Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to Fighterpilot
Re: [General] Why are data caps seen as okay? You suggest studying economics but fail to see how consumers are in unfair positions to barter with large government sanctioned Duopolies that collect massive tax subsidies ( USF is one of the largest telco subsidies in the world )
If that is the best you got, I also suggest you leave. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| reply to Fighterpilot
said by Fighterpilot:Easy answer. ATT and others are businesses who have invested heavily in infrastructure. Purpose of a business is to MAKE MONEY for themselves or their shareholders. Sorry, that's just the simplest answer I can provide. Lot of people think businesses should exist just to provide things to customers w/o thinking of the profit aspect or the capital that's been invested. After this thinking they usually run to the govt saying it's not 'fair' that this business is charging for a service some consider should be unlimited and 'free' so to speak.
I cannot continue as we just don't see eye to eye on this, and, 4am comes very early for me.
I doubt the OP has gained anything from this conversation but it's possible.
sigh...corporate shills...
ATT was unlimited less than 1 year ago.
I had DSL with them for over 10 years unlimited. They were greatly profitable.
The whole move to capped internet is not really for overage fees. It is to protect TV.
As soon as ATT had its Uverse TV up and running it was time to implement caps to protect the TV service from online video sites like netflix and amazon.
The only way to stop this is force a breakup of content providers (video, phone, tv, etc) from ISPs.
Also, ATT has been heavily subsized with our tax dollars over the years. Their network is not entirely built with ATT money. US taxpayers build a lot of it.
No one wants ATT to lose money but their capping to protect TV service should be stopped.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
| "No one wants ATT to lose money but their capping to protect TV service should be stopped."
It's about money and it's their infrastructure. Yes, tax dollars did build some of it but I doubt you'd find any entity that provides a service to consumer who didn't receive tax money. Blame govt, not the company for that.
The consumer is free to 'shove off' to another provider as they wish.
--
TT
|
|
| said by Fighterpilot:The consumer is free to 'shove off' to another provider as they wish.
LOL |
|
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
·Windstream
| reply to Fighterpilot
So let me get this straight here.
If every provider started capping usage, where exactly is the consumer supposed to go?
Business lines weren't created specifically for "high usage" residential customers. That's a moot point.
Should we go back to dial-up? What if they start metering THAT again?
I'm sorry, but you proved DataRiker's point: it's nothing more than greed, and protecting another failed business model. If America really was a "free market", and businesses like this didn't receive any subsidies from the government, the industry would be A LOT different.
The customer would be far more important, and greed not so much.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| reply to Fighterpilot
said by Fighterpilot:
It's about money and it's their infrastructure. Yes, tax dollars did build some of it but I doubt you'd find any entity that provides a service to consumer who didn't receive tax money. Blame govt, not the company for that.
It is the customers infrastructure. We paid for it.
Without us ATT shuts down.
I blame the company for taking handouts and then turning on tax payers to protect cable TV that has nothing to do with internet.
said by Fighterpilot:The consumer is free to 'shove off' to another provider as they wish.
I wish I was free to shove off to another provider.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
| It's the customers' infrastructure? That's hysterical! So you also own the dry cleaners equipment because you have your shirts laundered there? And you own the printing presses because you buy a newspaper? How about Chrysler and Ford? You own them too? It's a friggin' company that invested in some of the most sophisticated networking equipment in the world in the hope that they could find customers willing to pay enough to provide a return to their investors. You had absolutely no stake in the game and nothing to lose. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | None of those places exists without customers or government bailouts.
Why so anonymous???
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
| I assume then your real name is r81984?
I agree they don't exist without customers, but that's called capitalism! You succeed or you fail based on the products, prices, and service your provide.
And what government bailout has AT&T received? |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by MustBeAJoke :And what government bailout has AT&T received?
USF for years and years and years.
It did indeed build out rural telco, but after the buildouts they still gladly accepted the money year after year after year. |
|
| reply to Fighterpilot
said by Fighterpilot:The consumer is free to 'shove off' to another provider as they wish.
Already did that. In the south S.F. Bay Area I get faster, and cheaper than AT&T. Without any caps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| Your lucky to have a competitive area. Sonic.net? |
|
|
|
| reply to DataRiker
USF is a pittance. AT&T invested nearly $20 billion in its network in 2011 alone, 2% of ALL capital spending in the US. The government had nothing to do with that. |
|
| And by the way, carriers pay into the USF, not the government. The total fund nationwide, from all carriers is only about $8 billion, scheduled to drop to about $4.5 billion in the next 6 years. AT&T pays about $450 million a year into the fund. |
|
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:Your lucky to have a competitive area. Sonic.net?
Yes. Alas, I can't be at home at this time; and my passwords are. I usually post as NormanS  .
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| reply to MustBeAJoke
said by MustBeAJoke :USF is a pittance. AT&T invested nearly $20 billion in its network in 2011 alone, 2% of ALL capital spending in the US. The government had nothing to do with that.
So anonymous ATT employee, do you really think it is fair for ATT to cap our internet connections to protect their TV service???
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
| AH! There we go! Can't refute the data so resort to the 21st century equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" The data is all available at the FCC's web site. Nice try at changing the subject. I've got more important things to do than waste any more time with you on this. Enjoy..... |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| said by MustBeAJoke :AH! There we go! Can't refute the data so resort to the 21st century equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" The data is all available at the FCC's web site. Nice try at changing the subject. I've got more important things to do than waste any more time with you on this. Enjoy.....
OK I think you are confused. You discussed that with another user and then refuse to answer a very important question.
So anonymous ATT employee, do you really think it is fair for ATT to cap our internet connections to protect their TV service??? Please answer this, I want to know if ATT employees think what they are doing is right or wrong.
As for who pays for the network, who do you think the government and DoD pays for fiber, internet, public and private networks?? Who pays for the long lines fiber across our country that makes the internet, ATT?? Um no, its US tax payers.
Everything that could possibly used by the government in an emergency like the backbone can be lobbied for in government contracts. Then us tax payers pay the tab.
I guess you dont know about this department »www.corp.att.com/gov/about_ags/fact_sheet/
Dont worry ATT pays back senators and congressmen for their favorable contracts: »www.opensecrets.org/lobby/client···00000076
(Between 15 to 25 million dollars a year)
I guess you think ATT does this for fun.
You dont need to pretent ATT is not subsidized by our tax dollars.
Please answer my bolded question.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to LogicMan
OP is right. Caps are BS.
I've written an article about the whole problem and what this will end up costing Americans down the line (like other countries) here.
»www.worldbroadbandfoundation.org···too-late
it includes a call to sign the above petition as well as announcing the beginning of a broader US cap investigation project (which we'll be building a better/specialized tool towards) |
|
public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
1 edit | reply to MustBeAJoke
said by MustBeAJoke :USF is a pittance. AT&T invested nearly $20 billion in its network in 2011 alone, 2% of ALL capital spending in the US. The government had nothing to do with that.
ATT invested heavily in lobbyists, billing fraud, and obstructions of technology deployment.
The ATT infrastructure is a banana republic dinosaur by global standards.
»stopthecap.com/2012/01/17/call-t···-phones/ |
|
