| reply to PGHammer
Re: And Just Who Are Those Investors? Frankly, I think the customers are the biggest group of "investors". We're the ones who pay billions upon billions upon billions--Carl Sagan would be proud  --of dollars to these providers... and all we want is good value for our "investment". And, personally, if I don't get that... then I'm going to stop "investing" my money with people who think they're the ones who are doing me a favor by taking my money. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Here here! That's called voting with your dollars! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel:Frankly, I think the customers are the biggest group of "investors". We're the ones who pay billions upon billions upon billions--Carl Sagan would be proud --of dollars to these providers... and all we want is good value for our "investment". And, personally, if I don't get that... then I'm going to stop "investing" my money with people who think they're the ones who are doing me a favor by taking my money. A public company's *first* responsibility is to its shareholders and investors (via it's board). Not the customer. Not even the government. While (in most cases) a company (especially a public company) can't survive by horking off their customers (or breaking the law), the first responsibility is (and should be) making sure the investors (the stock and bondholders) get paid. If you disagree, do business with non-profits (such as cooperatives, credit unions, et. alia.). |
|
|
|
| Yeah, well, Comcast, for example, receives much more money from customers than from investors, so... do the math: screw your customers--repeatedly, and they will cut you off. Customer unfriendly policies, plans, and prices are just some of the ways for an ISP to cut off its nose to spite its face. You want to keep a balance between shareholders and customers, but of the two customers are considerably more valuable than shareholders. A service that no one is willing to pay for is of no worth at all. |
|
| reply to mod_wastrel
Well said.
My buck stops here. |
|
| reply to PGHammer
Thats a lie the company's like to tell.
If there are no customers, there are no sales, no board to pay and no stockholders to pay. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel:Yeah, well, Comcast, for example, receives much more money from customers than from investors, so... do the math: screw your customers--repeatedly, and they will cut you off. Customer unfriendly policies, plans, and prices are just some of the ways for an ISP to cut off its nose to spite its face. You want to keep a balance between shareholders and customers, but of the two customers are considerably more valuable than shareholders. A service that no one is willing to pay for is of no worth at all. And a public company that doesn't pay a fair return on the investment (in the opinion of those investors) *gets* no investors, no matter what the customers think. Cooperatives and other not-for-profits are perfectly free to operate differently (after all, neither a cooperative or other NFP is forced to make a profit); however, a public company is faced with that onus.
Can you name a not-for-profit *national* telecom provider that is not a governmental entity, anywhere? |
|
| Like I said, the key word is "balance". Investors have no more right to decide what is "fair" with regard to ROI, than customers have with regard to prices... well, other than what each is willing to either accept or pay. Of course, if every single investor simply dried up and disappeared from the company's financial landscape, the company could still get by just fine simply by serving its customers in a fair, financially responsible way. Customers are essential for a company to survive; shareholders are not, at least, not for established companies. No shareholders draining off revenue means no need to charge customers more to feed the leeches. (See... I can be simplistic, too. ) |
|
| reply to PGHammer
I think it's funny that you mention only public corporations, not-for-profits, and government entities. What about the privately-owned for-profit company? To me, the overwhelming preponderance of public corporations versus privately-owned ones is the single biggest problem with the American "free-market" nowadays. A privately-owned company can be perfectly content with making the same profit year after year, focusing on product quality and paying attention to its customers' needs instead of screwing them. The public corporation, on the other hand, is forced by its shareholders to constantly grow, no matter what the cost. Like a balloon being steadily filled with air, at some point it must burst. |
|
| reply to PGHammer
said by PGHammer:said by mod_wastrel:Yeah, well, Comcast, for example, receives much more money from customers than from investors, so... do the math: screw your customers--repeatedly, and they will cut you off. Customer unfriendly policies, plans, and prices are just some of the ways for an ISP to cut off its nose to spite its face. You want to keep a balance between shareholders and customers, but of the two customers are considerably more valuable than shareholders. A service that no one is willing to pay for is of no worth at all. And a public company that doesn't pay a fair return on the investment (in the opinion of those investors) *gets* no investors, no matter what the customers think. Cooperatives and other not-for-profits are perfectly free to operate differently (after all, neither a cooperative or other NFP is forced to make a profit); however, a public company is faced with that onus. Can you name a not-for-profit *national* telecom provider that is not a governmental entity, anywhere? Oh please. Don't get me started. People invest in companies and keep their money in those companies no matter *what* the corporation does. Just look at Charter who is going bankrupt or heck even GM. These companies all have incurred serious financial catastrophes, and dumb investors stuck with them until they declared bankruptcy and lost their money.
Look at Google, who made up arbitrary voting rules that gave all the power to the founders and essentially no power to the investors. Despite the rules their IPO was huge, and they've been massively successful, attracting even more investors, *not* gouging their customers for every possible money. |
|
