one had are few and far between. Existing customers barely move from where they are now. Just look at FIOS TV. It is a great service, you'd think Verizon would have more FIOS TV customers in the areas they service, but they don't have as many as they should for their cash outlay. Why do people think that the government or even the incumbent providers are limiting the competition? Sure, those incubment providers don't want the competition, who in their right business mind would? Sure, they fight municipal fiber projects, and maybe they shouldn't. But is it fair for a local government, that sets rules and regulations for what the telco and cableco in an area can do, to step in and spend tax payer money to build a competing business without having to go through the same regulations hoops? Who in their right business mind would sit back and let that happen? If a 3rd or 4th company want to come into an area and offer service, and play by the same rules that the telco and cableco had to, then they are free to do so everywhere. It's the money that is stopping them. They can't compete on price if they have to spend the money required to run to every household and business, and then just hope they can get 20% of the customers to switch. Your ignorance of the financial mechanics of municipal fiber build-outs is astounding. Re-read the Lafayette case, and the NC cases where incumbents actively tried to suppress and/or sue the people into oblivion, or, prove wrong doing and couldn't. The incumbent got a good size twelve where it would do the most good in both cases. But, like the anal-retentive rats they are, you can hear their teeth-knashing the kudzu in the dead of night, searching for an answer to a determined population who know the Telcos are a life sapping, job-robbing form of of modern robber baron's who can and will relegate the middle class and poor to a desperate on-going poverty if allowed to continue... Slavery, really. | |
|
| |  Pol
@tel-ott.com | Yes! It is 100% correct! | |
|
| | | Market economics don't work if you have an addictive product like heroine or if you have a monopoly with regulatory collusion on a product that is rapidly becoming a necessity. You can argue that internet access is a luxury, but with each passing year, in a competitive global economy, immediate access to global information is such a competitive advantage that it really is becoming a necessity. | |
| | |
See 16 replies to this post | |
| | | The difference here is that they're getting government sanction raping of customers. There is no competitive for here. Everyone has caps, so there is no choice for the customer other than do without. | |
| | | | This is true but just as the telephone and the telegraph line before it this i more than just "it's too expensive I don't need it". Internet access has become more of a neccesity than anything else. The reason for going to charing per byte has been the same it's inception, they are trying to cover their arses. They realized too late in the game that there are other services out there cheaper than their own they can get through the internet and they don't want to be a dumbpipe. They fear this more than the anything. | |
| | | | Well, of course, economically speaking there certainly should be profit in even a decently competitive market. No one is suggesting that the price = marginal cost of atomistic competition.
But at $2/GB, and their cost at 3 cents a GB, that's a 98.5 percent profit margin. That is wildly obscene. And even that is downplaying it, as the substantial majority of users won't come close to hitting the 25GB/month cap. So these overages are pure profit.
So it's not financial need. And it's not congestion pricing, or they'd only invoke it during times of actual congestion. It's just pure greed, which is fine, that's capitalism, but in this case the regulator's job is to protect the interests of the entire country, not just a few powerful companies. | |
| | |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| TheWiseGuyDog And ButterflyPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by fifty nine:I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders. You can't really fault companies for wanting to make a profit and shareholders for wanting a decent return. It's not always about what's the consumer wants. If the price is too high for something I simply don't buy it. I'm sure if enough people did that the price of a product or service would adjust to where people would be comfortable buying it.
Of course in most products there is a lot of competition. Most products (edit: excluding some luxury products where the name/prestige is an added attraction) do not survive for a long time with a high profit margin unless there are major barriers to providing a similar product which keeps competition at bay.
ISPs tend to be at best oligopolies and in some cases monopolies. Even including wireless there is not a great deal of added competition since two of the major wireless carriers are also major landline ISPs. This is due to several reasons but is why in the past they were regulated in the US and I believe are regulated in Canada.(Forgive me if I am wrong since I do not know a lot about ISPs in Canada)
Due to the high fixed cost nature and the legal barriers to entry there tends to be little competition and therefore the companies can set pricing to maximize profit instead of having to charge at the marginal cost of providing service. This is very different then most products and allows for profits that are well beyond what would give a reasonable return on investment.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore. | |
| | |
See 18 replies to this post | |
|  P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out
·Comcast
| said by fifty nine:I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders. You can't really fault companies for wanting to make a profit and shareholders for wanting a decent return. It's not always about what's the consumer wants. If the price is too high for something I simply don't buy it. I'm sure if enough people did that the price of a product or service would adjust to where people would be comfortable buying it.
would not be a problem if they were not allowed to have near monopolistic powers.
don't have to worry about people going to another company in how many places? prob 80% i would assume
--
 NO U | |
| |  Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | said by fifty nine:I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders. You can't really fault companies for wanting to make a profit and shareholders for wanting a decent return. It's not always about what's the consumer wants. If the price is too high for something I simply don't buy it. I'm sure if enough people did that the price of a product or service would adjust to where people would be comfortable buying it.
what you fail to see is that there's a huge difference between a company wanting to make a profit and several companies colluding to commit blatant highway robbery.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  | |
| | | | said by fifty nine:I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders.
Thank you fifty nine. I've been saying this for years.
I am SO sick of hearing the BS excuse from these mega rich corp's that moving production overseas is because of the American demand for cheap goods.
The goods produced are NOT cheap. They are cheaply made, but they are NOT cheap to buy, often costing *more* than when they were produced here in the US. And all that money saved on labor goes right into their coffers.
So the consumer gains nothing. They still pay a high price, but now get something that's shoddy and will quickly break or fall apart.
What a scam. | |
| |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by fifty nine:I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders. You can't really fault companies for wanting to make a profit and shareholders for wanting a decent return. It's not always about what's the consumer wants. If the price is too high for something I simply don't buy it. I'm sure if enough people did that the price of a product or service would adjust to where people would be comfortable buying it.
This only works in a competitive environment. Canadian UBB is about shutting down competition.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed. | |
| | utheman
join:2005-02-24
Scarborough, ON | You are joking right? we are talking about the provider of INTERNET!!! To most readers on this forum, the internet is probably more important than air and water; and to the population at large, it is an essential part of their life style. So you are suggesting ppl not to use the internet because the ISP wants to charge me 10-50 times of PURE profit? oh man, I welcome your business anytime! | |
|
 MarkAWBarry WhitePremium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
kudos:16 | financially necessary quote:
You'll recall that when Time Warner Cable tried to impose low caps and high per gigabyte overages on users here in the States, they proclaimed that such a move was simply financially necessary -- and that flat-rate broadband pricing wasn't sustainable.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEIls-iZtx0 | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | It *IS* financially necessary Bigger profits with minimal expense... After all ISP's are businesses, and the primary duty of a business is to bring profits for the shareholders. | |
| |
See 19 replies to this post | |
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | We have seen how these companies are trying to change who is defined as an "abuser"
People now using their phone a decent amount are being pegged as an "abuser" if you watch a few movies, email often, etc....
We were originally told that those teethering 24/7 and/or uploading 24/7 were using up ALL THE SPACE!
Then suddenly, grandma watching several Netflix movies one week was the TRUE ABUSER!
What a joke | |
| |  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: We have seen how these companies Oh com on now. Anytime a customer chooses to get the same (or better) content for less, they are an abuser. That is just basic economics! | |
|
| | Baffled I'm still baffled that these companies dont think there are other network professionals in the world who can easily discredit and criticize obvious price gouging like this.
I'm all for companies making a profit but if consumers accepted these prices the profits would be obscene and these companies profits would soar so high it would be obvious that there is price gouging occurring.
If this were my business I would try to price my wares just high enough not to attract undue attention. | |
| | | | Re: Baffled said by axiomatic:I'm still baffled that these companies dont think there are other network professionals in the world who can easily discredit and criticize obvious price gouging like this.
That's because the top people in "These Companies" have no technical understanding of the product they are in charge of. They smell greed and only greed. There have been many studies that a CEO/CIO...etc have the same psychological profile as a sociopath. They feel no remorse and don't understand values and morals. Google it, and you'll see | |
|
| | Veritcal integration issues In Canada, most of the large ISP's (Bell Canada, Rogers Cable, Videotron Cable, Shaw Cable) are ALL of the following:
1) a carrier (copper/coax/fiber)
2) a landline phone service proovider
3) a cellphone service provider
4) a TV service provider
5) TV network owner
5) TV content producers (series, movie-of-the-week, etc...)
- They don't want to let you get out of their walled garden of content.
- They don't want to let you access content cheaper via the net vs. signing up for their 'channel bundles', which contain only 1 channel you really want to watch.
- They want you to be forced to not only buy internet service but also TV service as well.
- They want to edge up prices of landline internet access closer to the cost of wireless data (up the *ss without lube).
In Canada - until the recent series of fatally flawed CRTC (read FCC) decisions - there was reasonable regulation over the big companies to require that independent ISP's could lease last-mile access to customer homes and businesses.
The big ISP's who are screaming about bandwidth 'hogs' are not only getting paid for the link from the end-user premises to the central office, but they are also getting paid additional money for capacity-based links from the central offices to the independent ISP's operations centers.
To recap for those of you who don't get it - the incumbents get paid for the fixed link to the end-user premises AND they also get paid for ALL the bandwidth the end-user customer uses (the capacity links). Now the incumbents want to charge yet again for the consumption of the end-user - in addition to what they are currently being paid by the independent ISP!!!!!
Why?
Because the incumbents don't want anyone in the country to be able to access the internet more cheaply than the incumbent charges it's own sheep customers. It's bad for the TV business and all that, you see.
Comcast-NBC sound familiar? | |
| | | | Re: Veritcal integration issues said by MaynardKrebs:In Canada, most of the large ISP's (Bell Canada, Rogers Cable, Videotron Cable, Shaw Cable) are ALL of the following:
1) a carrier (copper/coax/fiber)
2) a landline phone service proovider
3) a cellphone service provider
4) a TV service provider
5) TV network owner
5) TV content producers (series, movie-of-the-week, etc...)
- They don't want to let you get out of their walled garden of content.
- They don't want to let you access content cheaper via the net vs. signing up for their 'channel bundles', which contain only 1 channel you really want to watch.
- They want you to be forced to not only buy internet service but also TV service as well.
- They want to edge up prices of landline internet access closer to the cost of wireless data (up the *ss without lube).
In Canada - until the recent series of fatally flawed CRTC (read FCC) decisions - there was reasonable regulation over the big companies to require that independent ISP's could lease last-mile access to customer homes and businesses.
The big ISP's who are screaming about bandwidth 'hogs' are not only getting paid for the link from the end-user premises to the central office, but they are also getting paid additional money for capacity-based links from the central offices to the independent ISP's operations centers.
To recap for those of you who don't get it - the incumbents get paid for the fixed link to the end-user premises AND they also get paid for ALL the bandwidth the end-user customer uses (the capacity links). Now the incumbents want to charge yet again for the consumption of the end-user - in addition to what they are currently being paid by the independent ISP!!!!!
Why?
Because the incumbents don't want anyone in the country to be able to access the internet more cheaply than the incumbent charges it's own sheep customers. It's bad for the TV business and all that, you see.
Comcast-NBC sound familiar?
That's why Comcrap has Craptastic caps, too. Just that 250 GB happens to be viable in 2011. Call us in 2-3 years to see how that's working for ya. | |
|
 kingdome74Emotionally UnavailablePremium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:2
·Verizon FiOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| Time Warner TWCNY in central NY just jacked their rates and what do we have to show for the increase? New services? New channels? better internet? Nope. Nadda. Not happening.
And they cry the blues about money while standing in a bucket of caviar. I cannot wait to dump them. | |
| | | UBB So heres how I see it. Right now, my cable (TV) bill is outrageously expensive for what I get, and now my ISP, wants to charge me a monthly fee, plus usage?
OK, I'll split the cost of my ISP with 2 of my neighbors, and put up an OTA HD antenna.
So my ISP now goes from 3 paying accounts to one, and they now loose my monthly TV cost. It might take a while longer to pull down the shows I want to watch, but at least I'm not paying for thos ridiculous "bundled packages" when there is only 1 channel that I want. Hey Rogers\Bell , how bout pay for only the channels I want, individually? If I order a hamburger at a restaurant, I dont want the smoked salmon that I'll never eat along with it.
Cmon Tony, lets kill UBB, keep that in mind next election... | |
|  pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | internets 
| |
| | | timing the world is rallying for freedom... send in the Egypitans to Canada! Unlimited usage for all! | |
| amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Absurd A 25GB cap is absurd. Even 250GB (or, in my case with Cox, 200GB I believe) is somewhat restrictive.
Funny also how in "the good 'ol days" when DSL was new, and cable internet was just starting to take off, that DSL, AFIK, had no such thing as a cap. FEWER users, but more geeks using it ALL the time, and nobody cared. Now it's a "big deal"??? Whoever mentioned earlier that it'd be cheaper to ship SSD drives nailed it. Truly insane. Might as well go to a text only 'net combined with "sneakernet" tech 
Sorry, any sense of "fair" ought to be at least 50% potential use before it is considered approaching "unfair."
That means if you have 10Mbps service, you should expect to be able to use it at full speed for 15 days straight, no questions asked. That's a lot of data. Somebody else can do that math.
Consider even Cox - back when it was around 3Mbps service ("preferred" level), um, what cap??????????????
I'd rather keep an "unlimited" (at LEAST more fair) service at a slower rate than a TURBO POWER BOOST EXTREME JUMBO EXTRA BIG ASS TACO service that can't be used for 1% of its potential...
I hope the Canadians can sort this out in a SANE way.
25GB/mo. in this day and age is worse than rations were for gasoline way back when... | |
| | | Amen brother You tell em how its is karl! | |
| | | | | Re: Found it said by amungus:Here's a fun image to consider... cheaper to ship an SSD OVERNIGHT than to deal with these insane caps.
Maybe Newegg will see more business?
»i.imgur.com/M3G7f.png
Also, this might qualify as the best post ever
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···21278972
"Andrew Taylor | Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:57 pm | permalink
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with hard drives." The initial statement was "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon loaded with backup tapes traveling at 60 MPH". | |
| | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Found it said by WernerSchutz:said by amungus:Here's a fun image to consider... cheaper to ship an SSD OVERNIGHT than to deal with these insane caps.
Maybe Newegg will see more business?
»i.imgur.com/M3G7f.png
Also, this might qualify as the best post ever
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···21278972
"Andrew Taylor | Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:57 pm | permalink
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with hard drives." The initial statement was "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon loaded with backup tapes traveling at 60 MPH". Wonder what the bandwidth of this would be loaded down with 2TB HDD would be
basically its a wagon with a Corvette engine lol | |
|
| | Rebury it! Unfortunately, the Globe and Mail is part of the CTVGlobeMedia portfolio. With how the regulators are treating the Bell purchase of this outlet, it'll only be a matter of time before the overlords shout for this conclusion to be buried once more. | |
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | UBB Sure as heck strips all the value out of internet VIDEO! | |
| | |  Have You Signed?
Don't forget to Tweet, Reddit, Digg, & Facebook about this petition! | |
| | | Government could overturn CRTC's Internet metering decision. Government could overturn CRTC's Internet metering decision.
A government source has confirmed to News1130 if the CRTC doesn't reverse its decision that lets internet providers charge on a per-byte basis, the Prime Minister and the Industry Minister will overturn it.
YAY! | |
| | | MarkAWBarry WhitePremium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
kudos:16 | Re: UBB will be overturned quote:
OTTAWA—A controversial CRTC decision that effectively imposed usage-based Internet billing on small service providers will be reversed, the Toronto Star has learned.
“The CRTC should be under no illusion — the Prime Minister and minister of Industry will reverse this decision unless the CRTC does it itself,” a senior Conservative government official said Wednesday.
“If they don’t reconsider we will reverse their decision.”
»www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti···ing?bn=1
quote:
The Harper government’s sudden interest in Internet pricing has become a political headache for telecommunications companies. Soon enough, it could be a financial headache for them, too.
Ottawa signalled late Wednesday night that it’s prepared to reverse a federal regulator’s decision that effectively sounds the death knell for “unlimited use” Internet plans.
»www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o···1892376/
quote:
The CRTC must reverse its decision that ends unlimited internet access plans offered by smaller internet providers or the federal government will intervene, Industry Minister Tony Clement says.
»www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/···ent.html
quote:
The federal government expects CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein to overturn his ruling that effectively kills unlimited Internet download packages, CTV News has learned.
»www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20···-110202/
--
Those who do not archive the past are condemned to retype it.
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. | |
|
| | Sasktel in Saskatchewan is the place to be! The more I read about this whole UBB thing the more lucky I feel that I'm with a provider that has ZERO plans to implement UBB.
I'm a heavy user with downloads, xbox live, netflix, and my kids watch a lot on youtube...the average month for us sees anywhere from 150-250GB. Rarely is it less than that, and some months, more often than not, it's more. (I keep track just for fun).
In comparison, the only other competitive high speed offering here is Shaw Cable. At a comparable speed point (I have "plus" which is 5mbps, Shaw's plan would be 7.5mbps but with a 60GB cap) I would burn through their cap before the month was half over.
Their product page is clearly listing caps and overages now, and personally I don't care if I can get a 100mbps connection if I can burn through the allotted cap in less than 8 hours of continuous use...
So, thank you Sasktel for sticking with unlimited! | |
|
| |
|
·
Re: Help is on the way
