MstrMsn Posted March 24, 2017 #26 Share Posted March 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said: No, the point is that it isn't the same everywhere, which I have already stated. You are lucky, others are not. And there are countless other examples where the effect is worse. And while there is minor competition in some places, it is largely a monopoly. You should research it a bit. Every American should really because it's a very important subject in this day and age. There are parts of the country that are so remote, you are lucky if you can get a cell signal. Or electricity to your home that doesn't involve a generator. Does that mean that there is a monopoly on those, as well? No. There are some places where power lines don't go, which means no telephone lines or cable/internet. Other places put restrictions on who they'll allow. Some places won't allow FiOS because they don't want the streets dug up. Others only want FiOS because there are no cables. I can get Verizon DSL, but not FiOS where I live. I have my own CT about that, but it isn't because of some monopoly. Instead of reading one sided stories, maybe research the different cities/town/states to find out why the IP providers that are there are the only ones there. As far as a variance in pricing - really? There are higher costs of living in some states while there are lower costs of living in others. Hell, here in Massachusetts, you have a higher COL in Boston, than you do in Central Mass. So yeah, prices are going to be different. Seriously, you should have put this in the CT forum, as that's how you are making it seem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted March 24, 2017 Author #27 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) I honestly can't believe that there is someone defending AT&T and Verizon. I mean this is actually shocking to me. What the top companies are doing is documented fact and not even close to being a conspiracy theory. Obviously there are cases where costs and availability vary due to rural locations, non existent infrastructure and other factors - that even happens to some extent here in the UK - but that doesn't apply to many, many situations and is not what's being referred to when discussing this problem. Quote Why are things so different, and so expensive, in the United States? There are various answers, but by far the most important ones are competition and competition policy. In countries like the U.K., regulators forced incumbent cable and telephone operators to lease their networks to competitors at cost, which enabled new providers to enter the market and brought down prices dramatically. The incumbents—the local versions of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and AT&T—didn’t like this policy at all, but the regulators held firm and forced them to accept genuine competition. “The prices were too high,” one of the regulators explained tothe media writer Rick Karr. “There were huge barriers to entry.” That quote accurately describes the situation in the United States today, where vigorous competition is almost non-existent. In some big cities, broadband consumers have a choice between a cable operator, such as Comcast, and a telephone provider, such as Verizon. But that’s practically no choice at all. Although the cable and telephone companies spend huge sums of money on advertising trying to lure each others customers, they rarely compete on price. To use the economic jargon, they act as a cozy “duopoly,” keeping prices well above their costs. Many people, myself included, don’t even have two options to choose from. On my block in Brooklyn, Verizon’s high-speed FiOS service isn’t available yet, so I’m stuck with Time Warner. (And, no, they don’t rush out to repair the frequent outages.) This sorry situation isn’t an accident. It’s the predictable outcome of Congress bowing to the monopolists, or quasi-monopolists, and allowing them to squelch potential competitors. “Americans pay so much because they don’t have a choice,” Susan Crawford, a former adviser to President Obama on science and innovation, and the author of a recent book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” told the BBC. “We deregulated high-speed internet access ten years ago and since then we’ve seen enormous consolidation and monopolies… Left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/we-need-real-competition-not-a-cable-internet-monopoly I mean the knowledge of the monopoly with these companies is so mainstream there's even a South Park episode mocking them. Edited March 24, 2017 by ExpandMyMind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted March 24, 2017 #28 Share Posted March 24, 2017 its hilarious when people that do not live in usa, never been in usa, think they know better than people living here, lmao. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MstrMsn Posted March 24, 2017 #29 Share Posted March 24, 2017 @ExpandMyMind Well, if South Park is mocking someone, then it has to be true. I live outside Boston, I pay less (given the package level) than those that do live in Boston. I also pay less for rent, gas, milk, cigarettes, and a bunch of other things. You know why? I already told you, prices here are based on the cost of living. I have friends and family that live in areas that have a much lower cost of living than I do, and they pay less than I do for their cable/internet or even just internet. You really need to understand something about the US. We may be one nation, but we are made up of 50 individual states that govern themselves as set forth in our Constitution. You really seem to have no idea how this country works, only what you read online or see on the tv. But, you know better than we do, so just ignore everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted March 28, 2017 #30 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Looks like it made it through the house too: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html Trump is likely to sign it into law. Maybe UM can make a little money on the side selling our political opinions! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted March 29, 2017 #31 Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) lol, why would anyone pay for that??? it is all available for free. Edited March 29, 2017 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted March 29, 2017 #32 Share Posted March 29, 2017 2 hours ago, aztek said: lol, why would anyone pay for that??? it is all available for free. True that, but now they can sell it with our IP addresses and regional data. The D's and R's could buy it and target mailings and what not to us individually. Or use it to recruit people with similar political leanings. The comments sections on say FOX news would be a gold mine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted March 29, 2017 #33 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Saw this on my Facebook feed today: http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers-internet/ It would be hilarious if they actually succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now