dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
35
share rss forum feed

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to coldmoon

Re: Verizon a consumer's predator?

said by coldmoon:

said by chgo_man99:

"Here's a real fact: Verizon wants what any massive, government-pampered duopolist wants: more strings-free taxpayer money, a lazy regulatory body with no consumer protection authority whatsoever, government protection from competition, and the ability to engage in any business practices they like, no matter how unethical or anti-competitive."

Sounds like the top executives would fail a business ethics course if they went back to college.
The only people that the execs are accountable to are the shareholders who (presumably) have profit as their top priority. I don't think they would care what grade the execs got in their ethics classes or even if they ever took such courses...

JMHO

Mike
The only people execs should be accountable to are the ones that SHOULD ENFORCE THE LAW.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Then you need to remove fiduciary responsibilities and disallow private investment in corporate structures. Talk about a sure way to kill CAPEX and stifle innovation.


WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

said by openbox9:

Then you need to remove fiduciary responsibilities and disallow private investment in corporate structures. Talk about a sure way to kill CAPEX and stifle innovation.
Fiduciary responsibilities are not an excuse to break laws without repercussions.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Broken laws? Did I miss part of the discussion?


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

said by openbox9:

Broken laws? Did I miss part of the discussion?
Anticompetitive behavior, backroom deals, cartel-like pricing... all quite illegal.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Anti-competitive behavior has occurred in a few instances and it's typically been squashed fairly quickly. Backroom deals? Our country is founded in part on making deals, and unless you have examples, I don't see how they're illegal. Cartel-like pricing? Hardly. Lack of sufficient competition in certain markets to get profit margins as thin as possible to favor consumers, possibly. But how is that illegal?


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by openbox9:

Anti-competitive behavior has occurred in a few instances and it's typically been squashed fairly quickly. ?
Wait wait, you don't think inflated special access prices is anticompetitive? There are ISPs in rural areas paying $100+/mb of bandwidth because only one company, either Verizon or AT&T, runs a line there, and they can price at whatever the heck they want. Even Sprint is at the mercy of V & T's special access lines.

quote:
Backroom deals? Our country is founded in part on making deals, and unless you have examples, I don't see how they're illegal.
It's anti-competitive you moron. If V, T, and Google are sorting out rules in closed-door meetings with an FCC in meetings without any input from the consumer or small businesses, how can anyone else compete?

quote:
Cartel-like pricing? Hardly. Lack of sufficient competition in certain markets to get profit margins as thin as possible to favor consumers, possibly. But how is that illegal
*faceslap* 90% of the industry is owned by 4 companies. What the heck do you think the word "cartel" even means? The antitrust measurement gauge that the FCC uses, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, has jumped by almost 700 points to 2848 since the 2003. A market is "highly concentrated' at 1800. The FCC is supposed to take notice at 2880.

Only Sprint is experimenting with pricing, and that's because they don't have a choice with all the customers they're losing. AT&T was able to slap on an abusive 2 GB cap despite the falling cost of wireless backhaul.

What kind of evidence beyond this do you NEED to see cartel-like behavior?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by sonicmerlin:

Wait wait, you don't think inflated special access prices is anticompetitive? There are ISPs in rural areas paying $100+/mb of bandwidth because only one company, either Verizon or AT&T, runs a line there
So how exactly can it be anti-competitive if only one competitor exists?
said by sonicmerlin:

It's anti-competitive you moron.
What's the old saying about name calling in lieu of presenting a valid argument? I'm still waiting to hear what's illegal.
said by sonicmerlin:

What the heck do you think the word "cartel" even means?
said by dictionary.com :
car·tel [kahr-tel]
noun
1. an international syndicate, combine, or trust formed esp. to regulate prices and output in some field of business.
2. a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, as to encourage the passage of a certain law.
3. a written agreement between belligerents, esp. for the exchange of prisoners.
4. a written challenge to a duel.
If it weren't for the growing number of smaller wireless competitors, I could begin to see your concern.
said by sonicmerlin:

What kind of evidence beyond this do you NEED to see cartel-like behavior?
Something that actually highlights illegal activity would be a great start, particularly in relation to an actual law being broken.