dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1547
share rss forum feed


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

2 recommendations

Let me just sum it all up:

Network capacity issues are NOT the reason companies are pushing metered billing/and/or Caps, or other "network management" techniques.

1) It's all about revenue: For some, charging more money for the services they provide now.
2) For some, it's about protecting lucrative services they charge for now being lost to over the internet competition.
3) For some, it's about cutting upgrade expenses to increase profit through lower costs.

However, for just about all, it's a combination of all 3 of the above.

And that is it in a nutshell.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)



jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Too bad there are far too few corporations that adopt a Mondragon approach to things. It would be one thing if the revenues were distributed more effectively, rather than to boost the portfolios and salaries of the top 1%.



S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

said by jmn1207:

Too bad there are far too few corporations that adopt a Mondragon approach to things. It would be one thing if the revenues were distributed more effectively, rather than to boost the portfolios and salaries of the top 1%.
why do you arbitrarily stop at the top 1%...why not 5 or 10 %? Why does my neighbor have a Cadillac and I only have a Buick? Why is the White House bigger than my house...it's just not fair!

Choices....


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by S_engineer:

said by jmn1207:

Too bad there are far too few corporations that adopt a Mondragon approach to things. It would be one thing if the revenues were distributed more effectively, rather than to boost the portfolios and salaries of the top 1%.
why do you arbitrarily stop at the top 1%...why not 5 or 10 %? Why does my neighbor have a Cadillac and I only have a Buick? Why is the White House bigger than my house...it's just not fair!

Choices....
Because such an enormous disparity in incomes helps to erode a civilization of it's middle class, which I think is extremely important for the type of lifestyle I would prefer to enjoy. More of these profits could be spent improving customer service, strengthening the infrastructure proactively, enhancing research and development in pursuit of new and better technology, and to increase the wellness and satisfaction of a majority of their employees, which could distribute this wealth more evenly to help invigorate other businesses throughout the community.

With a more democratic approach to how a business is operated, it seems like a better solution for everyone involved, including the CEO, rather than just the CEO in the usual systems that only care about short-term profit maximization. I'm not suggesting all conglomerates have their revenues completely socialized, but we could all benefit from a more balanced distribution.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

The type of lifestyle that you would prefer shouldn't come at the expense of others. There seems to be mass confusion about the liberties that this country entitles you to, and the entitlements people feel that they should have by living in this country.
This is evident in your statement
"which I think is extremely important for the type of lifestyle I would prefer to enjoy".

Why should anybody but YOU pay for the way that you prefer to live?
It's up to the shareholders to compensate their board members. if you want a voice in that process, then buy some shares instead of just standing there with your hand out!



jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

1 edit

said by S_engineer:

Why should anybody but YOU pay for the way that you prefer to live?
I'm concerned about having the choice to live the type of lifestyle I desire. Not everyone can own a castle, and I have no ambition to do so, but I would like my other choice to be something other than a miserable shanty.

said by S_engineer:


It's up to the shareholders to compensate their board members. if you want a voice in that process, then buy some shares instead of just standing there with your hand out!
This is precisely why I mentioned Mondragon in the first place. I think we have it backwards. The board of directors choose a CEO to operate what they see as a cold, faceless, money-generating entity. In the Mondragon model, the employees vote for and elect their management, oftentimes from a pool of their own workers. And this is not some idealistic pipe dream, there is a legitimate, successful working model right now in Spain.

Anyway, my knowledge of such things is obviously minimal, and I am just throwing things out there that intrigued me to see why types of responses I would get. I'm a long way from being set in my ways as far as this topic goes. Thanks for the civil discourse.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

No problem about the discourse.
You will always have "discourse" when you suggest that people redistribute what they worked hard for to people that are envious of what they have. And the "Mondragon co-op" mentality only breads complacency, jealousy , and realistically would make everybody equally miserable.
Work hard and prioritize right, you'll get there.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to KrK

said by KrK:



And that is it in a nutshell.
You got that right. Hustle a buck and make the owners happy. You asked for it and now you got it.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK



Yeah, right. In case you haven't been keeping score the Bells are some of the most egregious operators.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

said by KrK:



Yeah, right. In case you haven't been keeping score the Bells are some of the most egregious operators.
If by "egregious" you mean they are kicking butt and out hustling the hustlers I agree. You got what you want, competition with no government controlled service level or price. Enjoy.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

You mean... lack of competition, with plenty of barriers to entry and regulations to keep competition at bay.

Exactly what nobody (but the Bells) want....



jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to batterup

said by batterup:

said by KrK:



Yeah, right. In case you haven't been keeping score the Bells are some of the most egregious operators.
If by "egregious" you mean they are kicking butt and out hustling the hustlers I agree. You got what you want, competition with no government controlled service level or price. Enjoy.
Competition? I think the government is more responsible for eliminating competition.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to KrK

said by KrK:

You mean... lack of competition, with plenty of barriers to entry and regulations to keep competition at bay.

Exactly what nobody (but the Bells) want....
The Cable companies are happy too. You wanted deregulation and you got it. Let MCI provide your communication needs as they promised.