| said by fiberguy:Why should they only take 5% of 10% profit? You don't think the people that invest into the company deserve payback on their investment?? You want to talk a price increase... cut out the investors and see what your bill does.. .. let me know how that works for you. 27% is a fair profit. And also, now your about discrimination? Maybe some "gay" people like the "gay" networks... why not cut out the black channels.. why not the hispanic as well.. what else you want cut out? Seriously... What's 50 QUALITY channels to you may not be to others.. 27% is not a fair profit for a monopoly provider. 10% is considered quite healthy, so a monopoly should be in the range of 5-10%. |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Says who? and really.. what makes you think they're a monopoly anymore?? maybe in the wire line service arena.. but anymore, these days, you still have phone competing with wired service and you also have a very healthy satellite industry..
... but, really, if you want to start playing the game of restricting profits on companies WHILE competition is in play, just be careful what you ask for, because you WILL NOT like it.
Look at what AT&T did to IL when they wouldn't give them a state wide franchise.. AT&T decided to hold back on upgrades.. I know the undeserved residents of IL are pleased with that one.
You start with government control on profit, as you're suggesting, in this case, while competition exists.. just remember, you're going to see a MAJOR decline in service..
you're not going to win on this one.. and 27% is not unreasonable. Even non-profit organizations are required, by law, to retain more than 10% of what they take for operating expenses. |
