 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | yeah... like this wasn't expected. They're all in collusion to a certain degree. | |
|  | 
DownTheShore
Doing A Happy Dance
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:
| Re: yeah... When, in recent years, has the removal of price controls EVER benefited the consumer in the long run? Their removal has just resulted in a license to rip us off, and larger golden parachutes for corporate executives. 
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs: | The prices quoted are for people NOT on calling plans. Guess what - 90% or more of customers are on plans where additional fees are not charged or where the additional features are greatly discounted. | |
| | | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: yeah... how about for once not being a corporate hack? it's quite clear to everyone here except you that these corporations are screwing their customers because there's no competition. | |
| | | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: yeah... said by rit56  :how about for once not being a corporate hack? it's quite clear to everyone here except you that these corporations are screwing their customers because there's no competition. And it is obvious to ANYONE that there is a ton of competition for voice services. The days of the Ma Bell monopoly are LONG gone.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: yeah... said by TK Junk Mail :And it is obvious to ANYONE that there is a ton of competition for voice services. The days of the Ma Bell monopoly are LONG gone. But it reflects a bigger trend -- a systematic stripping away of phone services that once were provided free or for a nominal charge, and a steady increasing of fees for other services.
"The marketplace changes and you have to change your offerings," said John Britton, an AT&T spokesman.
He declined to elaborate on how the changing marketplace has forced AT&T to further reduce the number of free 411 calls customers get.
If this is "competition", maybe it would be better not to have "competition".
Note: "competition" in this case means one telco, one cableco and various VOIP providers; and to use an independent VOIP provider, it is necessary to have a broadband connection thru one of said telcos or cablecos.
sounds like quite a robust market, doesn't it? | |
| | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by rit56 :how about for once not being a corporate hack? it's quite clear to everyone here except you that these corporations are screwing their customers because there's no competition. And it is obvious to ANYONE that there is a ton of competition for voice services. The days of the Ma Bell monopoly are LONG gone. Then how can they raise prices? That goes against ALL economic logic. If I start a burger stand and ther are 20 others in my small town I can not possibly charge $10 per burger and survive. Economic logic would suggest that they otehr 19 cheaper burger options wuld get the vast majority of customers because most would be not only looking for a good burger but on that is not expensive. Yes quality would count, but at a certain price point that get relegated down the list of important factors.
the fact is that many people in in California live where there isn't any broadband so VoIP is ot an option. So in their case the ONLY option is Ma Bell. | |
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: yeah... said by BF69 :Then how can they raise prices? That goes against ALL economic logic. If I start a burger stand and ther are 20 others in my small town I can not possibly charge $10 per burger and survive. I can find a couple of places around here which sell $10 burgers...they are in no danger of going under.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| I will have to agree with TK here. Individual fees yes are more expensive. However, plan pricing has greatly benefit us. Even the most expensive plan form verizon "freedom" $50 before any taxes (about $70 after all) is a good price compared with pricing control. For that amount you can call anywhere in US, Canada and Puerto Rico. If you had to pay long distance in price control times... you know your bill was more than that.
Anyhow...when price control exist the companies will always charge the maximum allowed by law...and provide the min services required uder that law. | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: yeah... said by chemaupr :I will have to agree with TK here. Individual fees yes are more expensive. However, plan pricing has greatly benefit us. .... it seems you certainly perceive plans to be a "good deal", but that's only in relation to the exorbitant pricing that exists in the U.S. market. Compared to truly competitive markets (Japan, Korea, France, you know, those 13-14 countries that are ranked ahead of us), the U.S. plans suck - how about $40 in France for 15-20M broadband, VOIP and TV?
said by chemaupr :Anyhow...when price control exist the companies will always charge the maximum allowed by law...and provide the min services required uder that law. hmmmmm...charge the maximum...provide minimum services....
sounds like the market we have now and we don't even need price controls! | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I agree with him, but also have a difference of opinion as well. I personally find the $50 bundles to be an INCREDIBLE value over the old days of paying $200+ phone bills.. The worst day of the month was phone-bill-day.
Anyway.. where I disagree is this.. the $50 bundle is where they want EVERYONE to be.. if not the $50, the $30 w/o long distance service packages.
If someone wants just a phone line, local service, call waiting and caller ID, by the time you price that service out, the service is about $35 not including taxes.. so, it's an up-sell tactic to get the customer to either "bundle" or to "for just about $14 more, look at what all you can get" packages.
This is where I have the problem. They used the price increases to get people to move from the ala' cart services into the higher dollar plans.
There is no reason why unlisted service should cost $5.00, and caller-id should be almost $9.00.
The $50 to $80 plans are good deals if you use a lot of the service - and like I said, I find them to be an incredible deal.. on a personal note, where I find them cost prohibitive is when you start getting into line 2, and 3 or 4 of the home - which many homes are having more phone lines than just one. | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
edit:
August 18th, @12:29PM
| said by chemaupr :I will have to agree with TK here. Individual fees yes are more expensive. However, plan pricing has greatly benefit us. Even the most expensive plan form verizon "freedom" $50 before any taxes (about $70 after all) is a good price compared with pricing control. For that amount you can call anywhere in US, Canada and Puerto Rico. If you had to pay long distance in price control times... you know your bill was more than that. Anyhow...when price control exist the companies will always charge the maximum allowed by law...and provide the min services required uder that law. Bullshit! I have three AT&T residential phone lines, and one AT&T business phone line. Each of these lines costs me approx. $17.50/mo, even with all "fees" and taxes included. Of course, I do not have Caller ID, Call Waiting, etc., because I refuse to pay AT&T the outrageous amounts asked for what I regard as useless "services. I have separate local toll and long distance calling through Global Crossing at $0.025/min.. My monthly long distance and local toll calling amounts to $4.00-$6.00/mo. for all three lines. My long distance calling would have to increase a significant amount to cause a benefit from a blanket calling plan.
So, AT&T forcing me off my unmeasured services (except business lines) would cost me significantly more money per month than I already spend. My usage would not change, it has been fairly stable for many years. Way back when I had two businesses, and two separate business lines, my max monthly billing for service on those lines averaged $32.00-$37.00/mo/each during peak usage months/seasonal swings in business.
AT&T's new Residential Service Agreement, which is going into effect Oct. 1, 2008, is the first step to eliminate the type of service I currently have, and raise prices across the board. It also forces mandatory binding arbitration; immunity for all past, present and future actions and/or inactions, legal or illegal, by AT&T employees, officers, directors, assignees, agents, subsidiaries, and affiliates; indemnity for AT&T employees, officers, directors, assignees, agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, past, present and future, except in the case of AT&T's willful misconduct or gross negligence; among other unsavory, one-sided terms and conditions. But hey, read it yourself. | |
| | | | | 
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| Re: yeah... You are paying way too much! You really should look into "MagicJacks:" If you can only get AT&T you are going to pay more but at least your phones (particularily residential) will be less. Do you really want to keep looking at all the bleeding heart taxes and fees on your regular phone bills?
If you can get residential cable internet it may be a lot cheaper than AT&T with MagicJacks, with your business you are going to be ripped off as I am with AT&T, when they offer me dry loop DSL for actually MORE than phone + DSL it is a ridiculous situation (and they described this "deal" as a special)! You will however start saving real money should you need more than 1 line for your business with MagicJack $20 a year unlimited-period plus half the lowest rates for international-2 cents a minute to Europe or most other advanced countries.
If you want to keep paying more than you have to, at least AT&T will love you! | |
| | | 
jinjimbob
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Enumclaw, WA | Older people do not know about plans, a lot are still renting their phone. | |
| | | | gateguy
Premium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: yeah... said by jinjimbob :Older people do not know about plans, a lot are still renting their phone. 'a lot' -- source please!!! | |
| | | | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: yeah... said by gateguy :said by jinjimbob :Older people do not know about plans, a lot are still renting their phone. 'a lot' -- source please!!! As of July,2007 AT&T still had 580,000 people leasing landline phones(morons).
»www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/200···t_a1.asp
AT&T still had 580,000 phone-leasing customers as of July 1.
....market research company, doesn't think the demand will be for much longer. He says less than 1 percent of phone users rent.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: yeah... I've read that before, but I also thought that the phone companies were also told to cease those charges a few years back. Maybe I'm wrong. | |
| | | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: yeah... Why should they cease the charges? The customers were given the right to buy their phones back in the 1980s and they declined. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: yeah... That wasn't my question, and your reply isn't on topic.. but thank you. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
49533
| Re: yeah... said by fiberguy :That wasn't my question, and your reply isn't on topic.. but thank you. LOL. That's never stopped you before. | |
| | | | | | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
edit:
August 16th, @05:17PM
| I bet that most of those 580,000 people are paying rent for phones that they do not even have possession of. About Five Years after I replaced all of my Mother In Laws Telephones I discovered that she was receiving a bill for about Six Dollars a month from AT&T. I asked her what the bill was for. She said she did not know. I called AT&T and was advised she was being billed for renting a rotary dial hard of hearing handset for a Yellow Trimline Telephone. I asked the AT&T Representative how they could be charging for a handset and no base. Their canned response was that she could have purchased a after market Trimline base and was using the handset with that base. I demanded a refund for the fees for renting the handset. Although I was able to prove when I returned the equipment AT&T would not give her a full refund. I finally had to settle for a Two Year Refund. AT&T's excuse was that when the equipment was returned the proper Universal Service Order Code for a Yellow Trimline hard of hearing handset was not listed on the list of returned items. Although I experienced this problem in the late 1980's I believe that many customers are paying for telephones that they do not have possession of. This would be a good subject for Sixty Minutes to do a report on. | |
| | | | | | gateguy
Premium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD | So less than 1% is considered to be a lot?
--
Without data, it is just an opinion | |
| | | | | | |
baabaablacksheep
@charter.com
| Re: yeah... said by gateguy :So less than 1% is considered to be a lot? Was that a serious question? Seriously? | |
| | | | | | | | gateguy
Premium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD | Re: yeah... If you sustain less than 1% casualties in combat, that is not considered a lot (except to the casualties).
So truthfully, I do not consider that to be a lot. | |
| | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Yeah, it was or should have been expected but the LA Times fails to tell the whole story. No surprise. As a California consumer my costs have not gone up because AT&T has competitors that charge less. While I am not an AT&T fan, I do not see why their prices should be controlled in a competitive market. If they want to price themselves out of the market they should be free to do so without government intervention. If as a California consumer a person is too stupid or lazy to take advantage of lower prices offered by the competition they deserve what they get. | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: yeah... said by baj475 :...If as a California consumer a person is too stupid or lazy to take advantage of lower prices offered by the competition they deserve what they get. yes, that's it, the consumer is too stupid to take advantage of the "competitive market".
in my market, if comcast charges too much for broadband I'll just switch to... dialup! or satellite (I don't really want to play online games anyway)! or FIOS; wait a minute, I can't get FIOS. or DSL; wait a minute, I can't get DSL either. or a competitor cableco; wait a minute, there isn't another cableco.
yes, that will show comcast that in this competitive market this customer will vote with his.... nevermind. I guess I'm just too stupid or lazy to take advantage of all the alternatives I have. | |
| | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Re: yeah... The LA Times article dealt with telephone service not internet service. While broadband internet service can expand the choices a person has, there are lots of choices for telephone services other AT&T. Furthermore, my comment applied only to those that were too stupid or lazy to take advantage of the choices they have and was obviously never meant to apply to those with no choice. Before switching to VOIP (FutureNine & Magicjack), I had EGC for long distance and local toll. So there are competitive telephone services even where a person does not have a choice with respect to broadband internet service.  | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
·SONIC.NET
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·MM INTERNET, INC.
| said by baj475 :Yeah, it was or should have been expected but the LA Times fails to tell the whole story. No surprise. As a California consumer my costs have not gone up because AT&T has competitors that charge less. While I am not an AT&T fan, I do not see why their prices should be controlled in a competitive market. If they want to price themselves out of the market they should be free to do so without government intervention. If as a California consumer a person is too stupid or lazy to take advantage of lower prices offered by the competition they deserve what they get. Definitely not an AT&T fan here, either.
But I would agree with you, IF there actually were "competitors who charge less". There aren't.
In most cases, there is only one "competitor", and its most basic landline service is 2-3x the AT&T price.
I would support a substantial base rate increase petition for both AT&T and Verizon, under regulation, as its been almost 14 years since the last one was approved. But if they want to be deregulated, they should be required to divest themselves of the copper plant. | |
| | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Re: yeah... What competitor charges 2-3x the AT&T price?
I agree in principle, but do not think divesting is best. That could still leave monopoly control over the copper.
With regard to a base rate increase, I think that those with broadband would just flee to VOIP or cell phones leaving a smaller customer base to foot the bill. | |
| | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
·SONIC.NET
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·MM INTERNET, INC.
| Re: yeah... said by baj475 :What competitor charges 2-3x the AT&T price? I agree in principle, but do not think divesting is best. That could still leave monopoly control over the copper. With regard to a base rate increase, I think that those with broadband would just flee to VOIP or cell phones leaving a smaller customer base to foot the bill. AT&T Basic Residential Service is $5.70 before taxes.
Time-Warner's Digital Phone Service is "as low as $39.95", before taxes. (Zip 90007).
This assumes that you consider a cable-based, packetized telephone service to be a "landline" equal to or better than a circuit-switched copper-based landline. (I don't.)
While AT&T has struggled somewhat to maintain its copper plant, my landlines still ring through better than 99.7% of the time to the actual telephone. Cable-voip lines in my experience so far, fail to provide dialtone, fail to ring through, fail to transfer to voicemail, fail to process calls, at a much higher rate.
The copper is a natural monopoly, and it should be maintained and regulated as such, either as a not-for-profit coop/consortium owned by the various to-be competitors, or as a public utility, with fixed, guaranteed returns, as it always was. | |
| | | | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Re: yeah... $39.95 before taxes!! Hard to believe that anyone would pay that much for basic residential service.
I agree that VOIP falls short of being equal to circuit-switched copper-based landlines, but in my case my FutureNine VOIP lines are close enough.
We basically agree with respect to the copper monopoly. I favor a requirement that it must be shared with those who share it paying the maintenance costs. | |
| | | | | | rangerlg
join:2006-05-10
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| But you are comparing apples to oranges. AT&T's basic rate would not include long distance and is probably metered. Where I live, metered calling comes to about $18 a month after fees and if you do not go over the calls limit. What you need to compare is Comcast and AT&T feature to feature. | |
| | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
·SONIC.NET
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·MM INTERNET, INC.
| Re: yeah... said by rangerlg :But you are comparing apples to oranges. AT&T's basic rate would not include long distance and is probably metered. Where I live, metered calling comes to about $18 a month after fees and if you do not go over the calls limit. What you need to compare is Comcast and AT&T feature to feature. Says who?
This sub-thread was comparing the price of basic service.
TWC's basic phone service costs $44.95 (yeah, up $5.00). AT&T's is $5.70 (plus an ambiguous April rate increase of approximately $.12). (Feel free to correct me if you can find a cheaper price from TWC, even if its not published.)
If you believe you need all of the extra features that Time-Warner or Comcast bundles into their basic package, then their offering may appeal to you, if you're willing to take the risk on their service-level. Myself, I'm not ready to trust phone service from a cable-tv company.
(My cable-tv company sent an contract installer without a ladder; he asked to borrow my drill and extension cord, and I had to run the cable for him. He couldn't activate the cable-modem without having a Windows system to infect, and the cable-modem goes out of service several times a day. And you want to pay more, to get phone service from these guys?) | |
| | | | | | | | rangerlg
join:2006-05-10
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| Re: yeah... I never said I use Comcast as my phone service. My point was making a fair comparison. A Yugo costs a lot less than a Ferrari, but you would never compare those two vehicles. Show me an AT&T service with CallerID, Call Waiting, LD, and other features for $5.70 a month and then I will agree. I do know that AT&T is cheaper when compared feature to feature and does not require a high speed internet connection to function. | |
| | | | | | | | |
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
| Re: yeah... If you really need ALL those features Vonage has it much cheaper, however I can do without the call waiting and pay a fraction of the cost with MagicJacks, I am also getting a device to install between the modem and the router that shapes the internet traffic so that no matter how many MJ's you have, all will work well regardless of what else you are doing on the internet ($40). | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by baj475 :Yeah, it was or should have been expected but the LA Times fails to tell the whole story. No surprise. As a California consumer my costs have not gone up because AT&T has competitors that charge less. While I am not an AT&T fan, I do not see why their prices should be controlled in a competitive market. If they want to price themselves out of the market they should be free to do so without government intervention. If as a California consumer a person is too stupid or lazy to take advantage of lower prices offered by the competition they deserve what they get. Just as soon as Verizon can provide me with service in AT&T's monopoly area, and I don't care who owns the copper or fiber, that's when I'll agree there is competition. Until then, my choices are limited to AT&T or Comcast. Fucking stupid, but that's what you get with monopoly capitalism. | |
| | | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| Re: yeah... I should have been a little clearer. Where they have true competition, such as long distance and local toll, their prices should not be controlled. When they are a monopoly provider, such as basic telephone service over copper lines, regulation is needed. Not sure how much it will help, however, with dwindling copper subscribers to pick up the tab. | |
| 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| Translation said by John Britton, AT&T spokesman :
"The marketplace changes and you have to change your offerings, jack your prices up as much as possible" There, I translated it for you.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | Re: Translation "The regulatory climate changes and you have to change your campaign contributions," justifies John Britton, AT&T spokesman. | |
| 
Madness
got fight?
join:2000-01-05
Quincy, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
| Um, why.... As we approach the 25th anniversary, can it be asked why we killed the "old" AT&T? Y'know, Ma Bell? Say anything bad about them, but at least in those days they cared about the customer! This BS would've been unheard of. In fact, if I remember correctly, CA had the lowest subsidized local service in the entire country (Bell daze). | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Um, why.... said by Madness :As we approach the 25th anniversary, can it be asked why we killed the "old" AT&T? Y'know, Ma Bell? Say anything bad about them, but at least in those days they cared about the customer! This BS would've been unheard of. In fact, if I remember correctly, CA had the lowest subsidized local service in the entire country (Bell daze). In "those days" AT&T was only legally bound to provide the minimum assistance possible. They were ABSOLUTELY UNCARING ABOUT THE CUSTOMER, PERIOD!!!! Their motto was, "We don't care, we don't have to, we're the Phone Company". Lili didn't make it up on her own, the basis was reality...if they had "cared" any more than they did about me back then, I wouldn't have been able to afford a phone at all. AT&T was a badly behaved corporate telecommunications monopoly before Green, and the "baby" Bells were badly behaved corporate regional monopolies after Green, through the present day. Nothing has changed with the "fuck the customer" attitude of the old AT&T. The Telcos provided/provide a legally mandated level of service solely because they are regulated monopolies in their areas of operation. Tariffs exist because the government requires them to protect consumers, even though AT&T, both the original, and its progeny, have a large hand in creating them and determining pricing based on a "fair" ROI (read infrastructure paid for over, and over, and over again, ad nauseum). AT&T, and its offspring don't believe they should be held accountable at all, and that's what this new residential service agreement, and the removal of tariffed rates in favor of "competitive market pricing" is all about. | |
| 
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | And people are fleeing Telco copper services is a complete rip-off. And when they're not doubling calling fees, they're piling on the junk un-fees. | |
| 
yuutomo
The Wonder Kitter
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT
·Bresnan Online
| welcome to the world you created and another example of how screwed up things are when the people have no rights and companies are in charge. hey, I saw this coming decades ago, but no one listened to us then, and now it's too late, they've run this planet into the ground, destroyed the environment, this is just icing on the cake. | |
| | markofmayhem
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: welcome to the world you created I couldn't agree more. I think after this post I'm gonna go finish digging that bunker in my back yard, wrap myself completely in aluminum foil, and sit in it waiting for the end.
OR I could find a competitor that doesn't charge all of these little fees and let AT&T loose money on bad decisions; an option not available to regulated pricing. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: welcome to the world you created While I agree with your post - and laughed. .. the thing that still bothers me about calling this 'landline-competition' is one thing.. in order to have a competitive market, you need independence from each other as well which we're only seeing between phone and cable. What we have now is inde voip which still requires you use depend on one of the competitors to operate the land line service.
We've also had so-called competition in the past where lines were opened up by the ilec to the clec but the clec was still 100% at the mercy of the ilec. (ie: When I had MCI as a local provider, it was still Qwest or PacBell that had to come out and do the install, make the change of service, or repair the line.. I simply paid MCI who in turn gave money to the ILEC - hardly competition in my view)
Personally, I think they need to go back to PUC regulation in CA.. there was nothing wrong with it before. They opened it up and, here is the where the issues SHOULD be pointing at.. the "average customer bill" actually went up. | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Must be a mistake Everyone knows that these companies have the best interest of the people they "serve" at heart. It is only the evil people mandated services (read 'municipal run') that have problems.
Or maybe it is because of all the money spent to buy laws against muni systems that they have to raise the prices where they can to pay off the lawyers (wonder if that is included in the 65% profit growth or is in a separate accounting?).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | markofmayhem
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: Must be a mistake Maybe they had to raise prices because after deregulation all of the customers jumped ship to competitors and they need more revenue to upgrade their system.
Telco phone is dying; Cable and VOIP are growing. Now that consumers can spend less elsewhere (since everyone isn't forced to charge the same amount); telco will do what it has done for decades: less customers = higher prices. | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Must be a mistake said by markofmayhem :Maybe they had to raise prices because after deregulation all of the customers jumped ship to competitors and they need more revenue to upgrade their system. Telco phone is dying; Cable and VOIP are growing. Now that consumers can spend less elsewhere (since everyone isn't forced to charge the same amount); telco will do what it has done for decades: less customers = higher prices. There is no acceptable substitute for copper line dial-tone service (yet). It is highly regulated, required to survive in emergency situations, and it "just works"! It has also been paid for umpteen jillion times, leaving maintenance its biggest, almost only, expense. Maintenance of copper is relatively inexpensive by design/nature. | |
| 
CarterStClai
X-Out The W
join:2002-04-17
Sugar Land, TX | Ha Ha AT&T isn't going to lobby for a "free market" if it means lower prices and lower profits. | |
| 
texans20
Johama McBama 08
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| Price Controls This article shows the liberal slant of DSLR. As an American who believes in free market capitalism I find it insulting a government entity came in and told a company what they can charge for a service. AT&T is within their right to charge whatever they want for phone service, and people do have other choices today. Not to mention, AT&T's profit margin last quarter was 11%, which is rather modest. Apple's margin was close to 15%, how many iPhone buyers are going to write their political representative and demand Apple charge less for their products? Google had a 25% profit margin, how many will demand they show less ads? Microsoft was 30%, call Congress and demand that Windows and Office are cheaper!
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
| A "Horse-and-Buggy" ride costs more than a Taxi Fare, too! With my MetroPCS cell service: $45.00/month
3-minute daytime local calls: $0.00
30-minute daytime intertate calls: $0.00
Evening calls: $0.00 Weekend calls:$0.00
Happy Hour calls: $0.00 "Last Call" Taxi calls: $0.00
Call waiting: have it, hate it
411: Several ways to do it. WWW-based and traditional.
And, of course the number isn't listed.
Too bad I still have to buy a basic landline to get my DSL. Question is, what to do with it? The likely winner I see, uses it for another 20th-century task: I'll stick a modem in that perfectly working IBM |
|
|
|
California Consumers Pay For Stripped Price Controls