BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Not transparent, but necessary They need to make it more transparent, but this is necessary, given that they only have a certain amount of capacity on their air interface. Not getting T-Mo didn't help either. |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Do you work for them? What a load. Four times a week Karl posts a piece here about the myth of limited capacity and how it's total bullshit. They simply want to gouge people. Throttle service, locked phones, terrible plans. |
|
| This should be illegel, FCC DO SOMETHING FFS |
|
| reply to rit56
Exactly, get everybody off the unlimited plans so we can make more money. The greatest thing in history.  I know that if I can get the top 5% off there unlimited plans I can sock them with overages, overages, and overages. My wallet get bigger, my investors have a big on there faces, and my costomers can just get screwed.
Sarcasm, but true of course.  |
|
 Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:They need to make it more transparent, but this is necessary, given that they only have a certain amount of capacity on their air interface. Not getting T-Mo didn't help either.
Caps does not solve that, they are used to make extra profit off already profitable users on unlimited.
If their tower is congested they have no choice but to throttle until they upgrade the tower, but there is no excuse for caps. |
|
Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | reply to chunky
Most stockholders of a company do not get any benefit from being profitable or more profitable as stock price is not tied to actual company profits. The stock price is set by traders on the stock market. The company profits can go down and their stock price can go up at the same time.
The only shareholders who can benefit from more profits are those that get issued a dividend because profits are up. |
|
| reply to BiggA
They never needed tmobile. Verizon has less available spectrum than at&t and they already cover most of the country. |
|
| reply to Oh_No
Well, thank you very much for that info, didn't actually know that, (maybe I will think about taking that economics class), but either way they are only doing this to get a money grab and a higher bonus. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to rit56
said by rit56:Do you work for them? What a load. Four times a week Karl posts a piece here about the myth of limited capacity and how it's total bullshit. They simply want to gouge people. Throttle service, locked phones, terrible plans.
Because Karl calls limitations on capacity a myth doesn't make it so. The capacity limitations exist. Whether they could be corrected more quickly than they are is a discussion of what financial resources an ongoing PROFIT-MAKING private enterprise can devote to correcting it is up for debate. Karl would be all for AT&T skipping making a profit to do a crash course update of available wireless spectrum. The stockholders don't share his cavalier attitude towards profits.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
|
|
 scavioPremium
join:2001-07-14
Melmac | reply to Oh_No
said by Oh_No:Most stockholders of a company do not get any benefit from being profitable or more profitable as stock price is not tied to actual company profits. The stock price is set by traders on the stock market. The company profits can go down and their stock price can go up at the same time.
The only shareholders who can benefit from more profits are those that get issued a dividend because profits are up.
Current and future profitability have a lot to do with stock price. A vast majority of the time a company's stock price is largely driven on how much money people think it will make. This is an oversimplification, but generally, if you increase profits and are moving on a path that will generate even more profits, your stock price will go up.
A dividend, however, has nothing to do with a profits other than a company that pays them is generally profitable in order to afford it. For instance, Apple makes money hand over fist and doesn't pay a dividend. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Air Advantage
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| reply to rit56
said by rit56:Do you work for them? What a load. Four times a week Karl posts a piece here about the myth of limited capacity and how it's total bullshit. They simply want to gouge people. Throttle service, locked phones, terrible plans.
lol do you honestly believe everything that karl writes? he spins stories and facts just like every other journalist out there in the so called "evil media". the difference is that he writes what you want to read. |
|
Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | reply to scavio
said by scavio:Current and future profitability have a lot to do with stock price. A vast majority of the time a company's stock price is largely driven on how much money people think it will make. This is an oversimplification, but generally, if you increase profits and are moving on a path that will generate even more profits, your stock price will go up.
Nope, there is no link between profits and stock price.
Profits can go up and stock price can go down.
Profits can go down and stock price can raise.
Stock price is 100% based on what the next guy is willing to pay for it.
said by scavio:A dividend, however, has nothing to do with a profits other than a company that pays them is generally profitable in order to afford it. For instance, Apple makes money hand over fist and doesn't pay a dividend.
A dividend is the strongest connection to profits you will get for stock holders. If the company is more profitable they are more likely to issue a dividend. Stock price has no connection to profits. |
|
 MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
| said by Oh_No:Nope, there is no link between profits and stock price.
Profits can go up and stock price can go down.
Profits can go down and stock price can raise.
Stock price is 100% based on what the next guy is willing to pay for it.
While that's true, normally people aren't willing to pay a lot for stock in a tanking company. The inverse is also true. People tend to buy stock in companies that are doing well (or well liked), which is why Apple, Google, Amazon, oil companies, etc stock prices are high.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Linklist
Karl has never admitted that there wasn't a problem with capacity for wireless networks. His issue has been with cable providers using capacity woes as a major argument to dishonestly prevent video from taking off over the internet by use of caps, where none are actually required.
The capacity myth has always been directed at TV/internet providers, and not towards the wireless carriers.
Now, he has reported that the need for more spectrum is a big lie the mobile industry giants toss around, but that is also very simple to see through, with just 10 minutes of effortless research. |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to BiggA
@rit56: So you believe the laws of physics don't apply to AT&T? It would be great if they didn't, at least at the air interface, but they do. How the manage the traffic is the issue. This system isn't transparent.
@Oh_No: you have to cap at some point. The best solution would be to bring back Unlimited* plans.
*you will be throttled to 200kbps after the first 3GB of data.
You can't upgrade your way out of a limited amount of spectrum. Land-based providers can upgrade themselves out of anything, as you just add more fiber (or make it go at 10gbps).
Verizon now has a lot more spectrum between the 22mhz chunk of SMH, and new AWS from SpectrumCo, etc. And for CLR and PCS? Look at their EVDO. It's getting sloooower and sloooower.
@chances14: Very true. His takes are just as ridiculous as the truth, just on the other side. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. This site brings up some issues that no one else does, but at the same time, it undermines its credibility with commentary that is detached from reality. |
|
| reply to Oh_No
said by Oh_No:Nope, there is no link between profits and stock price.
Profits can go up and stock price can go down.
Profits can go down and stock price can raise.
Stock price is 100% based on what the next guy is willing to pay for it.
Actually stock prices in the last decade or so have been MOST influenced by the quality of coke and crack delivered to Wall Street than by much of anything else. |
|
Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | reply to Morac
said by Morac:said by Oh_No:Nope, there is no link between profits and stock price.
Profits can go up and stock price can go down.
Profits can go down and stock price can raise.
Stock price is 100% based on what the next guy is willing to pay for it.
While that's true, normally people aren't willing to pay a lot for stock in a tanking company. The inverse is also true. People tend to buy stock in companies that are doing well (or well liked), which is why Apple, Google, Amazon, oil companies, etc stock prices are high. Yes, but that is not a real link. It is a gamble every time you make assumptions of how people will buy and sell stock.
A company can be tanking and Jim Cramer can tell everyone to buy it, the price will rise due to sellers taking advantage of the demand, and people will still buy it. |
|
scavioPremium
join:2001-07-14
Melmac | reply to Oh_No
To say profit and future profitability has nothing to do with stock price is laughable. Yes, the price is based on what someone is willing to pay for it, however, current and future profitability have more to do with a stock's desirability than any other factor.
Dividends are much more complicated than you make them out to be. In fact, I can list numerous companies that pay a dividend that don't even make money (HST, GGP) and I can list even more companies that make a ton of money that don't pay one at all (AAPL, GOOG). Expectations of growth and rate of reinvestment have as much to do with dividends as profitability. |
|
Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by scavio:To say profit and future profitability has nothing to do with stock price is laughable. To say it has anything to do with stock price is laughable.
As I said stock price is not linked at all to profitability.
Dividends may have a weak link, but way more so than stock price. |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | reply to JigglyWiggly
You have to do something so they can do something....
»Re: Just got my first message from them..
Have at it.... |
|
