how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
1107 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
1 edit | Here is the money shot! "The most logical reason for the desire to shift to this overage model remains a fear that Internet TV will erode carrier television revenues. By monetizing third party video delivery by the gigabyte (be it via Netflix or DirecTV's "VOD"), carriers can ensure their relevance in the face of television's evolution. As a perk, consumers pay more money for the same product -- one that consistently costs less to provide."
I can speak that anyone around my age and younger values the Internet a lot more than the television. Only the old people really care about the TV. Out with the old in with the new.
I still think 1 dollar a GB is monstrously outrageous. If it was 10 cents a GB I might say they are just trying to run a nice business model to make extra cash but at their price gouging I can only say that they like to exploit the consumer's ignorance to the max.
Here we go
Money talks
Here comes the money
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money
Dolla dolla
Dolla dolla
Ching ching
Bling Bling
At the check out
If you ain't talkin' money
Then your talkin' don't matter | |
|  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Here is the money shot! Yea.. only old people watch TV.. get outta here with that cow dung.
So, youngling, if it's all about the internet and the internet is so important to you, hopefully the supply/demand lessons you learned about in school, in between texting, tweeting, myspacing, blogging, etc. in class, should have taught you that everything has a value. And, you just put your cards on the table for everyone to see. You just clearly stated that younger people "value the internet a lot more" than the old man's tele' ... and in this society, that makes it worth MORE money.
The "network" still has to be paid for. THINGS cost money. Techs cost money. The lines cost money. Service Reps... cost money. And guess what.. it all cost the SAME amount of money to operate a network, just about, be you push telephone, old people TV, or internet through that physical network.
So, I guess it is all about Money money money money.. and the dolla dolla (which is "DOLLAR" by the way)...
And in this country, which runs on the .. guess what.. "DOLLAR".. I guess it seems to be pretty important after all. I'm sorry if you didn't get a robust education on the basic fundamental economics of this society, but things do revolve around the dollar. Don't care if it's capitalism or socialism, the dollar still rules the nation.
And for the record, you shouldn't speak for "anyone around" your age.. becuase you're not. You can only speak for yourself and those that agree with you and it's not based on age alone.. bro.
This game is FAR greater and bigger than even Karl here wants to admit.. or has a clue about. Sorry, but that's the truth. While everyone is trying to tear down the video providers, ALL OF THEM, in the name of cheaper internet, they have NO idea, as most so-called "freedom fighters ever do" (which are usually clueless about life in general) what they are going to wind up with in the end.. What WILL wind up happening in the end is this...
..Cable/Video services as we know it (from all sources) will face a diminishing effect and rates will go higher than now you know, becuase video will be on the internet. The cost of internet WILL rise and not slightly, rather, SHARPLY, in the next few years. Internet video, which is STILL controlled by Hollywood, will ultimately shift its cost to the internet model and people will wind up paying EVEN MORE to watch Video. You think Hulu will remain free for now? Think the 90's when everything was free... at first. Eventually they will say they can't do it for free and a price will be placed on each show, BY the show, or by the minute.. and by then, you'll be paying even more for the internet as well. You don't think the guys in the ivory towers don't see and know this? Dude, it's been talked about for years now.. I've seen it personally.
So.. if no one cares for my lack of interest in this battle to tear down video providers of today, the way we pay now, I'm sorry.. but I rather think that what we have now is FAR greater than whats a few years away.. and I'm sorry if I can't support stupidity and blind ignorance of the outcome to this alleged battle for something cheap.
I'll be happy to tell anyone "young" who isn't old and thinks they have this world figured out already (who never do)... one thing is for sure, ... you pay taxes.. you die.. and prices will ALWAYS go up.. no matter HOW you try to think you can bring them down.. prices always go in one direction.. UP!
Ching ching!
again, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.. the $1 a gig is too much, that I agree. But, look at the WHOLE battlefield when fighting a war, or you are BOUND to lose the battle in the end becuase you never get to see who's coming to get you. | |
| |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5 | Re: Here is the money shot! "Dolla" is how the mispronunciation in the lyrics is spelled.
But you knew that, right?  | |
| | | | At some point your labor doesn't scale with your speed. They want to make the argument that as speeds increase labor rates + physical cost go up.
I'm not sure I buy that. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Here is the money shot! said by Uncle Paul:At some point your labor doesn't scale with your speed. They want to make the argument that as speeds increase labor rates + physical cost go up. I'm not sure I buy that. No.. labor doesn't scale with speed.. not in the least, kinda. Labor costs do go up all the time anyway.. usually on average 2.5% or abouts.. Then, couple that with new technology having to be installed to UP those speeds.. so there is your added costs for speeds argument.
Again, too, the price of the internet is way cheap for the value that people are getting from it. Just about 10 years ago, people used to pay $25 for dialup, for one computer, and many had a second phone line making their "internet experiece" a $60 expense. Now, for about $30 a month, you can connect the whole house and do millions more things with that connection.. I'd say that we're doing pretty good where we're at. | |
| | | | | | Re: Here is the money shot! I can remember when the average cost of an entry level computer in 1993 was around $1000 which is worth about $1500 today (»data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), yet entry level computers today sell for $800 or so. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Here is the money shot! So can I! But, comparing something that is mass produced on an assembly line to a national network is not the same thing.
And, entry level computers actually sell for under $500 now. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Here is the money shot! Would it be 'better' to say, "Considering the value we get from electricity we should be paying much much more for it considering it's cost to consumers in the early years."? | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Here is the money shot! No.. you're trying, reaching, and stretching there. Its very clear that you believe everything weighs the same as is equal which isn't the case. Life isn't black and white on everything.
Once again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Electricity is a necessity REQUIRED by the government. Electricity holds now "value" in it as does a product like the internet does. | |
|
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | I'm sorry to say, but you sound just as ignorant.
Billing per show won't work for families, at least not those who wouldn't want their kids constantly ordering shows over and over. I could see billing by series, which would be fantastic if properly priced. My family pretty much only watches things off the DVR in any case, so this is practically what we get. Except with a huge flat rate, that puts our cost per show at something like $4 each. (Not counting PBS) Basically an utter rip-off. But it makes the wife happy.
For those that watch a lot of TV, well, it will be like a tax on cigarettes. They probably shouldn't be watching that much anyway.
I'm fine with paying for things, and prices going up with rate of inflation. Corporate legislative bribery needs to be made criminal in this country, at which case any justification for wireline duopoly's run as cash-cows will disappear. It's the same argument being made for those being "bailed-out" now. If the government provides your means of profit, you don't get to make vast private profit on the backs of the public.
Of course the government doesn't charge wireline servicers 5% for debt forced on them that hurts their capital ratios. But I digress... | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Here is the money shot! I could analyze your post and counter you on many levels..
One of interest is your take on government. I'm sorry, but in the real world, just becuase the givernment tosses you a percentage or two of your total worth, if even, doesn't give them the right to control you. In the real world, if I put that much of my OWN money into the company, I'd have SQUAT to really say about it.
Personally, government needs to stay OUT of the money laundering game in the first place. The GIVEnment has this notion that everyone has to have something or be able to maintain a current status of lifestyle. PEOPLE NEED TO FAIL! That includes EVERYONE. Business to people. You know what? If people weren't out hokking their homes like ATM machines and buying flat screens, SUVs, and iPhones, they would have SAVED some money in the bank instead. When an downturn in the economy happens, and they do REGULARLY, then people would have had a SAVINGS to dip into. ANYONE rich or even right above dirt poor has the ability to SAVE, but they don't. Instead, they wait for the GIVErnment to bail them out, which takes money out of pockets of the people like me and you to give to them.. and who knows, you could be one of the them, but that's not important.
Second, prices don't go up just with the rate of inflation. They go up for many reasons. People want "more".. and "more" costs money. People want faster speeds. Lines have to be upgrades, hardware has to be changed out on the lines and in the central offices and head ends. New software has to be purchased, hardware has to be deployed in many cases. It all costs "money".. Some people have this notion that they just turn a dial, things get faster and more room is made for new stuff and that's no where the case. Just to install the technology referred to as ADS in cable systems, a 50 million dollar upgrade for their ad insertion servers had to be installed.. that was the Twin Cities market alone. That has/had nothing to do with inflation.
It's not ALL about bribery, greed, etc. That's a tinfoil wearing lover's dream. There is a bit of everything in the mix going on. There are upgrade costs, inflation, expenses and yes, lobbyists.. and I'm sorry, lobbyists are not all always bad. Government they DO in fact get and gain favors for the industry I made no mistakes about that, however, I do NOT trust the government to look out for ANY interest but their own re-election. I can BARELY point to anything government has done that really benefited the people at large in a LONG LONG TIME... so, sorry to say, lobbyist are there to also keep the interests of the businesses in check.. in case people forget, BUSINESS DOES HAVE RIGHTS.. they're not slaves to the people... I will stand up loudly on that one. It's not always about what the people want.. business has rights to. And, in a competitive market, you have the right to compete.
Also, I never said billing per show would work for families.. however, what I DID say, is this so-called war being battled, quite honestly, by unreasonable and cheap people, are going to net the population billing by the show or just like power.. billing by the juice/time. In short, I don't think these 'freedom fighters' of the internet world really understand what they are going to get everyone else into.
Fight for neutrality,... fine. But to fight for price AND neutrality.. NEVER going to win that battle. NEVER! If anyone things that they can fight and win a battle over neutrality and a low price, and yes, the same people fight and want internet to be about $20 a month or so.. ain't going to happen. What I call that is selfishness.
Call me ignorant, which is a totally incorrect term applied, and you're wrong. I'm away of what's going on.. ignorant I'm not. If you want to call me off base, fine.. but I'm CERTAINLY not ignorant. I DO, however, recall being called "ignorant" about 2 years ago when people were here crying about caps, and bandwidth hogs.. the same small, VERY small percentage of internet users who were tearing up the bandwidth meters crying for caps to be defined.. I believe I was saying "be careful what you ask for, becuase it's going to affect EVERYONE.. where most people have no need to worry about caps, once they define them, you won't like them".. I was called ignorant then too. Guess what.. we're talking about "CAPS"... I guess I wasn't so ignorant back then.. and I'm not ignorant now.
I pretty clearly spelled out where this battle is going, and what the outcome is going to be. Congress has never stepped in and forced a business to sell anything at a certain price with certain restrictions which forces a company into slow or no growth or into a position where they can't survive. Even in tariffs, they are allowed to adjust their prices based on costs and other needs. I think you'll be surprised to find out that government isn't that stupid as to kill an industry by squeezing them out financially. Even when they re-regulated cable back in the 90's in the desire to lower cable bills.. on average, about 80% of consumers saw an increase in their bills over night.
Think about that.. and I'm not ignorant. | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
 ·Comcast
|  Re: Here is the money shot!
said by fiberguy:I could analyze your post and counter you on many levels.. One of interest is your take on government. I'm sorry, but in the real world, just becuase the givernment tosses you a percentage or two of your total worth, if even, doesn't give them the right to control you. In the real world, if I put that much of my OWN money into the company, I'd have SQUAT to really say about it. Personally, government needs to stay OUT of the money laundering game in the first place. The GIVEnment has this notion that everyone has to have something or be able to maintain a current status of lifestyle. PEOPLE NEED TO FAIL! That includes EVERYONE. Business to people. You know what? If people weren't out hokking their homes like ATM machines and buying flat screens, SUVs, and iPhones, they would have SAVED some money in the bank instead. When an downturn in the economy happens, and they do REGULARLY, then people would have had a SAVINGS to dip into. ANYONE rich or even right above dirt poor has the ability to SAVE, but they don't. Instead, they wait for the GIVErnment to bail them out, which takes money out of pockets of the people like me and you to give to them.. and who knows, you could be one of the them, but that's not important. Second, prices don't go up just with the rate of inflation. They go up for many reasons. People want "more".. and "more" costs money. People want faster speeds. Lines have to be upgrades, hardware has to be changed out on the lines and in the central offices and head ends. New software has to be purchased, hardware has to be deployed in many cases. It all costs "money".. Some people have this notion that they just turn a dial, things get faster and more room is made for new stuff and that's no where the case. Just to install the technology referred to as ADS in cable systems, a 50 million dollar upgrade for their ad insertion servers had to be installed.. that was the Twin Cities market alone. That has/had nothing to do with inflation. It's not ALL about bribery, greed, etc. That's a tinfoil wearing lover's dream. There is a bit of everything in the mix going on. There are upgrade costs, inflation, expenses and yes, lobbyists.. and I'm sorry, lobbyists are not all always bad. Government they DO in fact get and gain favors for the industry I made no mistakes about that, however, I do NOT trust the government to look out for ANY interest but their own re-election. I can BARELY point to anything government has done that really benefited the people at large in a LONG LONG TIME... so, sorry to say, lobbyist are there to also keep the interests of the businesses in check.. in case people forget, BUSINESS DOES HAVE RIGHTS.. they're not slaves to the people... I will stand up loudly on that one. It's not always about what the people want.. business has rights to. And, in a competitive market, you have the right to compete. Also, I never said billing per show would work for families.. however, what I DID say, is this so-called war being battled, quite honestly, by unreasonable and cheap people, are going to net the population billing by the show or just like power.. billing by the juice/time. In short, I don't think these 'freedom fighters' of the internet world really understand what they are going to get everyone else into. Fight for neutrality,... fine. But to fight for price AND neutrality.. NEVER going to win that battle. NEVER! If anyone things that they can fight and win a battle over neutrality and a low price, and yes, the same people fight and want internet to be about $20 a month or so.. ain't going to happen. What I call that is selfishness. Call me ignorant, which is a totally incorrect term applied, and you're wrong. I'm away of what's going on.. ignorant I'm not. If you want to call me off base, fine.. but I'm CERTAINLY not ignorant. I DO, however, recall being called "ignorant" about 2 years ago when people were here crying about caps, and bandwidth hogs.. the same small, VERY small percentage of internet users who were tearing up the bandwidth meters crying for caps to be defined.. I believe I was saying "be careful what you ask for, becuase it's going to affect EVERYONE.. where most people have no need to worry about caps, once they define them, you won't like them".. I was called ignorant then too. Guess what.. we're talking about "CAPS"... I guess I wasn't so ignorant back then.. and I'm not ignorant now. I pretty clearly spelled out where this battle is going, and what the outcome is going to be. Congress has never stepped in and forced a business to sell anything at a certain price with certain restrictions which forces a company into slow or no growth or into a position where they can't survive. Even in tariffs, they are allowed to adjust their prices based on costs and other needs. I think you'll be surprised to find out that government isn't that stupid as to kill an industry by squeezing them out financially. Even when they re-regulated cable back in the 90's in the desire to lower cable bills.. on average, about 80% of consumers saw an increase in their bills over night. Think about that.. and I'm not ignorant. 1 dollar per gallon for gas for be nice ^_^ | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
1 edit | Welcome to the real world. The government isn't a typical investor. They have a monopoly on force, and can extract their "investment" to the determent of all other no matter what. Once they're in, they're in. In relation to wireline operators, since they provide the physical area within which the wireline investment resides, removing the government "investment" basically means the wireline is out of business.
I should have better defined my use of ignorant. Everything being relative, I was using it relative to what you report to "know". And I'll stand by that, but we can use "off-base" if you want to.
I do agree in the necessity of failure, but I'm not sure how it's relevant here.
On average prices do go up at the rate of inflation, it's the definition. When prices of one service increase beyond that rate consitently, it means the service is consistently raising their prices relative to all other services. Unless that service is showing accelerated improvement of services over all other services, it's really just profit taking. Profit taking is fine when your profit is created through innovation and hard work, but not so good when you're handed a government sponsored geographic monopoly over a captive consumer base.
It's funny how you're against government handouts to everyone but the very industry who exist exclusively because of the continuation of one.
Oh yes. Corporations, in fact, DON'T have rights. The shareholders of corporations have rights, and they're free to lobby with their own money. Any lobbying, however, that results in millions of dollars being indirectly transfered to legistlaters that end in laws that are detremental to their consitutents should be criminal. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Here is the money shot! Corporations DO have rights.. where are you getting that they don't?
Further, what industry have I condoned hand outs to? and where did I say that? | |
|
| | no, this is the money shot:
"In other words, the cable and phone companies want to charge consumers per gigabyte even though they refuse to sell it to business customers on the same basis." | |
|
| |
|
