Results 46 to 60 of 64
- 07-12-2006, 11:48 AM #46QuickGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
SMS wrote:
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> Consumers in the
>>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>>
>> Rubbish
>
> Actually, there are some areas of deregulation where some
> consumers have benefited, while some have been hurt, and
> some where all consumers have been hurt.
>
> Take airline deregulation, for example. Consumers living
> near a major hub have benefited from lower fares, and
> more flights. Consumers living near smaller cities have
> often lost all jet service, and must either take a small
> plane to the hub, or drive to a hub.
> Bank deregulation cost consumers a lot of money in the
> bailout of the S&L, and in lower interest rates paid out
> on savings, though some consumers benefited initially
> from the very high interest rates paid out on CDs by the
> S&Ls that were going to become insolvent.
Bad examples I think. You're talking about subsidizing
people for making a (possibly poor) choice. I'm not for
or against regulation. I think it has it's place. I'd error
on the side of less than more.
-Quick
› See More: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
- 07-12-2006, 01:35 PM #47DecaturTxCowboyGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating TerminationFee
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:03:50 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> Consumers in the
>>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>> Rubbish
*ALL* is rubbish....don't change the topic.
- 07-12-2006, 10:19 PM #48LarryGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
"EOO" <whereeverforever.com> wrote in
news[email protected]:
> You don't have Comcast for as a cable provider, do you?
>
>
>
Ha ha....I almost spit up my beer. Too funny, thanks.
- 07-13-2006, 12:36 AM #49SMSGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating TerminationFee
EOO wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:03:50 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> Consumers in the
>>>> USA have all benefitted immensely from deregulation.
>>> Rubbish
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Senate Rpt.104-023 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION
>>
>> Deregulation has a clear and consistent track record. In virtually
>> every case, consumers have benefited from lower prices, better
>> services and increased choices.
>
> You don't have Comcast for as a cable provider, do you?
Cable TV prices have clearly not benefited from deregulation, though the
cable industry will claim that the price per channel has decreased.
Sure, if you want to watch 35 different shopping channels, and 10
different religious channels.
OTOH, deregulation of the cable TV industry, and the resultant
skyrocketing prices, did spawn the satellite TV industry.
You can read about the failure of the deregulation of the cable industry
at "http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=10531&id3=USPIRG"
"Since enactment of the 1996 Act that deregulated cable rates, consumer
cable prices have been rising at three times the rate of inflation and
even faster for basic and expanded basic service, which is the choice of
the overwhelming majority of cable subscribers."
Of course the senate report is written by the same people that took the
campaign contributions from the industries they were deregulating.
- 07-13-2006, 06:37 AM #50Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Cable TV prices have clearly not benefited from deregulation, though the
> cable industry will claim that the price per channel has decreased.
> Sure, if you want to watch 35 different shopping channels, and 10
> different religious channels.
>
In general, prices have gone up because of programmers and not so much because
of cable or satellite operators. The differences in price between Comcast,
Dish Network and DirecTV are due to the operators, but the price is
universally high due to the programmers. The main reason that I see is that
they force channel bundling by tier. Basic tier ALWAYS has ESPN and ESPN is
ALWAYS expensive ... so your basic tier package is boosted in price by that
alone. What makes it quite "unfair" in my opinion is that these programmers
not only charge operators for distribution [shouldn't it be the other way
around?], but they also charge for advertisements. The operators are in a
win/win situation and even the most unwatched channel lives on another day.
> "Since enactment of the 1996 Act that deregulated cable rates, consumer
> cable prices have been rising at three times the rate of inflation and
> even faster for basic and expanded basic service, which is the choice of
> the overwhelming majority of cable subscribers."
Indeed, the prices have risen, almost exclusively due to the increase in
programming costs. Infrastructure is a significant cost [especially
modernization], but is rather minute compared to programming.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-13-2006, 09:38 AM #51SMSGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating TerminationFee
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Cable TV prices have clearly not benefited from deregulation, though the
>> cable industry will claim that the price per channel has decreased.
>> Sure, if you want to watch 35 different shopping channels, and 10
>> different religious channels.
>>
>
> In general, prices have gone up because of programmers and not so much because
> of cable or satellite operators. The differences in price between Comcast,
> Dish Network and DirecTV are due to the operators, but the price is
> universally high due to the programmers.
That's what they always claim. What they don't tell you is who owns many
of the channels that are increasing in price.
- 07-13-2006, 10:54 AM #52llGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-ratingTerminationFee
SMS wrote:
> Sure, if you want to watch 35 different shopping channels
> and 10 different religious channels.
You forgot the 8 Spanish language channels.
Grandma doesn't speak Spanish.
But the cable companies still tout "100 channels!".
With large yearly fee increases.
Way above cost of living increases.
- 07-13-2006, 11:12 AM #53Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That's what they always claim. What they don't tell you is who owns many
> of the channels that are increasing in price.
You mean like Rupert Murdoch owning both FOX and DirecTV via News Corporation?
I am no idiot ... I bought stock ;-)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-13-2006, 12:32 PM #54EOOGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "EOO" <whereeverforever.com> wrote in
> news[email protected]:
>
>> You don't have Comcast for as a cable provider, do you?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ha ha....I almost spit up my beer. Too funny, thanks.
>
It would be funny if I had a choice. The TV part is of no importance to me.
The
wife watches it 8 to 16 hours a week.
We had Dish Network at one time. The picture and sound quality was better
and the
they raised their rates about in line with inflation or less.
My only option for high speed internet access is cable. The neighborhood
was
wired "pair-gain" which does not allow for DSL.
Comcast knows this and gives you an incentive to bundle. At one point it
was
cheaper to have internet access and basic TV programming than cable alone.
Their rate increases are legendary. It's COMCRAPTIC!!!!
- 07-13-2006, 01:16 PM #55Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
In alt.cellular.t-mobile Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>That's what they always claim. What they don't tell you is who owns many
>>of the channels that are increasing in price.
>
> Not for nothing, but owners of the channels have to pay for the
> content themselves. NBC doesn't own ER, for example, Warner Brothers
> does. So even though they have their own studio, ER isn't free. And
> the cost of those kinds of first-run shows has gone up a lot.
>
Yes, and NBC makes its money from advertising (commercial) sales.
> Cable has thrived in large part because most of the programming that
> people like is relatively inexpensive to produce. I'm talking about
> niche things like Discovery, Food Network, etc. But again, somebody's
> got to pay for the content; this is why there's force behind a la
> carte.
Do you really think production for programming on Discovery or National
Geographic is cheap? They are shooting a large amount of their programming in
high definition now and that equipment alone is not cheap (cameras can cost
$100K). Think FX, do you think it is cheap to pay Dennis Leary and the gang
for "Rescue Me"?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-13-2006, 01:24 PM #56SMSGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating TerminationFee
Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> Not for nothing, but owners of the channels have to pay for the
> content themselves. NBC doesn't own ER, for example, Warner Brothers
> does. So even though they have their own studio, ER isn't free. And
> the cost of those kinds of first-run shows has gone up a lot.
These shows are ad supported, and broadcast OTA for free.
> Cable has thrived in large part because most of the programming that
> people like is relatively inexpensive to produce. I'm talking about
> niche things like Discovery, Food Network, etc. But again, somebody's
> got to pay for the content; this is why there's force behind a la
> carte.
What's happened is that the cable and satellite providers own many of
these networks, they essentially raise the prices to themselves, then
claim that they have to raise rates because content costs went up.
- 07-13-2006, 01:54 PM #57TinmanGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:38:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> That's what they always claim. What they don't tell you is who owns
>> many
>> of the channels that are increasing in price.
>
> Not for nothing, but owners of the channels have to pay for the
> content themselves. NBC doesn't own ER, for example, Warner Brothers
> does. So even though they have their own studio, ER isn't free. And
> the cost of those kinds of first-run shows has gone up a lot.
Methinks you chose a bad example. AFAIK, every NBC broadcast affiliate
must provide OTA programming. For free; to anyone with a TV and antenna
capable of receiving it.
The stations makes (most of) their money on local advertising. The rest
of the advertising is national, or regional, and most of that money goes
to NBC themselves.
If anything, cable helps out the local affiliate by providing (most of
the time) a clearer picture, often to a larger (potential) audience (not
always by choice--i.e., "must carry").
>
> Cable has thrived in large part because most of the programming that
> people like is relatively inexpensive to produce. I'm talking about
> niche things like Discovery, Food Network, etc.
Isn't "most of the programming people like" and "niche" a contradiction?
> But again, somebody's
> got to pay for the content; this is why there's force behind a la
> carte.
Of course content must be paid for. But how many times must it be paid?
I'd be more than happy to buy ad-free content, or even 95% ad-free
content if that 5% is required for mass-acceptance pricing. But 66%
ad-free content, that I'm paying to receive, and my cable company is
paying to receive, is getting old.
IMHO, YMMV, and all other disclaimers apply.
--
Mike
- 07-13-2006, 02:03 PM #58Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
In alt.cellular.t-mobile Tinman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Of course content must be paid for. But how many times must it be paid?
> I'd be more than happy to buy ad-free content, or even 95% ad-free
> content if that 5% is required for mass-acceptance pricing. But 66%
> ad-free content, that I'm paying to receive, and my cable company is
> paying to receive, is getting old.
>
> IMHO, YMMV, and all other disclaimers apply.
>
>
Bingo!!!! You hit the nail on the head. This has been my complaint for years
.... yet I pay like the dog that I am.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-13-2006, 02:16 PM #59RM v2.0Guest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating Termination Fee
> Deregulation has a clear and consistent track record. In virtually
> every case, consumers have benefited from lower prices, better
> services and increased choices. For example, deregulation of the
> airlines in 1978 has made air travel affordable for millions of
> Americans. Deregulation of the trucking industry in 1980 has saved
> consumers billions of dollars in freight costs. Deregulation saved
> the rail industry from bankruptcy in 1980.
>
Only works well if it is truly and fairly deregulated. Govt has a tendency
to half ass it and ends up screwing everybody.
- 07-13-2006, 02:45 PM #60Kevin WeaverGuest
Re: Verizon Breaks with Industry, and to begins Pro-rating TerminationFee
RM v2.0 wrote:
>> Deregulation has a clear and consistent track record. In virtually
>> every case, consumers have benefited from lower prices, better
>> services and increased choices. For example, deregulation of the
>> airlines in 1978 has made air travel affordable for millions of
>> Americans. Deregulation of the trucking industry in 1980 has saved
>> consumers billions of dollars in freight costs. Deregulation saved
>> the rail industry from bankruptcy in 1980.
>>
> Only works well if it is truly and fairly deregulated. Govt has a tendency
> to half ass it and ends up screwing everybody.
>
>
This pro-rated deal is not to start till sometime this fall. As per *611
She did not know how far back they would go, If any.
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- Verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung