bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Whiners will whine; but they do not deny the value Of course consumers would prefer low prices for unlimited service with no caps.  It is irrational, though, to expect service providers to defecate on the interests of their owners and not seek ways to better reflect value delivered in the prices that they charge.
While up-starts will always seek to undersell the market leaders, eventually they up-starts become market leaders and -- Guess what? -- they act like market leaders. If they don't realign pricing with value using metering or using usage caps then they will find some other way. If they don't, they're idiots, or chumps.
And if you think companies that have the ability to provide high-speed Internet service are idiots or chumps, then you're delusional! |
|
 danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | I think you have had too much koolaid
The problem is that they have little costs after their initial investment. They have both ends paying for the pipes, they arent losing money. They want their cake and to eat it too.
They want exclusive content delivery as that provides them with more revenue.
There is no reason for caps other than to squeeze the cash cow. If there were some valid technical reason I might be more lenient but there isnt.
Dial up by the minute didn't sell so well cause folks got off and didnt want to wait on the content.
Now with high speed, content is the key. Sell the content control the pipe...well folks will find other things to do when it becomes expensive or if people feel abused but current provider.
Congress will get involved when the squeaks become loud enough and incumbents greedy enough and stupid.... |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | said by danclan:I think you have had too much koolaid I think you're expectations are like that of a spoiled child, so I guess we're even.
said by danclan:The problem is that they have little costs after their initial investment. Evidently, either my usage of the word "value" went over your head (which I doubt), or you deliberately chose to try to hide from it, and argue the selfish consumerist tilt from a position of ignorance of the reality of value-based pricing, that I had outlined.
I'll say it clearly, so you cannot possibly miss it this time: Service shall be priced based on value. Only suckers price things based on cost. This is America; suckers don't stay in business, here, very long.
said by danclan:They want their cake and to eat it too. It sounds like you're describing your position, not theirs, after all you want the service you want, and you want to pay less than it is worth.
As I alluded to earlier, it is a childish expectation to get something for less than it is worth. I know that if I'm investing money in a company, I'm going to choose a company that knows how to respect my investment and get paid for the value they deliver, and as a result gives me, their investor, superior profits in return, instead of the company that just covers its costs and gives me, their investor, piddly profits in return. The great companies -- the ones that have the resources to provide great service -- price based on value, and always will, as long as capitalism is selected over socialism.
said by danclan:There is no reason for caps other than to squeeze the cash cow. The reason for caps is to ensure that people receiving more value pay more than people receiving less value.
said by danclan:If there were some valid technical reason I might be more lenient but there isnt. In other words, you only have room in your world for suckers providing you service.
said by danclan:Congress will get involved when the squeaks become loud enough and incumbents greedy enough and stupid.... Keep believing that your socialist knight in shining armor will eventually rescue you from the tower. |
|
danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | See thats just it...you dont get ANYTHING of value with caps. No improvement, nothing. Your experience won't in any way change no matter how you cap. Your quality of internet is completely unaffected by caps. This whole discussion about "reduced user experience" is a straw man argument to allow the carriers to charge users more for less while not in any way enhancing or improving their aging business model and infrastructure.
Your lack of understanding of how networks operate totally destroys your underlying argument.
Your sense of share holder duty is stuck in the short term evidenced that pure capitalist markets fail, try reading a history book about markets and choice. Cable co's are recognizing that verizon, with no caps of any kind to date is kicking their pants. Verizon is doing just fine financially and delivering the content and ooh wait they provide long haul connections to the content providers too...crazy talk...they get paid at BOTH ends...wow.... even Cable companies can deliver content but they want you to to stay on their wire and limit who you can pull content from.
Your understanding of socialism too seems a bit off. Folks already pay for differing tiers of service. Content providers pay for differing tiers of services from multiple providers both short and long haul.
The internet model today is not socialistic. Never has been. The only socialistic aspect is the universal access fee you pay on your POTS line. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
2 edits | said by danclan:See thats just it...you dont get ANYTHING of value with caps. That's ridiculous. Every bit of usage is value.
said by danclan:No improvement, nothing. Please don't take this as condescending, but the way you're replying to this makes it sound like you have no idea... They don't charge you for the cap. They charge your for the usage of the service you make under the cap.
said by danclan:Your lack of understanding of how networks operate totally destroys your underlying argument. The reality is that I actually do know how networks operate, but I also know how companies operate, something which comes from working in the management of telecoms (AT&T, PacBell and Ameritech, specifically) for many years, after my stint at Bell Labs.
said by danclan:Your sense of share holder duty is stuck in the short term evidenced that pure capitalist markets fail, try reading a history book about markets and choice. Gosh you're so stuck in self-centered consumerist nonsense, you even believe the rhetoric the consumerist advocates feed you to spew. And further evidenced by the fact that you have to lie to make your points: I didn't say anything about short-term anything. You choose to ignore the owners of companies because that doesn't serve your myopic socialist agenda, but long-term shareholder value is what my point is all about, and what will be the foundation of the reality that people reading this thread will experience even if we prefer it is your fantasy was true.
said by danclan:Cable co's are recognizing that verizon, with no caps of any kind to date is kicking their pants. Which you would know to expect from a new entrant to a consumer market, if you knew anything about consumer business. You would also know that eventually as a new entrant becomes a market leader they would adopt the value-based pricing protocols of the existing market leaders.
Come back after you've had a few years in the executive boardroom and know a bit more about business, okay son? |
|
| Your very thought process is what's wrong with the failing corporate world. you think about making the rich investor richer and sucker punching the poor schmuck. seems to me that the internet only has value because of all the people that contributed knowledge and new ideas to the infrastructure. Now you can capitalize on the hard work of others as do many other countries. well, at least power companies have a good excuse..  |
|
|
|
danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | reply to bicker
While I know better than to respond a third time I will say this, your managed to validate my points. Its disappointing that you don't even realize it.
As for your alleged board room experience, the fate of those companies speaks for itself even Bell Labs, one of America's greatest private engineering & R&D divisions ever, has been reduced to a mere footnote by the corporate board room. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Long after I retired. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to Josh Jones
I haven't provided you my thought process. I've simply outlined the reality. Do I "like" it? I respect reality. Whether I like it or not is absolutely inconsequential.
And whether you like it or not is also absolutely inconsequential.
The real crime here, which I'm highlighting, is how folks who hate reality rail against it, covering their eyes, plugging their ears (but not closing their mouths). They insist that their personal view of the world must be "right" and reality must therefore be "wrong". They set themselves up for a never-ending death spiral of disappointment and dissatisfaction, and to the extent that they try to promulgate their own unfounded expectations onto others they're drawing those other folks into the death spiral as well. It is a disservice they're committing.
And that is why I bother participating in forums like this: To try to make sure readers have an opportunity to see both sides of the issue: the hopes and dreams of the idealists, and the hard, cold reality which I describe. |
|
