dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


RiseAbove
Premium
join:2004-01-30

1 recommendation

reply to wifi4milez

Re: Solution

said by wifi4milez:

said by glinc:

The government should get into cellphone business or buy every single carrier out there. That way we would get cheap services.
Surely you jest?
because the free market has done so well to protect us at this point? You notice almost all of the cellphone companies charge about the same exact fee for services yet there is no basis for it or reasoning. Essentially they are acting in collusion with each other which is a crime and it should be investigated.

The free market has pretty much screwed us over just as much or more than a government entity could ever do.

I'm no advocate of bigger government but if they want to compete more power to them maybe it will shock some of these companies into doing something. I highly doubt it though because government is all about getting paid off and letting the corporations make the law and you and I getting sent the bill and screwed over which we have seen time and time again over the last 20-30 years.

I really wish google would of opened up their dark fiber, bought up the 700mhz spectrum, then offered some decent cellphone/wireless internet prices and shut down all of these companies. Instead they are just providing devices and OS's to them so they can continue the churn of ripping you and me off daily. The fact that the text message pricing is at it's current level is a joke, the actual message for them to send and process is almost zero costs yet they charge a premium. That alone should of sent flairs up to people in government to investigate their pricing methods.
--
Looking to get into Avaya telco if you might be in that field hit me up I have a lot of questions.


scott2020

join:2008-07-20
MO

Charge what the market will bear. That is what capitalism is about. If people hated it that much, they would stop texting.


moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

said by scott2020:

Charge what the market will bear. That is what capitalism is about. If people hated it that much, they would stop texting.
Sure, and just like the banking crisis, they will have their hands out looking for a federal bailout because they will say they are "too big to fail." How many government agencies contract with cell phone providers now? You think Uncle Sam is going to let their service go dark?

We don't have a pure capitalistic system. There are some regulations in place but they do not protect the consumer. Or would you rather go back to "caveat emptor."


wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
reply to RiseAbove

said by RiseAbove:

The fact that the text message pricing is at it's current level is a joke, the actual message for them to send and process is almost zero costs yet they charge a premium. That alone should of sent flairs up to people in government to investigate their pricing methods.
The pricing is a joke according to whom?? Why are Lamborghini's so expensive, is that a "joke" too? How come luxury yachts cost hundreds of millions of dollars, is that also a joke? At the end of the day all the above (including text messages) are luxury services that people chose to purchase/use. If you dont like it, you have a few options:

1) Stop using text messages
2) Use one the the many free text messaging services out there

It will be a sad day when people "sent up flairs" and complain to the government about the price of ancillary, and totally optional, services being provided by companies.
--
God bless America, God bless our troops, and God help us destroy the Islamic terrorists.

»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html



NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05

1 recommendation

reply to RiseAbove

We do not have a free market capitalistic system in place when it comes to cell phone companies. We have an oligopoly.

Free market capitalism requires numerous suppliers offering a homogeneous product for competition. We do not have numerous suppliers in the cell phone marketplace; at most we have 4 major players (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile). We do not have a homogeneous product either. Consider the coverage and network differences between the providers. Also consider the number of people flocking to AT&T for the iPhone, despite AT&T's abysmal network quality. Consider the number of people (myself included) who switched to Verizon for the Droid. Consider the differences between GSM networks and CDMA networks.

Free market capitalism also requires low barriers of entry into the marketplace. Barriers of entry are significant in the wireless market. FCC regulations, costs to build your network (or lease it from others, if the providers will let you do it), costs to build a nationwide network of retail stores, agreements with phone manufacturers, etc. all create significant hurdles when it comes to starting up a wireless company. Also consider the time it would take to enter the marketplace; one cannot start up a wireless provider without months (perhaps years) of planning.

It is not free market capitalism that has "screwed us over", as you've put it. It is the lack of free market capitalism that has, in this case.

All of that said, I essentially agree with the points you've made in your post. More government involvement-- at least in setting up a consumers' bill of rights, and creating price ceilings for some things where there is significant mark-up (like text messaging)-- may create enough of a shock to get the market to at least partially correct itself.

I also wish that Google had done more than just provide the operating system for Android-based phones. But I can understand why they didn't-- if they had started their own wireless company and used devices with their own OS, they would have been subject to much more government scrutiny. Players like AT&T and Verizon would likely have pushed the DOJ into investigations, which may have forced Google's hand in some areas, or forced some sort of splitting up of Google's functions similar to what happened with Microsoft in the past.

Strategically, Google did the best thing for themselves. They're getting a number of devices out there with their OS on them, on a number of providers. This gives Google a much larger potential footprint and gets more people using their services, which gives Google much more data to collect on people and sell to advertisers in aggregate form. (This is where Google makes a ton of money, in case you haven't heard. )

It also positions Google very well for moving into other facets of people's lives. Google Voice integrates nicely on Android-based phones, as does Google Maps. Both are potential threats to wireless company revenue, and may eventually lead to revenue streams for Google. I'm sure it's also caused a ton more people who didn't have GMail accounts to get one, leading to more advertising revenue. I could go on, but I'm sure that you've more than gotten the idea by now.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you.



RiseAbove
Premium
join:2004-01-30

said by NOVA_Guy:

We do not have a free market capitalistic system in place when it comes to cell phone companies. We have an oligopoly.

Free market capitalism requires numerous suppliers offering a homogeneous product for competition. We do not have numerous suppliers in the cell phone marketplace; at most we have 4 major players (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile). We do not have a homogeneous product either. Consider the coverage and network differences between the providers. Also consider the number of people flocking to AT&T for the iPhone, despite AT&T's abysmal network quality. Consider the number of people (myself included) who switched to Verizon for the Droid. Consider the differences between GSM networks and CDMA networks.

Free market capitalism also requires low barriers of entry into the marketplace. Barriers of entry are significant in the wireless market. FCC regulations, costs to build your network (or lease it from others, if the providers will let you do it), costs to build a nationwide network of retail stores, agreements with phone manufacturers, etc. all create significant hurdles when it comes to starting up a wireless company. Also consider the time it would take to enter the marketplace; one cannot start up a wireless provider without months (perhaps years) of planning.

It is not free market capitalism that has "screwed us over", as you've put it. It is the lack of free market capitalism that has, in this case.

I'm sorry I read all of this and your little quoted text in your sig and below your avatar and that is all I had to know how far outside of reality you actually exist. Not to mention that glorious and highly laughable last paragraph. It was pretty devoid of reality in any sense of the word. Please insert another 25 cents and try again.
--
Looking to get into Avaya telco if you might be in that field hit me up I have a lot of questions.


RiseAbove
Premium
join:2004-01-30
reply to wifi4milez

said by wifi4milez:

said by RiseAbove:

The fact that the text message pricing is at it's current level is a joke, the actual message for them to send and process is almost zero costs yet they charge a premium. That alone should of sent flairs up to people in government to investigate their pricing methods.
The pricing is a joke according to whom?? Why are Lamborghini's so expensive, is that a "joke" too? How come luxury yachts cost hundreds of millions of dollars, is that also a joke? At the end of the day all the above (including text messages) are luxury services that people chose to purchase/use. If you dont like it, you have a few options:

1) Stop using text messages
2) Use one the the many free text messaging services out there

It will be a sad day when people "sent up flairs" and complain to the government about the price of ancillary, and totally optional, services being provided by companies.
what are you babbling on about? yes it is optional but that doesn't mean the prices can't be fair. Nothing wrong with asking for companies to charge a reasonable price for a service.
--
Looking to get into Avaya telco if you might be in that field hit me up I have a lot of questions.