| reply to fifty nine
Re: Covering cost vs profit said by fifty nine:I don't see how an item's or a service's actual cost reflects the market price though. With other goods and services thanks to cheap labor overseas they cost very little to make. Yet companies charge a significant sum for them.
Why is that? The answer is profit and shareholders. You can't really fault companies for wanting to make a profit and shareholders for wanting a decent return. It's not always about what's the consumer wants. If the price is too high for something I simply don't buy it. I'm sure if enough people did that the price of a product or service would adjust to where people would be comfortable buying it.
It is NEVER about what the consumer wants when monopoly or collusion conditions exist and governments do not enforce competition conditions in order to benefit customers, as they should. |
|
 TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL
 ·Verizon FiOS
| It is ALWAYS about that even in a "monopoly" situation.
Companies want more accounts not less as there is a chance to do more cross-selling.
Also;
If the government beats down the ISPs it will IMO set you back as potential competitors will not bother to set up shop or even try. |
|
thecp
join:2004-07-15
Sacramento, CA | What is it with people who can't even do some basic research into monopolies in the past? Rockefeller mean anything? Old PacBell/AT&T? The only reason these companies could have accounts was because it WASN'T a CHOICE for the consumer.
And guess what, they were beaten down by the government. So naturally all of our petroleum supply, railroads, and phone services have all but disappeared right? |
|
TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by thecp:What is it with people who can't even do some basic research into monopolies in the past? Rockefeller mean anything? Old PacBell/AT&T? ... And guess what, they were beaten down by the government... Thats right and it has been said that AT&Ts beat down set us back over a decade as this resulted in less R & D for wireless, sat and cable technologies etc., to support telephony by the Bells and others. We are still trying to catch up. |
|
|
|
| reply to TechieZero
I don't know what things are like in the US but up here we have a duopoly running the market. Their are caps on foreign investment and to properly invest in new networks there needs to be a proper climate for investment. When the incumbents built their networks they had guaranteed ROI in government protected monopolies. These UBB charges will go straight to the incumbents profits, reduce make most Internet plans indistinguishable and reduce independents subscriber base and revenues. How can they then go and ask for millions for equipment? Add to that the incumbents can offer lower promo rates than the independents so while prices now many be high enough to justify investments, the risk that the incumbents will lower their prices to wipe out the competition is too high. For threes to be a real market the foreign investment rules need to be lifted or infrastructure separated from the retailers. |
|
thecp
join:2004-07-15
Sacramento, CA | reply to TechieZero
It has been said... LOL. Ok, you've convinced me. Monopolies are the pioneers of innovation! |
|
TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by thecp:It has been said... LOL. Ok, you've convinced me. Monopolies are the pioneers of innovation!
Don't shoot the messenger...I am not the one who has come up with this. There are many technologists who agree with this.
TBH I don't care if you believe me or not. If Canada wants to repeat the same mistakes...more power to them.
After the break-up the telco's were forced to share infrastructure. This made us lazy. Enough said. |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | said by TechieZero:said by thecp:It has been said... LOL. Ok, you've convinced me. Monopolies are the pioneers of innovation!
Don't shoot the messenger...I am not the one who has come up with this. There are many technologists who agree with this. TBH I don't care if you believe me or not. If Canada wants to repeat the same mistakes...more power to them. After the break-up the telco's were forced to share infrastructure. This made us lazy. Enough said. They are capping and charging for overage. They get more money for less data. They have reduced loads. Nothing in this plan makes it even necessary for them to innovate because they have a government imposed handout so they don't care about making the pipe bigger or faster they just shop for existing tech that is cheaper.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | So the answer is more government?  |
|
| reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:It is NEVER about what the consumer wants when monopoly or collusion conditions exist and governments do not enforce competition conditions in order to benefit customers, as they should.
Can you point us to a company that is looking to spend millions or even billions to overbuild on top of cable or telco in any location so that they can maybe grab 10 - 20% of existing customers?
Who exactly do we think is going to do that?
There is a reason there are only 2 major providers in any area. Because they were already there, and already spent the billions to have 100% of the customers. Anyone else that comes along isn't going to get even half of the available customers. New customers that no one had are few and far between. Existing customers barely move from where they are now.
Just look at FIOS TV. It is a great service, you'd think Verizon would have more FIOS TV customers in the areas they service, but they don't have as many as they should for their cash outlay.
Why do people think that the government or even the incumbent providers are limiting the competition? Sure, those incubment providers don't want the competition, who in their right business mind would?
Sure, they fight municipal fiber projects, and maybe they shouldn't. But is it fair for a local government, that sets rules and regulations for what the telco and cableco in an area can do, to step in and spend tax payer money to build a competing business without having to go through the same regulations hoops? Who in their right business mind would sit back and let that happen?
If a 3rd or 4th company want to come into an area and offer service, and play by the same rules that the telco and cableco had to, then they are free to do so everywhere. It's the money that is stopping them. They can't compete on price if they have to spend the money required to run to every household and business, and then just hope they can get 20% of the customers to switch. |
|
 Pol
@tel-ott.com | reply to WernerSchutz
Yes! It is 100% correct! |
|
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | reply to TechieZero
said by TechieZero:So the answer is more government?
yup, that's why we're in a democracy. A government agency allowed a horrible Idea to be implemented. We need the government Heads (i.e. the PM here/and his ministers of cabinet) to rescind that.
if you don't like it that way, you can just skip all the formal crap, and go straight to ARMed/violent revolt to over-throw the government and it's agencies, and then fix the issue once the new power is in place. |
|
| reply to skuv
said by skuv :said by WernerSchutz:It is NEVER about what the consumer wants when monopoly or collusion conditions exist and governments do not enforce competition conditions in order to benefit customers, as they should.
But is it fair for a local government, that sets rules and regulations for what the telco and cableco in an area can do, to step in and spend tax payer money to build a competing business without having to go through the same regulations hoops? So, is it fair for a local government to apply a "cable franchise fee" on top of already high cable bills to pay for pork projects?
Pocono Township, PA now charges us such a fee to pay for some pet projects that we suckers (taxpayers) had no say on.
Maybe we need some higher govt agency ought to regulate *this*. It is outright extortion.
And what choice do we have? None, as we live in an area with NO OTA reception whatsoever, and where most people can't use satellite because of LoS issues.
All I see is one big money grab, from the bottom of the food chain to the top, and it sucks! |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by jazzlady:So, is it fair for a local government to apply a "cable franchise fee" on top of already high cable bills to pay for pork projects?
Pocono Township, PA now charges us such a fee to pay for some pet projects that we suckers (taxpayers) had no say on.
Who exactly elected your representatives?
The franchise fee isn't a fee you pay to your local government...you pay it to your provider. They don't have to pass that fee along. You don't see a pass-through amount itemized for, say ESPN, do you?
Also, you're going to pay whatever amount of that franchise fee is to somebody, whether that's your local government or your provider...
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? |
|
| said by jslik:said by jazzlady:So, is it fair for a local government to apply a "cable franchise fee" on top of already high cable bills to pay for pork projects?
Pocono Township, PA now charges us such a fee to pay for some pet projects that we suckers (taxpayers) had no say on.
The franchise fee isn't a fee you pay to your local government...you pay it to your provider. They don't have to pass that fee along. You don't see a pass-through amount itemized for, say ESPN, do you? Then why is it itemized on my bill as "Pocono Township Cable Franchise Fee"?
It most certainly is a fee imposed by, and for the benefit, of the municipality. They threatened to do this, and they got away with it. Who was going to stop them?
And it doesn't matter who you elect to represent you- they will all screw you. |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by jazzlady: Then why is it itemized on my bill as "Pocono Township Cable Franchise Fee"?
It most certainly is a fee imposed by, and for the benefit, of the municipality. They threatened to do this, and they got away with it. Who was going to stop them?
And it doesn't matter who you elect to represent you- they will all screw you.
It is itemized because the feds have allowed the providers to do so. The franchise fee is the rent cities charge for use of the right-of-way. Your city/township is not obligated to charge any fee for its use.
However, as I said, you're going to pay that amount anyway. Cable HSI service was also subject to the fee until 2002 when the FCC ruled it a information service. So, yes, the bill did go down for about 6 months, then went right back up to the old amount. As far as cable tv, your provider already figures in all fees and charges in setting the price point, so even if they didn't have to pay the fee, the price point would still be the same.
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? |
|
| reply to TechieZero
Actually, they'd still have it illegal to hook any non-Bell phone upto their network, and of course they'd look down on VOIP, email, cheap cell phones, and so on. After the breakup, we went to standards based on the existing infrastructure, custom phones (that fit that electrical standard), modems (that fit that standard) that can go upto 56k on downloads, thus a demand for broadband which bypasses those standards, thus VOIP that bypasses the need for a landline or cell, thus... Oh and the irony: They still controlled the markets so you were stuck with a limited local service. The national long distance fee essentially unlocked the lines for competition that allowed the Internet to go commercial.
Look into your history of Edison and Bell... They loved to stomp on any kind of competition with extralegal or lobbying actions. Burning telephones ring a bell, err no pun intended? |
|
| reply to TechieZero
Don't shoot the messenger...I am not the one who has come up with this. There are many technologists who agree with this.
TBH I don't care if you believe me or not. If Canada wants to repeat the same mistakes...more power to them.
After the break-up the telco's were forced to share infrastructure. This made us lazy. Enough said.
|
|
| reply to TechieZero
TechieZero  ] said by thecp:What is it with people who can't even do some basic research into monopolies in the past? Rockefeller mean anything? Old PacBell/AT&T? ... And guess what, they were beaten down by the government... Thats right and it has been said that AT&Ts beat down set us back over a decade as this resulted in less R & D for wireless, sat and cable technologies etc., to support telephony by the Bells and others. We are still trying to catch up.
|
|
| reply to Markff
said by Markff :I don't know what things are like in the US but up here we have a duopoly running the market. Their are caps on foreign investment and to properly invest in new networks there needs to be a proper climate for investment. When the incumbents built their networks they had guaranteed ROI in government protected monopolies. These UBB charges will go straight to the incumbents profits, reduce make most Internet plans indistinguishable and reduce independents subscriber base and revenues. How can they then go and ask for millions for equipment? Add to that the incumbents can offer lower promo rates than the independents so while prices now many be high enough to justify investments, the risk that the incumbents will lower their prices to wipe out the competition is too high. For threes to be a real market the foreign investment rules need to be lifted or infrastructure separated from the retailers.
Right on the dime! Superior, lucid post! A pleasure to read. |
|
