how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to The Limit
Re: No "a bit of regulation" -- for example what?
"conspiracy" -- well what would you call a blanket allegation that the whole system is corrupt and fixed and dollars flow under the table and no one can stop the ISPs from getting bills/regulations passed that they want? It is impossible to have a discussion if you simply allege that there's a dark connection where dollars flow that is the only thing that foils the government doing the "right thing". This is classic conspiracy theory.
"typing in caps" -- sorry I was just trying to mock the whole conspiracy outrage thing
"raise serious issues" --- this is codespeak for "he agrees with me"
"capping users' connections instead of capping the gigabytes passed" -- huh? Do you mean you agree with Karl that hard caps are better than tiered pricing (e.g. overage charges)? I never ever got the logic behind how that's consumer friendly. Wouldn't you rather have the choice to pay a little more for more gigabytes, then being cut off?
"Verizon investing in wireless rather than fiber" -- yeah, they are actually trying to make money, isn't that terrible? What do they think they are doing? They should do things the way I THINK THEY SHOULD and the GOVERNMENT SHOULD FORCE THEM TO DO THAT. (sorry, mocking you again)
"absurd tiered pricing" $10/GB for wireless is the industry price point. Please, don't make me point out yet again the idiocy of trying to link this to some (very underestimated) marginal cost of servicing the next GB. Or mock you for simply asserting "it's too expensive" because, well, you think so.
"USF" well whatever, obviously there are issues there, I don't know much about it. But if you think the highest priority for tax dollars is fiber wiring the entire country, you are pretty much in a tiny fringe. | |
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | And overage charges are consumer friendly? Can you go a little more in depth as to the reasoning behind this statement? Common sense man, would you rather have a slower uncapped connection, and pay for it once per month, or pay via double dipping? Look at our friends in Canada. That's where we are moving towards.
I didn't say that there was anything wrong with making money, but halting a potential gold mine investment in favor of immediate turns is one of the main issues with public investment. I realize that corporations have to look out for their investors. I get it, I'm not saying that is terrible to do, in fact corporations MUST look out for their investors.
Apparently I am not the only one here that thinks $10 a gigabyte is "too expensive", not to mention, when people out in said boonies sign up for this service and bills start coming in. There are still quite a few people who do not even know how much a gigabyte is, so how in the world are they going to be able to adequately monitor usage unless someone educates them? After a bill shock or two?
I want to see some factual evidence based on your claims, because you are the one making the generalizations and statements that "ALL USERS NEED THIS MUCH DATA, THEY DON'T NEED TO STREAM, YADA YADA YADA, I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM" attitude.
So many things that you are stating that I said, and never did to begin with. Go back and read what I said, five times, and instead of reading it with a bias, read it with an objective view. I would rather this venture of Verizon's to be the good for those who can't afford to move, and live in the boonies. You assume that people can just pick up and move to a better place, when in reality most people can't afford to do this.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | | |
|
The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Here's a question for you:
What's wrong with classifying ISPs as Common Carriers?
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:"USF" well whatever, obviously there are issues there, I don't know much about it. But if you think the highest priority for tax dollars is fiber wiring the entire country, you are pretty much in a tiny fringe.
You have some interesting points. But USF is where you should turn your attention. Educate yourself a little here. Tails is right. There is a tremendous amount of corruption with USF and every consumer should be angry, very angry.
»sites.google.com/site/sandwichis···cations/
»aaronstene.com/2010/10/05/6457/
»aaronstene.com/tag/sandwich-isle···cations/
Due to a lot of effort from angry Hawaii folks the FCC has stopped total caving to Sandwich Isles Communications using our USF tax funds but I see red every time I go walking on the street one block over from mine where Sandwich Isles laid fiber paid for by US citizens taxes in order to serve a handful of Hawaiian homestead land homes yet my friend's home (where the pedestal is located and who had her driveway torn up for months due to the cable laying) could not get ANY BROADBAND. She's not on Hawaiian Homesteads land...that is three lots next to hers and she is not allowed to pay to hook up to Sandwich Isles fiber line right there at her house. Time Warner Cable wants over $1000 to run a line to her house from the side street that is serviced by them. There are a number of homes on this one mile street in the same situation. (Recently, she was finally able to get a very low level broadband via AT&T cell phone at a high price).
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson | |
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to The Limit
said by The Limit:And overage charges are consumer friendly? Can you go a little more in depth as to the reasoning behind this statement? Common sense man, would you rather have a slower uncapped connection, and pay for it once per month, or pay via double dipping? Look at our friends in Canada. That's where we are moving towards.
Can you explain why they're NOT consumer friendly?
Of course everyone would like free/unlimited. That's not the point. All data plans have limits of some kind, and they're getting more so since streaming video and torrenting have gone mainstream.
The point I raised is would a consumer rather have a hard cap (cut off after a certain amount), or a tiered plan where they can choose to spend more to get more. Karl picks (a), I don't see the logic. What are you doing, protecting stupid people from doing stupid things? That's consumer friendly? I WANT to be able to buy what I want, not be prevented by some hard cap plan.
I didn't say that there was anything wrong with making money, but halting a potential gold mine investment in favor of immediate turns is one of the main issues with public investment. I realize that corporations have to look out for their investors. I get it, I'm not saying that is terrible to do, in fact corporations MUST look out for their investors.
Apparently I am not the only one here that thinks $10 a gigabyte is "too expensive", not to mention, when people out in said boonies sign up for this service and bills start coming in. There are still quite a few people who do not even know how much a gigabyte is, so how in the world are they going to be able to adequately monitor usage unless someone educates them? After a bill shock or two?
Plus, every plan I've seen gives users warnings and "no charge this month but if you do it again" type statements.
I want to see some factual evidence based on your claims, because you are the one making the generalizations and statements that "ALL USERS NEED THIS MUCH DATA, THEY DON'T NEED TO STREAM, YADA YADA YADA, I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM" attitude.
So many things that you are stating that I said, and never did to begin with. Go back and read what I said, five times, and instead of reading it with a bias, read it with an objective view.
I would rather this venture of Verizon's to be the good for those who can't afford to move, and live in the boonies.
I suspect that you are one of those people who believes that you need to not just reject an offering because you don't want it, but you need to force everyone else to not be able to choose that offering because you think it's "wrong" somehow.
You assume that people can just pick up and move to a better place, when in reality most people can't afford to do this.
| |
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to The Limit
said by The Limit:Here's a question for you:
What's wrong with classifying ISPs as Common Carriers?
(SARCASM) have to say this because people tend to not recognize it
Yeah, it was really wonderful when Ma Bell was a regulated monopoly/common carrier. It only took decades for them to upgrade things. Wow, I can get touchtone dialing now! It only took 10 years! Wow, I can plunk my phone into an acoustic coupler and get 300 WHOLE BITS PER SECOND! Wait, you want to plug SOMETHING BESIDES ONE OF OUR PHONES into the wall! Like a MODEM? NO NO! THAT WOULD BE BAD!
And the prices were so amazingly good. Only 10 cents a minute for long distance! Imagine that!
Let's go right back to that! I don't want innovation and competition, I like things JUST THE WAY THEY ARE NOW! | |
The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | ...I'm talking about now, not then. You are taking what I said out of context, so again, what's wrong with classifying carriers as common carriers? All I see is sarcasm, for once, give me a serious answer.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) | |
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| What's NOT wrong with it? You would basically be turning a profitable market where competitors invest to offer services to a government regulated low profit utility that no one will want to invest in. Taxes up. Innovation down. Prices up. Back to the good old Ma Bell days.
Sarcasm? Deal with it. Most of my posts are non sarcastic except when it seems to be called for by the question. | |
|
