 | | What more needs to be said? This is nothing more than greedy companies which have virtual monopoly because of insufficient regulation.
But there really is no excuse for the shameless greed in my view. | |
|
 |  thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
right here
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| Re: What more needs to be said? Another factor is the mindless sheep who gladly dole out hundreds of dollars so that they can have the latest and greatest tech in the palms of their hands. If the people refused to pay then the prices would come down. Verizon and AT&T are just testing what the market will bare. And so far they haven't found the ceiling.
BTW, I'm part of that mindless sheep group. I love my smartphones. | |
|
| | |
| | | I think it's a problem with too much regulation. Why can't I start my own cellular provider and compete with these guys? I can't. They government has regulations in place that would prevent me from even dreaming of doing so. There are too many regulations in place that protect the interest of larger companies. If your answer is to increase regulation it's just inviting them to shut others out of the market even more and raise prices in their government made monopoly.
The answer is less, not more regulation. I know we can't have people just starting companies and transmitting over top of one another on random frequencies but there has to be a better way to allocate spectrum. With technology like the internet this should be easy. Why can't I bid on spectrum at a zip code or city level? Have like an ebay but set up by the FCC for spectrum. If I could bid on spectrum locally and start a small local provider I would be all over that. I could actually provide a good deal to people and grow from there. The rules in place now are anti-capitalistic and that's why we are seeing these ridiculous prices. | |
|
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: What more needs to be said? said by joe94395:I think it's a problem with too much regulation. Why can't I start my own cellular provider and compete with these guys? I can't. They government has regulations in place that would prevent me from even dreaming of doing so.
Nope. It's AT&T and Verizon preventing you. They use their roaming/peering agreements to make sure that you must go through them at inflated prices. You have the choice of helping them dominate and making them tons of money while having very little for your own company.... *OR* you must build out your entire network of towers to cover the nation from scratch because they will prevent or penalize your company so that your customers can't roam on their towers at a reasonable price. They behave very anti-competitively on towers and backhaul.
Secondly, they defeat the FCC's efforts to create competition by gaming the spectrum auctions and squatting on bandwidth just to make sure it's scarce for competitors.
It's not over regulation. It's lack of sufficient regulation.
Recently Cable MSO's and others have tried to get into this market, and even with their financial muscle and customer base, they quickly saw the writing on the wall and acquiesced. It's also suspected that Dish Network's plans will falter as well.
The situation in the USA is truly beyond compare.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | Re: What more needs to be said? I disagree. The answer is not more regulation. If you shifted responsibility for spectrum allocation from the national to a more local level like state or county you would create a situation where smaller competitors could get a start. Having the ability for a company to outbid everyone on a national level is anti-competitive and adding more regulations is just going to make it more so.
They can put out one big fire and prevent competition pretty easily on the national level but if you reduced the market size for spectrum to a smaller area it would be nearly impossible for companies like Verizon or AT&T to always win every spectrum auction in every locality. Investment groups would be able to target more profitable areas like certain cities and then grow their network from there. It would put the necessary spectrum investment within the reach of investors. Shrink the role of the federal government and shift the power of spectrum allocation to smaller areas.
The federal government does not have the ability to create competition, they can only limit it through increases in regulation. | |
|
| | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What more needs to be said? I think you are underestimating the resourcefulness of the incumbents... it would hardly be impossible for them to win every auction at local levels. They would simply set up spectrum affiliates in each market and still be able to outbid everyone. One thing you have to realize is that if you reduce the size of a spectrum footprint, you also have to reduce the cost of that footprint or no company would be able to stay in business. So, if you are thinking they couldn't afford to buy all spectrum in all markets, I assure you they would. Any small company that ended up with spectrum Verizon wanted would simply be sued out of existence. That's not to say that cell spectrum allocation wouldn't work at a local level but I don't think it would have the effect you think it will.
I agree with KrK, we need more regulation on big business, not less. Regulations certainly DO create more competition, it is business that eliminates it... that's why they hate regulation so much and spend billions lobbing to get rid of it. We need stronger Anti-trust laws and regulatory agencies that have the interest of the public and small business in mind rather than simply rubber-stamping everything that goes past their desks. | |
|
| | | As long as this country is a market economy, this will continue. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: What more needs to be said? It's a socialist economy, all are.... our economy in many areas is becoming a fascist (Corporate) economy. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| Re: What more needs to be said? Socialist means the government owns and operates it, which is not the case. We are indeed corporate fascists, with the top 1% pulling the strings.
Confusing the low (cherry-picked) information voter is a key of the GOP's strategy. Crony capitalism has failed us yet again, however, the GOP still claims it's this imaginary socialism that is to blame; something actual socialist nation's laugh at. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: What more needs to be said? said by Telco:Socialist means the government owns and operates it, which is not the case. We are indeed corporate fascists, with the top 1% pulling the strings.
Confusing the low (cherry-picked) information voter is a key of the GOP's strategy. Crony capitalism has failed us yet again, however, the GOP still claims it's this imaginary socialism that is to blame; something actual socialist nation's laugh at.
So the government has failed to regulate these companies because of corruption and your idea is to give these people in government more power and money? Do you not see an issue with that idea? | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What more needs to be said? said by Interesting :So the government has failed to regulate these companies because of corruption and your idea is to give these people in government more power and money? Do you not see an issue with that idea?
Would your suggestion be to eliminate government and let the companies operate freely? Here is the problem with that... the government has been corrupted by the very companies they are failing to regulate. The solution is obvious" Get the corruption (a/k/a business people) out of the government. | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by horseathalt7:This is nothing more than greedy companies which have virtual monopoly because of insufficient regulation.
But there really is no excuse for the shameless greed in my view.
Consumer greed is what drives the market. You want the service; you're willing to pay their asking price. If there wasn't sufficient demand, they couldn't charge the rates they do.
Regulation would only result in higher rates. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: What more needs to be said? Controlled or Managed Supply is the problem.
The demand is there; It's the choice in supply that isn't. (Carefully orchestrated.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: What more needs to be said? said by KrK:Controlled or Managed Supply is the problem.
The demand is there; It's the choice in supply that isn't. (Carefully orchestrated.)
The demand would not exist without a product deployed. Cellco isn't going to launch a service they expect to lose money on.
Spectrum segmentation already constrains supply. How would you add "choice in supply" without further limiting available bandwidth? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: What more needs to be said? Lose money... You mean like the $3+ billion AT&T made last quarter alone? Or the $2 billion that Verizon made last quarter alone? Yeah those poor poor Cellco companies are hurting soo bad.
Bandwidth is not scarce right now, but I would agree that they will charge what we are willing to pay, but it is the lack of good regulations that allows them to charge the monopolistic/duopolistic prices they charge. | |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: What more needs to be said? It also allows them to block competitors from entering the market.
If you can use your market position to force everyone to use your backhaul services you then control the rates any would be competitor would pay. In effect you enhance your profit and make your would be competitor have a razor thin margin. (and then you undercut them with your own service to end users.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: What more needs to be said? said by KrK:It also allows them to block competitors from entering the market.
If you can use your market position to force everyone to use your backhaul services you then control the rates any would be competitor would pay. In effect you enhance your profit and make your would be competitor have a razor thin margin. (and then you undercut them with your own service to end users.)
Probably depends on your point of view as to whether more-regulated backhaul would be a taking, an unfair subsidy to the competition. But I agree it can go either way, and merits review and oversight.
A case might be made to re-regulate certain non-competitive / de facto monopoly markets. But be careful what you wish for. Re-regulation doesn't mean lower prices. History suggests otherwise. | |
|
| | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by Skippy25:Lose money... You mean like the $3+ billion AT&T made last quarter alone? Or the $2 billion that Verizon made last quarter alone? Yeah those poor poor Cellco companies are hurting soo bad.
Bandwidth is not scarce right now, but I would agree that they will charge what we are willing to pay, but it is the lack of good regulations that allows them to charge the monopolistic/duopolistic prices they charge.
AT&T and Verizon maintain profitability by avoiding entering guaranteed-loss markets and delivering premium-priced products that the mainstream is willing to pay for. If they followed your suggestion, indeed, they would lose money. How have Sprint and TMobile fared?
"Good regulations" would only raise rates and stifle innovation.
That may be good for a few lone locales and for the short term, but not for the long run.
Bandwidth is quite scarce today, and will even more scarce in the future, as we continue to promote the expectation of HD-streaming-over-wireless, while auctioning spectrum block-by-block, market-by-market. The government's allocation methodology is about as inefficient as you could ask for. It isn't the fault of the carriers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: What more needs to be said? Blah blah blah.
Spectrum is scarce, you mean that scarce spectrum is a farce.
AT&T and Verizons maintain profitability by being a virtual duopoly that was created by many incentives for decades in their creation. They continue to use that dominance that was created through a monopoly to rake in billions every quarter. And guess what? They did that by being forced to enter in guaranteed-loss markets.
Good regulations provide needed services at a reasonable price for virtually EVERYONE. You speculating it would raise rates and stifle innovation is yet another scare tactic and has been proven wrong over and over and over. And before you reply to that statement with another stupid comment tell me how much rates went up and innovation was stifled when AT&T was regulated into what are currently all the phone companies now. | |
|
| | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: What more needs to be said? said by Skippy25:Blah blah blah.
Spectrum is scarce, you mean that scarce spectrum is a farce.
Nope. While carriers do implement seemingly arbitrary schemes to constrain availability - to prevent abuse, that doesn't change the underlying problem of physics, complicated by government administration.
How much bandwidth does it take to stream one HD video, 720p @ 30 fps, with nominal compression? 3 Mhz? 6 Mhz? 12 Mhz?
How much spectrum does a carrier typically acquire in an auction for a given MSA? Of that block, how is it divided between towers so as not to incur interference?
Our current spectrum allocations barely work for cellphone calls. We get blocking all the time in urban areas. Video demands 100x or more bandwidth per device, and streams last must longer than typical phone calls. Better math, signalling, encoding and RF engineering achieve some efficiency gains, but nothing of the order of magnitude required to deliver point-to-point wireless video for one and all. | |
|
| | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What more needs to be said? There is an inverse relationship between cell size and spectrum requirements. If the cells were smaller it would result in more efficient spectrum usage that would be able to deliver point to point video no problem. That is why you never hear about a WiFi spectrum shortage despite millions of routers fully capable of streaming video simultaneously.
Of course, smaller cell size would require the companies invest in equipment and fiber build-outs which is exactly what they want to avoid. So it is really only 'scarce' because they don't want to build. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: What more needs to be said? Yes, but how are you going to place and pay for even more cell sites, when there is absolute resistance to the existing ones? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: What more needs to be said? Thats funny, NextG has been putting up microcells all over the city and Long Island. Sure people complained but as usual, the company puts them up anyway. The spectrum shortage is a consequence of them not wanting to spend money on deployment. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: What more needs to be said? said by CXM_Splicer:Thats funny, NextG has been putting up microcells all over the city and Long Island. Sure people complained but as usual, the company puts them up anyway. The spectrum shortage is a consequence of them not wanting to spend money on deployment.
People in NYC are accustomed to paying a 25-30% premium for just about everything and the population density is through the roof. If that described the rest of the country, then indeed, you'd be correct - microcells would be everywhere.
But the rest of us are much more discerning with our funds, spread about, and as such, the revenue stream isn't there to support the capital requirements. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | ow many "competitors" in Sweden? Since Karl thinks that's the solution. | |
|
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: ow many "competitors" in Sweden? Not everything less in Sweden either, or is readily available as it is in the US.
Many other countries also do not use the subsidy model which artificially inflates the cost of service, and typically support 'run what you brung' approach w/o contracts. | |
|
| | | That doesn't really matter, they probably have price controls in place there, or there is less corporate greed. I believe that some of those countries must have some "regular workers" on their board of directors besides our usual greedy slime balls.. Either way, the number of competitors in Sweden isn't relevant. Apples to Oranges comparison. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| I like the unlimited voice and text I like the unlimited talk and text and the ShareEverything plans made it cheaper to add mom (who uses voice and text) and grandma (who uses strictly voice) to my ShareEverything plan than to have them on a separate AT&T account.
Still teaching grandma how to use her Samsung Convoy II but mom has mastered the same phone.
I use most of the data on my iPhone, Jetpack, and iPad 3.
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town). | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Gee, I wonder Sure, the overages are usually a rip-off, but in terms of the base plans, look at the area Verizon is rolling out with LTE, and the population density overall, and then do the same in Europe. It should be pretty obvious why it costs so much. It's not cheap to put in fiber aggregation and microwave distribution backhaul throughout the mountains of New Hampshire and the plains of the midwest and such. And that's not to mention the retrofit cost on each and every tower... | |
|
| |
| | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Gee, I wonder how big are Austria and Switzerland together compared to half of the US? In addition, the populations are denser and less spread out there than say Oklahoma. In addition, the densest area in the us, in big cities like Chicago or NYC have more than two choices for wireless carriers. | |
|
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Because you need to cover the whole country. And it's not cheap. | |
|
| | You can change your plan While I'm definitely not defending Verizon's high prices, you can go onto their website and change your data plan if you think you are going to use a lot (or if you did use a lot) in a given month. This will let you avoid overages. You can then back it back down the next month.
To Verizon's credit, their 4g LTE network is amazing. I was in Ogunquit, ME getting 50 megs down and 20 up. I used it to bypass crappy hotel wifi for my laptop.
--
My beta Ruby on Rails tutorial site! | |
|
 Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC?Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state | There's a sucker born every minute My subject for this post speaks for itself, these Cell companies are suckering customers....offer the IPhone, whatever for $299 with a 2 year agreement...plan outrageous priced...yup they just suckered the poor chap.
I have been on prepaid for a while now, and im paying about 1/3rd of what i was paying Verizon for the same exact service. I have a nice Samsung Galaxy Android phone on prepaid, it works everywhere i go, its not Verizon or AT&T, so im happy and it puts some extra coin in my pocket every month.
Anyone who would pay $200 dollars for a phone AND sign a 2 year contract with prohibitive terms and outrageous Early Termination Fees is a sucker...there is no two ways about it....if they are willing suckers or not, they are still suckers....or they like flushing their hard earned money down the toilet on service they could get for less then half the price... | |
|
|
|
Re: What more needs to be said?