Yeah, corporations are definitely looking out for the best interest of their customers and not their shareholders...
Net Neutrality.
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
Yeah, corporations are definitely looking out for the best interest of their customers and not their shareholders...
Some do and some don’t. The good ones end up surviving. The others, don’t.
Net Neutrality is a similar situation to cell phones. There are only a handful of reliable phone companies now and some are significantly better in markets than others. But instead of rising prices, we’re seeing falling phone packages, data packages, etc.. How could that be? There are only a handful of major providers and they duty is to their shareholders? Weird that their prices aren’t going up and they haven’t colluded together to raise prices. Instead, prices have come down due to, wait for it, competition. What is happening is companies keep dropping prices to attack new customers away from competitors and then the competitors follow suit.
The sky isn’t falling. The world will go on. Prices aren’t going to skyrocket.
Water is a limited resource. Internet throttling has been used to throttle select services. Big difference. This would be like not giving enough water to Jack because he prefers one service provider and allowing Jim all of the water he wants because he chose another.
This. You can't compare bits traveling across a wire to water or any other tangible good. We aren't going to have an electron or photon shortage any time soon.
What about the evolution of cell phone/data plans? Minimal providers. Throttling takes place. Prices have continued to decline NOT increase.
Because there is actual competition in wireless. There aren't areas that Verizon operates in and T-Mobile is barred from entry.
Freaking Google with their warchest of money couldn't get around the red tape required to start a competitive ISP in more than a handful of cities. ISPs have the average American by the short and curlies and if you want decent internet (actual broadband speeds) you don't have a choice. 50 milliion Americans have one or no provider capable of providing 25 mbps (which is very slow by today's standards).
What part of competition do you not understand? "Minimal providers" I can name at least 6 options I have for cellphone service that I can choose off the top of my head.
The anti-corporation hysteria is misguided.
Corporations are built to only provide what you will buy, and therefore, only to provide what you want. Corporations are a thousand times more accountable than any government. The only way they can make money is if they provide something that the people agree to buy. A corporation must custom fit it's product to satisfy the most consumers possible. It doesn't have any sort of bureaucracy or petty politics that go with a government. They are machines, designed to address the needs of the society in the most efficient way possible.
Greed doesn't make you rich, lots and lots of voluntary transactions do.
"Capitalism has worked very well. Anyone who wants to move to North Korea is welcome." - Bill Gates
I understand plenty. Just because you don’t like what I think doesn’t mean I don’t understand.
Apparently you don't, because you act like there is not competition in the wireless market when there quite clearly is.
Right, but there are plenty of areas where one provider is really bad and another is significantly better. The idea that ISPs can’t charge more for faster speeds is ludacris. Really is.
There is limited competition. There are really only three major providers. Apparently you think that’s LOTS of competition. Lol
ISPs could charge more for faster speeds before, during and after Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality just stopped them from arbitrarily slowing down competitors services. I can see I'm arguing with someone who doesn't understand the industry we are discussing (I work in tech.)
Any American can easily switch cell phone carriers, that is not the case for broadband ISPs. "Lol" apply some damn logic.
I work in the TMT sector as well. I’m in finance but in the TMT sector. I’m fully aware and was over simplifying in my comments.
Comcast is somehow surviving. AT&T is surviving. Wal-Mart is surviving. Pharm companies are surviving.
Those are good companies?
Oversimplifying by making a completely factually incorrect statement? That is not how simplifying things works.
Aren't bad for who? Those are all companies that care more about their stakeholders, than actual customers.
Breaking news, 2nd richest human being on the planet believes Capitalism has worked very well !
Even though the government had to file anit-trust / monopoly lawsuits against his company in the 90's
How do they care more about their shareholders than their customers? Specific examples would be great.
If I recall correctly, AT&T was one of the companies that first provided their employees with a bonus once they got the tax cuts. I want to say Comcast did something similar. I also believe Wal-Mart did something as well. If they were only looking after their shareholders’ interests, they would have repurchased stock or increased their dividends.
memory/server space is real, but they have been given money to upgrade infrastructure and pocketed it.
That's bullshit. Comcast is doing just fine, and they're absolute trash on the consumer end.
Just look at television. That's exactly what internet will look like. It's almost identical infrastructure run by a lot of the same people. It already happened here before NN, and it's currently happening elsewhere. If you think you're going to get a better user experience and better prices because of the end of NN, I'd have a difficult time not laughing in your face.
AT&T buying DirecTV only reduced the amount of choices for consumers. Same thing for this proposed Comcast / Turner merger. There have been talks for Sprint and T-mobile to merge, as they cannot compete against AT&T and Verizon - also would not be good for consumers.
https://www.ohio.com/akron/business/proposed-at-t-directv-deal-bad-for-consumers
And the AT&T / Comcast bonuses, aren't as "good willed" as you're making them out to be.
http://fortune.com/2017/12/22/att-bonuses-could-save-millions/
https://slate.com/business/2017/12/...how-the-tax-bill-will-raise-worker-wages.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html
https://thinkprogress.org/att-praises-tax-bill-c4bab31e1067/
Some of you are delusional in your hanging onto capitalistic survival of the fittest as the sole measure of the value of a company, and the idea that work to survive in the world of business necessarily connects to good for the customer. It's painfully naive.
Hah! We both used the word naive within a second of each other
They are in the top 25 most profitable companies in the US and one of the most disliked companies according to the the American Consumer Satisfaction Index.
How did you guys decide what company to select when you set up electric at your homes?
How about picking a water company? That must have been difficult as well.
How about picking a water company? That must have been difficult as well.
Isn't that a vote for capitalism? No matter how profitable or efficient a company is run, they must adhere to anti-trust laws. A government is the most dangerous monopoly there is. They aren't checked by antitrust, and they are only indirectly and minimally affected by your vote. They also don't obey the rules of the free market, and therefore they are not geared to best provide for society.
I can choose from many electricity providers, and my municipal water is cheaper than anywhere else I've ever owned a home. I'd kill for municipal internet.
I understand your point, but we actually have 2 electric companies here. We ended up going with the co-op.
Guess how many electric and water providers most can choose from...... 1.
This may be hard to believe for some but there are still people out there with no access to either. Guess what they can get though? Internet via satellite/cell phones.
This may be hard to believe for some but there are still people out there with no access to either. Guess what they can get though? Internet via satellite/cell phones.
ISPs dont host websites, datacenters do. Additional fiber costs money to expand available bandwidth, but they have also been provided funds for that and pocketed those.
Similar threads
