Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Some investors are not very smart.  In some cases lowering prices will increase profitability by providing the service at a price more potential customers can afford.
I guess investors aren't smart enough to recognize that lowering prices will provide the same function as a stock split, which investors seem to like. A stock split reduces the cost of a stock so that more investors can afford to purchase the stock, usually, driving the price of the stock up.
The only time this philosophy will not hold true is if the cost to provide service to more customers, will increase the cost to serve each customer. |
|
| MOST investors aren't very bright. Looking past the next quarter's earnings is inconceivable. |
|
| Psion Maybe the execs don't want to use the word 'netbook' as Psion continues into litigation claiming it owns the trademark. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to Mr Matt
Re: Some investors are not very smart. It sure is easy to run someone else's business on an internet forum.
Really, AT&T should offer their 3G for $0.01 per month. They'd probably have 300 million customers -- AWESOME!
(at a gross revenue of $36 million per year) |
|
| I think even though you were trying to be sarcastic in your retort, you did prove his point. All you have to do is turn your $0.01 per month rate into a reasonable rate, which I might add I did not seem to find such reference to in the original post, extrapolate that new data and surprising enough it proves his point. |
|
|
|
| Silver Lining If there's a good point about customer outrage at the crazy costs of bandwidth overage chargers, it's the publicity it'll get. Wireless plans with preposterous 5G caps are the only thing many of us have as a dialup alternative. It just doesn't work when you have a family.
I'm not asking for a free ride. What I need is decent broadband and a reasonable cost. $60 a month would be reasonable but the 5G cap is NOT! |
|
| They can't legally call it a netbook I'm surprised corp. these days is:
»www.betanews.com/article/So-that···36098956 |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to Ryokucha
Re: Some investors are not very smart. And you don't think AT&T (and every other corporation on the planet) does that calculation many times for every product they sell? It's Econ 101.
The problem with your logic is a common fallacy that's sprung to life lately -- this notion of arbitrary "reasonable". Reasonable is the very basis of all things that have to do with economics -- if a seller offers an item at a price that the buyer considers reasonable, the transaction takes place. If the price is unreasonably high, the seller won't have enough (or any) buyers and will go out of business. If it's unreasonably low, demand outstrips supply and there are shortages (or in the case of 3G, oversubscription and congestion).
Clearly AT&T is selling their service to customers, so their $39.95 (or whatever the price is) is reasonable to those customers. Just because it makes it unreasonable to you doesn't mean a thing, except that you will not be an AT&T customer right now.
I'm not coming down on you, but your post perfectly exemplifies the entitlement mentality that plagues this society (and the economy as well):
"I want what I want, and I will decide what is a 'fair' price, even though that's not my role in the economic transaction."
"That CEO is paid too much, because it's more anyone would ever pay me to run a company (since I don't know shit about running a company.)"
"That company is greedy because they are trying to maximize profits by increasing revenue while lowering expenses, which is their feduciary responsiblity to shareholders (the owners)."
"Text message pricing is outrageous -- if you apply wholesale bandwidth purchase pricing on a per-byte basis (except for the fact that millions of people are perfectly willing to spend billions of dollars on texting each year.)"
etc. |
|
| said by jester121:And you don't think AT&T (and every other corporation on the planet) does that calculation many times for every product they sell? It's Econ 101. Interesting to see somebody from the US quote Econ 101. Maybe you should have given that lesson to 95% of Banks, Insurance and Investment Firms et al. and we ALL wouldn't be on the brink of a Depression. |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | If the people in Congress has a basic understanding of Econ 101, we'd have have been in this mess. They have the "demand" side of the equation down, but to them the "supply" side is a printing press. |
|
| said by jester121:If the people in Congress has a basic understanding of Econ 101, we'd have have been in this mess. They have the "demand" side of the equation down, but to them the "supply" side is a printing press. Part of this is correct, but you left out the past 8 years of the Bush administration, where the supply side meant not to restock the accounts, by cutting taxes on everybody with a pulse and a 6 digit bank account. |
|
| reply to jester121
Good one.
Most of these posters wouldn't know a Balance Sheet if it bite them on the nose.
Sad but true |
|
| reply to bakorican
said by bakorican:said by jester121:If the people in Congress has a basic understanding of Econ 101, we'd have have been in this mess. They have the "demand" side of the equation down, but to them the "supply" side is a printing press. Part of this is correct, but you left out the past 8 years of the Bush administration, where the supply side meant not to restock the accounts, by cutting taxes on everybody with a pulse and a 6 digit bank account. No...No ...NO.
It was Barney and Dodo Dodd that with the Community Reinvestment Act started by the Clinton(s)that caused the problems.
Do some DD before you speak of what you DON'T know. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Ryokucha
said by Ryokucha:I think even though you were trying to be sarcastic in your retort, you did prove his point. All you have to do is turn your $0.01 per month rate into a reasonable rate, which I might add I did not seem to find such reference to in the original post, extrapolate that new data and surprising enough it proves his point. Sell your product at a loss and make it up in volume. LOL. |
|
| reply to ShellMMG
Re: Silver Lining said by ShellMMG:I'm not asking for a free ride. What I need is decent broadband and a reasonable cost. $60 a month would be reasonable but the 5G cap is NOT! I think there is a major problem with the cost structure cellular companies have in providing additional bandwidth--it's just not cheap like it is for cable companies. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to ShellMMG
Agreed. $12 per GB for the first 5 GB, then several times larger than that for additional GB...not the way to go.
As a side note, there are companies who wiill sell you an uncapped account. Not Millenicom anymore, but there's one that will do fixed access with mobile broadband. Problem is, we're talking about $150/month on a three-year contract.
On the supply and demand side of things, awhile back AT&T had a loophole where you could use a GoPhone unlimited data plan in a broadband card. Soft 5GB cap and no VPN access, but 1.2 Mbit/s for $19.99 per month was great, even though I did have to shell out $130 of my hard-earned money for a mobile broadband USB dongle.
If the mobile broadband package was $20 on no contract with purchase (for $150 or so) of the card, tons of people would sign up. Oh wait, that would crash AT&T's network. Back to thr drawing board...
...waitaminute. Netbook users are going to use more mobile broadband than cell phone users, though presumably less than full laptop users. Then again I'm a full laptop user and could easily bust 5GB per month on mobile broadband (I don't though...I like my SERO plan). Of course, who cares if people break 5GB in a month...AT&T is making bank on those chumps...until they start suing AT&T or whining to the press.
Gragh. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: Some investors are not very smart. Not anywhere did I say they had to sell at a loss. $60 for a "unlimited" 5GB cap is not reasonable. But hey to each their own.
I guess that is why I do not have any AT&T services or products, but I do have 150k in T. So hey I guess I can't really complain about their business model that supports the stockholders more then the consumers. |
|
2 edits | reply to charterbites
Well we can take it one step further then, it started back in the 70's with the original CRA. Reaganomics lead to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, which lead to (FIRREA) Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 signed by President George H. W. Bush. In 1999 Clinton did give more power to the banks, but in 2005 and 2007 changes to the CRA under the Bush Administration basically removed all regulation, gave almost unlimited power to banks in who they could lend to and how they could. Which gave to rise to the predatory lending that took place well into the Bush Presidency.
So if you want to Blame Barney or Dodd, you have to ask the question what was Bush doing for those Eight years after the 1999 CRA change? Why was he making it even easier for banks to lend to people who they know could not pay back the loans. Why were the 2005 and 2007 regulatory changes to the CRA which caused the current mess signed into law by Bush?
The original CRA was made to help low income families have the ability to get loans at all. But with lots of conditions and regulations to make sure they still could not get a loan they could never pay back. Yet the 2005 regulation change makes it so the bank no longer has to make sure the loan can be paid back, in fact that is exactly what the banks were looking for, they wanted people to default on their mortgage so they could foreclose and then turn around and sell the house at a profit, while pocketing whatever interest and down payment they did make.
Predatory lending should have never been allowed to go on at all, and it happened under Bush, so yes his administration is to blame, they did nothing but make it easier and easier for the banks to take advantage. And when the plan failed, they were there to bail out the same banks that took advantage of predatory lending. |
|
 Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to jester121
Reasonable and having no other choice are two different things.
When you sue to run competitors out of business so you are left with just a few select competitors with the same ideals as you, you deserve any and all regulation that is placed upon you to protect the consumer interests. |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to Ryokucha
"under the Bush Administration" is a convenient blanket that today's Democrats use for cover when they want to hide the fact that they took over Congress in 2006, and they were the ones in charge of legislation ("I'm just a bill", anyone?) |
|
