LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to ravital
Re: untrue
Tsk, tsk. You guys have ganged up on my friend over here  . (In case you're wondering, I don't work for a teleco.)
{edit}
»Re: untrue
{/edit}
[text was edited by author 2003-07-13 09:21:30] |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to oliphant5
So what's wrong with a firm raising it's prices? You're making a serious mistake when you look at this through a static lens. There's no guarantee that market conditions will be the same twelve months from now and hence no guarantee that prices will be the same. That's life.
People moan and complain about the cable bill going up, but they don't think about the increase in service (from 50 to 200 channels or so). (Insert typical anecdotes about crappy service here.) When I skip forward a chapter from the monopolistic competition one, I read about price discrimination. This is things like Microsoft making two types of OS, one for business users and one for home users, or airlines charging more as the date of the flight gets closer. People fail to see that when the eeevil corporation raises price, it's not because they are exercising arbitrary control over the market but because an economist has estimated that the gain in revenue outstrips the loss of subscribers. Everyone just wants to point the blame because price goes up (and never offering praise when the price goes down), but the reason it did is because that's what the consumer values it at. If you don't like it quit buying the product and if enough people do, the firm will realize the economist was wrong and lower price. Consumer is king.
--
"Despite the rhetoric of the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' that is so dear to the heart of the political left, a more accurate description of most Americans today would be the 'have-lots' and the 'have-lots-more'." --Thomas Sowell |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow  :
The month to month rate is $49.95.
Not necessarily as proven in this post seen earlier in this thread. »Re: untrue
You just need the proper device to predict the future.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 23:21:20] |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
I do know these details... and with SBC, there is no need to cancel to begin with. You just call and re-sign for another contract at the $29.95 rate.
You are the one saying "SBC would probably be one of those providers."
Given how the industry is? It wouldn't be unusual, correct? You forget, I escaped the prison you're currently in.
said by boogie74 :
Is it POSSIBLE that the "then-current month to month rate" will be $29.95?? Or do you see a number or price quoted in there somehow?
The month to month rate is $49.95. |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to oliphant5
Oliphant,
That was something. I just figured out that the shills actually do serve a purpose: When they challenge people like you (with more intestinal fortitude than me), you actually go out there and get some research work done and share it with the rest of us, so we can conveniently bookmark it all and hold the shills to the facts. The exact same scenario played out over the weekend on another thread on copyright and file-sharing, resulting in plenty of good info being posted on the real figures behind CD sales vs. P2P. If these shills had an ounce of common sense they'd realize they are the catalysts for dissemination of information they either would rather ignore or don't want others to see. Then again, if they had an ounce of common sense, they'd have more than an ounce of intellectual honesty.
Thanks for the great work. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to BBC4544
Lower prices, higher speeds?
Wrong. Lower prices... on new lower-speed tiers. Some lower prices on introductory offers, that then go back up to full rate. BIG WHOOP. |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to dvd536
said by dvd536 :
ISDN pricing has a lot to do with old tariff laws on the books (at least in america). thats why ISDN was totally passed over for the consumer market. thats also why IDSL (ISDN over DSL) 144/144 is so expensive.
So the big bad government forced the telcos to overinflate the price of ISDN?
--
The whole truth and nothing but the truth at »www.teletruth.org |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to boogie74
More hand holding for Boogie. And as the list of increases are miles long, you can google yourself up the details on the packages. Tariff histories too can be googled by both year and state since BellSouth doesn't provide direct navigation to them (wonder why?). eg »cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/ms/filings···ling.htm
A sample tariff package notice can be seen here. As you can see it details the increase, date of increase, when it is effective and how much the increase is if the increases can be briefly described.
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/al/notice/···-088.pdf
Some don't detail the amount of the increase, but do acknowledge there is are increases. This because of the insane number of increases included in the tariff filing...the changes can be to an entire service price structure in a single filing.
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/notice/···-027.pdf
But a simple search for any of the items in this tariff notice that were supposed to have increased and you can determine the amount of the increase. A little research into Digital ESSX services which a tariff claimed an increase for as an example can reveal what the price change is. It was a simple matter to Google up Digital ESSX, tariff, state and a previous year and I easily found the .pdf from BellSouth covering the service listing the prices charged under that tariff in the state I was looking for. Sorry to burst your bubble Boogie.
A 2003 Tariff filing by BellSouth for the state of Florida (one of many)
»cpr.bst.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/fil···-027.pdf
A 2002 Tariff filing by BellSouth for the state of Florida (one of many)
»cpr.bst.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/fil···-145.pdf
In these two tariff filing examples I've selected, you can see in section A3.13.3.1.a.1a (ESSX Per NAR Combination) the rates for ESSX service per NAR Combination for group 1 in 2002 was $16.90. In 2003 it's $20.29 A 25% increase. And this is just increase in a large price schedule in a single tariff over just 1 year...and there are literally hundreds of tariffs filed every year by the BellSouth units in each state. As the original tariff summary told, only the ESSX price schedule changed in this particular tariff. Per Boogie's request to do his work for him, the rest of the prices for services in this tariff did not change. (eg No price changes for Megalink). So as I continue doing Boogie's work for him, no tariff for a price change where one would be required means no price change. But as you can see browsing these tariff lists...there is no shortage of price increases in virtually every sector of these companies' business.
Verizon
Tariff Notifications
»www22.verizon.com/regulatory/tar···oc2.html
Bellsouth Itemized Tariff Notifications By date (and state) so even Boogie can follow along
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/al/notice/alnotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/notice/flnotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/ga/notice/ganotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/ky/notice/kynotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/la/notice/lanotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/ms/notice/msnotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/nc/notice/ncnotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/sc/notice/scnotice.htm
»cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/tn/notice/tnnotice.htm
Will Boogie be satisfied? Hell no. Next he'll want me to bring him Michael Powell himself to read the actual tariff filing to him. Then he'll want sworn testimony from EVERY BellSouth customer who ever had an increase. LOL.
Boogie, you may be able to pull your diversion stunts with others here and think you are so clever when you do so, but if you challenge me I'll slap you down something silly.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 23:41:40] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to oliphant5
First you say,
quote:
Yeah, constant price increases. You want me to post links to the 2000 and 2001 price increases? I will.
So I ask you to do this. In response, you reply,
quote:
Yeah right. Would you like that stapled and collated?
Did you lose your information or make it up? I vote that you made it up- as you have invented your own history for everything else.
You post a link that has the following information on it:
quote:
April 14, 2003 - Increased per minute rates for calls to Cuba - These are minor increases and Bellsouth still offers excellent Cuba rates on their discounted plans. Basic Standard and Economy per minute rates (the expensive charge when you do not sign up for an international calling plan) increased from $3.03 to $3.34 per minute. Fixed Rate Global plans increased from $0.63 to $0.64 per minute. Other, similar Bellsouth plans now have rates of $0.62 to $0.64 each minute.
As of April 14, 2003 those Bellsouth Global rates to Cuba compare very well to the discount 10-10 services.
February 1, 2003 - International Wireless Termination Charges - applies to international calls originating in the United States and terminating to wireless (mobile) phones and other wireless devices in countries other than the United States. BellSouth added charges for new countries and also increased or decreased charges to some countries. Additionally, BellSouth Long Distance made additions to the list of Dialed Digits to which the International Wireless Termination surcharges are applied effective February 1, 2003.
To view country-specific rate surcharges (which are added on top of your regular per-minute rate) and calling digits (similar to our area codes) for which charges apply, click to this link on BellSouth.com (link opens in a NEW browser window):
BellSouth Residential Long Distance International Wireless Termination Charges.
To view an Adobe Acrobat file of the country-specific calling digits (similar to our area codes) for which charges apply, click to this link on Tariffs.net (link opens an Adobe PDF file in a NEW browser window):
and
quote:
October 1, 2002 - Verizon Timeless Plan - for Customers in Western States (former GTE service area) - a new $3.00 monthly minimum on the Verizon Timeless Plan. This means if your long distance usage is less than $3 in any month, Verizon will round your bill up to $3 (before taxes). Verizon West customers on this plan were supposed to be notified via a stand-alone letter in August.
December 1, 2002 - Verizon Timeless Plan - for Customers in Eastern States - A consumer from Tonawanda, NY alerted me to the $3.00 monthly minimum on Timeless Plan affecting the East coast. Verizon tells me that Eastern customers were notified by letter in October.
I don't see SBC's rate "hikes" listed at all on this site, nor do I see BellSouth's rate "hikes" listed (ok- a penny per minute increase on calls to Cuba- which is STILL lower than anywhere the site has ever seen)- however, these are the two companies you claim have a notorious "history" of rate hikes.
Please tell me that you are arguing that SBC and Bell South are historically punching bills up higher and higher based on an increase of a penny per minute for long distance to Cuba and a minimum long distance calling fee charged by Verizon if you have the "Timeless" plan. Please tell me that you actually have evidence of what you're talking about. Not a proposed law that could mean rate increases by selected companies in one state- not a law that allows SBC to actually charge the $19 national average for wholesale lines.
Your claim is a history of rate hikes. You have shown NOTHING. You posted links to articles about a possible law being passed. You posted links regarding price increases AND decreases on certain services- however, you failed to document the services NOR did you document the price increases that took effect.
PLEASE document your claim as you offered to do.
KING Boogie
|
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to ib50MbSoon
ISDN pricing has a lot to do with old tariff laws on the books (at least in america). thats why ISDN was totally passed over for the consumer market. thats also why IDSL (ISDN over DSL) 144/144 is so expensive.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to ravital
Not really no. It's the way of the Shill.
Telcos never raise rates, Cali doesn't have a $38B deficit and "I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you."
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 20:13:40] |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to boogie74
Sure, and pigs will fly. Seeing as the current month-to-month is $50 you aren't guaranteed that rate.
It's called a INTRO OFFER guy.
You telco shills are a riot.
I guess now us Comcast customers can predict with our Telco Shill brand Magic 8-ball that Comcast service will be FREE in 12 months.
Q: "Will Comcast HSI be free in 12 months?"
Rattle rattle rattle
A: "It is decidedly so."
...Cool...
Q: "Will Boogie ever quit being a telco shill?"
Rattle rattle rattle
A: "Outlook no so good."
-sigh- |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to oliphant5
said by boogie74 :
And, YES... PLEASE post the list of exact price increases that have been happening- and please organize it by company. Also please include a list of those charges that have DECREASED or STAYED THE SAME (again by company).
said by oliphant5 :
Yeah right. Would you like that stapled and collated?
Oliphant, I had no idea you became his employee... Are congratulations in order or do I get you a truckload of Pepto Bismol?
said by oliphant5 :
But that's your pattern Boogie. Deny deny deny no matter how much undeniable proof is shown to counter your argument.
Come on. Are you really surprised? |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to boogie74
Yeah right. Would you like that stapled and collated?
You aren't interested in the truth. You shills never are. I could triple your phone bill and you would still say you want MORE links.
But that's your pattern Boogie. Deny deny deny no matter how much undeniable proof is shown to counter your argument.
And I'm sure you'll just continue dismissing the Washington Post and the FCC's reporting on this matter. You would make a great California governor with your knack of denial.
But since you asked (as if you actually cared...this is just another typical Boogie diversion)
»phone-bill-alert.com/ has a comprehensive list BY COMPANY and DATE as his Royal Highness requested of rate and fee increases for various voice services. Since I'm making no claim that any prices stayed the same, that's up to you to prove.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 20:03:08] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to oliphant5
Your links are all to articles that have nothing to do with "constant" retail price increases. You actually posted an article detailing about how SBC would like to charge more than $12 for a wholesale line to AT&T and WorldCom (as the national average for UNE-P rates is around $19-22). Your Washington Post article is NOT about how the FCC is suing Verizon for overcharging on LNP, but rather that Verizon Wireless is supporting LNP for wireless service... and that they MIGHT add a 10-15 cent surcharge to cover the cost of implementing the technology necessary for wireless LNP. Your quote details two companies (not SBC NOR VERIZON) BA and Sprint- who were overcharging for LNP from 1998-1999. AND, those charges were REDUCED!
Your third link is about legislation in Florida that (if passed, no less) would allow possible price increases for phone services. There has been NO increase as of yet.
The fourth link is a lobby effort to stop this same FL legislation (still no price increases).
The fifth link talks STILL about the FL legislation (still not passed- hence- no increases in price yet).
The 6th link details a proposed (still no price increase) price CHANGE by Southwestern Bell in MO. They filed a tariff to increase prices on 126 services on April 2 and to lower rates for 27 services. The increases haven't taken effect yet- nor have the DECREASES on the 27 services.
The 7th link is your Washington Post article- which doesn't detail anything about a rate hike (15 cents for wireless LNP??) for telephone services.
So to conclude things, you are really confident that no one reads. Your articles don't detail RATE INCREASES at all. The only 2 that have anything to do with rate changes is one on a POSSIBLE wireless LNP surcharge of 15 cents and a rate increase/decrease tariff filing.
I don't see your "history of rate hikes" anywhere in these links.
And, YES... PLEASE post the list of exact price increases that have been happening- and please organize it by company. Also please include a list of those charges that have DECREASED or STAYED THE SAME (again by company).
Or were you counting on that 15 cents to be your entire list?
Boogie
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 19:38:21] |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to boogie74
Huh? The Washington Post is anti-anybusiness? The FCC is anti-anybusiness? Telephony online is anti-anybusiness? The St. Petersburg Times is anti-anybusiness? Nice reach there guy.
Yeah, constant price increases. You want me to post links to the 2000 and 2001 price increases? I will. And .15 x 10 million customers is a lot...to the tune according to the FCC of $900 million dollars in over-charges for number portability alone. You don't think 200% profit is a lot...well the FCC disagreed.
$900 million in over- charges for a single feature may not be much to you, but I think it's pretty substantial.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 19:12:55] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to oliphant5
You are actually asking me to look at "anti-anybusiness" websites that collect complaints about 15 cents showing up on a bill? And you are asking me to conclude that this is price gouging and companies having a "history" of constant price increases?
Boogie |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to JakCrow
quote:
Now you might try to say that you can cancel and reorder to get another year at the discount rate, but most providers have a "grace period" where they won't give the discount to a customer that just tries to resign up. SBC would probably be one of these providers
You're an SBC employee. You should know these details. Why don't you?
I do know these details... and with SBC, there is no need to cancel to begin with. You just call and re-sign for another contract at the $29.95 rate.
You are the one saying "SBC would probably be one of those providers."
quote:
Offer requires a one-year term agreement. After the expiration of this term agreement, the then-current month-to-month or applicable term price will apply. The regular monthly price for the service, modem charge and activation fee of $50.00 will appear on the first bill along with any corresponding and offsetting credits. Offer is available for a limited period of time and is subject to change without notice.
Is it POSSIBLE that the "then-current month to month rate" will be $29.95?? Or do you see a number or price quoted in there somehow?
Boogie
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 19:42:41] |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to BBC4544
Keep diggin'. The price still is $50 unless you sign a contract with bundled POTS service (running the price up another $15 minimally) and after the 12 month intro price it goes back to the $50 month-to-month price (plus the price of the POTS). And if you should move, or need to cancel service...ding ding ding, $200 penalty.
Again, with your brilliance, Comcast magically cut their rates by over 50%. LMAO.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-08 18:53:34] |
|
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| reply to oliphant5
what spin, the price used to be $50 a month, they dropped it to $30, that is decreasing the price what don't you understand??? YOU claimed
"Yep, just don't claim that they're cutting prices when they aren't."
You just proved that they dropped the price and you are too stupid to realize it. |
|
