 Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | reply to Skippy25
Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network 1. There is no natural selection, no money for adapting. Bandwidth intensive apps are a virus that would kill every mobile network.
2. a. No they won't. Service will get worse and then reach a horrid but semi-stable level of misery; at least until the next mobile killing app comes out.
2. b. Which was exactly my point, providers would have to rape all customers to pay for upgrades so they can support a few people running bandwidth intensive apps or 'leech apps' that cannibalize other core business revenues forcing increases in other services.
If someone wants to use Skype, the natural selection is for those Skype users to go find their own Skype friendly service and if they can't find it, then Skype will be the one who has to adapt. |
|
| Skype is nothing more than an application that uses standardized protocols to operate in an IP network. There is no viable reason anything that adheres to those standards should not be allowed on an IP network.
2a. No it wont because that will cause the networks to earn less money so they will have not choice but to upgrade.
2b. You claim providers would have to rape all customers. I get a good laugh out of that because 1. they are raping all customers already 2. they have BILLIONS in PROFITS (not revenue) each QUARTER. Both Verizon and AT&T could update their entire networks and pay cash to do it within 2 years. So don't come here with the sad story of how difficult and hard it would be for them to satisfy the demand.
Go peddle your bag of dong somewhere else. It wont fly here where we are smarter than the average person on these topics. |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | 2a. Skype would cannibalize voice revenues. Cuts in revenues = No upgrades
2b. Yeah, cause telcos are known for not taking price increases or gouging customers /sarcasm
Go peddle your "upgrades come from thin air" dung somewhere else. It won't fly here because we are smart enough to understand simple economics and differences in wired and wireless network topology.
Your choice is to subscribe or not subscribe. Every other decision belongs to the wireless operator. If your provider doesn't allow Skype, go get another provider, there certainly is no shortage of them. |
|
| I would be willing to bet you would argue the MPAA and RIAA need to change their business models to stay relevant and yet you come here and say it is OK for the monopolistic broadband providers not to have to change theirs? I dont think so.
They are dumbpipes trying to still be content providers because that is how it use to be. They need to come to the realization they are dumbpipes and move on. The sooner they do that, the better for EVERYONE.
There WILL be a day that they do nothing more than supply bandwidth. Sure they may have another spin off that does the content, but they will be separate entities and will be competing on the merits of their product and not trying to control the packets to please their stock jockeys. No matter how they try they will not control the internet and AOL is a perfect example of what happens when they do try.
I'm entertained at your ending statement implying that there is so much competition in every market that the industry will regulate itself and will flow toward the wants and needs of the consumer instead of the consumer having to sacrifice their wants and needs at the will of those in control of the network. Nice try, having 3-4 choices which all provide the EXACT same service and make no attempt to truly compete brings no benefit to consumers. |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | I don't give two squirts of piss about the racketeers at the RIAA/MPAA.
3-4 choices isn't enough for you? Then gather up some investors and build this magic wireless dumb-pipe multimegabit network with infinite capacity. Everyone here thinks it is so easy and cheap to run a wireless network and can't seem to comprehend the distinct difference in capacity between wireline and wireless networks. They endlessly expect infinite capacity, high speed and unrestricted use for $50/mo. Sorry, that isn't the real world. There is not the capacity, nor the money to build it, especially if those apps are the ones that wipe out a good chunk of telco revenues.
In the meantime, you have 2 choices with AT&T, take it or leave it. Every other choice belongs to AT&T. |
|
| Re: We the PEOPLE own the spectrum You forgot one very important thing:
The PEOPLE own the wireless spectrum, NOT the companies who license the spectrum.
The PEOPLE get to dictate the terms on which the wireless operators are allowed to use the spectrum.
Ideally all of the FCC licensed spectrum would be used as WiFi, then we would have a hell of a lot more bandwidth available.
Wireless should be a dumb pipe just like wired internet. Yes burstable and minimum bandwidth would be lower than wired in the present situation but there would surely be enough bandwidth to use Skype or another VoIP app to make calls.
The current FCC licensed spectrum regime is government licensed duopoly, triopoly, and quadoply. If a dozen or so record companies can get found guilty and fined for price fixing the costs of CDs, how difficult is it really for 4 companies to collude together on things like text messaging?
Don't be an apologist for the telcos. Remember, ARPU x customers = revenue. All a telco cares about is increasing revenue and profit. |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | The "PEOPLE" don't get to dictate terms. The FCC does and did.
The "PEOPLE"'s only choice is to read the AUP and agree to it, or say no and take their business elsewhere.
Stop expecting the telcos to crap wireless network capacity. Remember ARPU is negatively impacted by competing services like Skype. The more Skypes there are, the lower the ARPU. The more customers you have, the more capacity you need...you can't make up for ARPU by adding customers. In order to recover lost voice revenues the telcos would be forced to raise data rates, or cap to limit the 'benefit' of the Skypes and you all would be back whining like schoolgirls again. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to Bobbox1980
said by Bobbox1980 :
You forgot one very important thing:
The PEOPLE own the wireless spectrum, NOT the companies who license the spectrum. Z80 already pointed out the failure of your logic here. Let me just expand on it a bit. The people want service providers to provide service. To get investors to be willing to invest their money building a service for the public, it is necessary to make the operation of that service more profitable than any other use of the money to be invested. That's why service providers don't just bend over and give consumers whatever they want. Service providers wouldn't exist unless the financial obligations to investors was paramount; customer satisfaction is important, yes, but as a tool to achieve profit. That's the balance. It isn't one sided, just focused on the customer's wants. It is a two-way street: The consumer gets some, and the investor gets some. And remember that the investor always has somewhere else to invest their money, and so that balance between what consumers want and what investors want must always result in the investor getting a better deal than someone else is offering the investor, just like it must result in the consumer getting a better deal that someone else is offering the consumer.
If someone else is offering you a better deal, then take it.
said by Bobbox1980 :
Don't be an apologist for the telcos. Don't be a naive apologist for consumerists.
said by Bobbox1980 :
All a telco cares about is increasing revenue and profit. All consumers care about is their own selfish desires. Everyone plays their own role in the system. |
|
|
|
