"I know, let's offer them a lower term contract than we would otherwise to make the marketing look good. If they terminate early, we'll hit them up for what we would have charged in the first place."
A state can seize money already for no reason at all. (Civil Asset Forfeiture) Now all they're saying is, they finally have one. More of the same injustice that has been occurring for how long now?
Whenever Washington decides it needs yet another revenue source, all they have to do is get a list from Google of all the DMCAs they rejected and fine the originator at some amount each. Worth millions, and Google does all the heavy lifting.
Wallstreet demands returns in a "timely" manner. And you're ignoring upkeep once it is in place, eating into that slice of profit.
I'm not saying they shouldn't. Pointing out why they don't.
That's part of the hypocrisy of the GOP.
Capitalism/free market does it better, but let's ignore it when it doesn't.
It wouldn't be so bad if those in the private sector would let municipalities pick up the ball when it is dropped.
From a business standpoint, why wouldn't you? "I've got a building full of those who are likely to get the base package at $50.00/month, or I could wire this building over here for the same amount and everyone will likey buy the big package with all the extra channels."
No brainer...
Disclaimer: Not siding with the GOP here.
I see this issue as an economic one. ISPs do not want to invest in networks that won’t pay for themselves in a timely manner. There are many reasons a user base might not generate the required revenue over a given time frame. Lack of subscriptions due to it being overly expensive is one, yes. That happens to correlate with some other things, also a yes. Geographic spread in rural areas is another, not having to do with race. A line costing tens of thousands to serve a few families makes no sense.
Giving subsidies to the broadband providers doesn’t seem to work either. Most of it goes to shareholders. Tell you what Washington. If you give subsidies, give them AFTER the hardware is installed. “Hey, if you guys do this, we’ll give you this wad of cash. But we need to see service out there first”.
The carrot goes before the horse. He only gets it at the destination. Not at the onset. Then he won't move.
"...and yes, I think we need to ban it — is because it’s an app that actually goes and has access to your contacts, to your financial information, to your camera, to your recorder, to everything. It’s infiltration; we know that."
I could say the same thing about the NSA.
They've had their power pulled time and time again. (And again when the GOP is in power.) A coherent national communications policy won't be made there.
The ultimate solution would be for the government to order the breakup of all the mergers through the years, but that will never happen. Our government only has the gonads to go after those not capable of fighting (aka. individuals).
I believe an economy is strongest when money is moving and not stagnant. The more entities exchanging money for whatever, the better. Mergers have a tendency to kill that flow.
What ever happened to the simple solution of charging one price with ads, and another without? Lot of tech hoops being jumped, when a solution is already available. It least the customer gets to choose to pay more or not.
Even if the FCC had the balls... they don't.
If the DOJ cared... they don't.
If the next administration flip didn't erase it all, again... it will.
The FCC gives a shit about one thing... no overlapping frequencies. We should all stop pretending they are there for anything else.
cynicism
My cynicism says it won't matter. The GOP will dismantle all this again, later.
History
Isn't book banning how it always starts?
Deceptive marketing at its best
"I know, let's offer them a lower term contract than we would otherwise to make the marketing look good. If they terminate early, we'll hit them up for what we would have charged in the first place."
The day that we label criticizing a government entity (including law enforcement) as "hate speech" we are traveling down a road we don't want to go.
And this is why people fly... So the Feds can confiscate instead. {sad sigh...}
This is no surprise
A state can seize money already for no reason at all. (Civil Asset Forfeiture) Now all they're saying is, they finally have one. More of the same injustice that has been occurring for how long now?
Interesting contest
I wonder which is weaker, the FTC or the FCC.
Possible revenue source
Whenever Washington decides it needs yet another revenue source, all they have to do is get a list from Google of all the DMCAs they rejected and fine the originator at some amount each. Worth millions, and Google does all the heavy lifting.
Windshield wipers
I would use my windshield wipers, but the check bounced.
Wallstreet demands returns in a "timely" manner. And you're ignoring upkeep once it is in place, eating into that slice of profit. I'm not saying they shouldn't. Pointing out why they don't.
That's part of the hypocrisy of the GOP. Capitalism/free market does it better, but let's ignore it when it doesn't. It wouldn't be so bad if those in the private sector would let municipalities pick up the ball when it is dropped.
Why not?
From a business standpoint, why wouldn't you? "I've got a building full of those who are likely to get the base package at $50.00/month, or I could wire this building over here for the same amount and everyone will likey buy the big package with all the extra channels." No brainer...
Correlation is different from causation
Disclaimer: Not siding with the GOP here. I see this issue as an economic one. ISPs do not want to invest in networks that won’t pay for themselves in a timely manner. There are many reasons a user base might not generate the required revenue over a given time frame. Lack of subscriptions due to it being overly expensive is one, yes. That happens to correlate with some other things, also a yes. Geographic spread in rural areas is another, not having to do with race. A line costing tens of thousands to serve a few families makes no sense. Giving subsidies to the broadband providers doesn’t seem to work either. Most of it goes to shareholders. Tell you what Washington. If you give subsidies, give them AFTER the hardware is installed. “Hey, if you guys do this, we’ll give you this wad of cash. But we need to see service out there first”. The carrot goes before the horse. He only gets it at the destination. Not at the onset. Then he won't move.
How petty can they be?
Subject says it all...
Join the club
"...and yes, I think we need to ban it — is because it’s an app that actually goes and has access to your contacts, to your financial information, to your camera, to your recorder, to everything. It’s infiltration; we know that." I could say the same thing about the NSA.
Dumping work on the FCC is a waste of time
They've had their power pulled time and time again. (And again when the GOP is in power.) A coherent national communications policy won't be made there.
Didn't work, put it back... Ya, right.
The ultimate solution would be for the government to order the breakup of all the mergers through the years, but that will never happen. Our government only has the gonads to go after those not capable of fighting (aka. individuals). I believe an economy is strongest when money is moving and not stagnant. The more entities exchanging money for whatever, the better. Mergers have a tendency to kill that flow.
Whatever happened to the two-tier option?
What ever happened to the simple solution of charging one price with ads, and another without? Lot of tech hoops being jumped, when a solution is already available. It least the customer gets to choose to pay more or not.
I would say that's #2. Going #1 is likely #1.
Wishful thinking...
Even if the FCC had the balls... they don't. If the DOJ cared... they don't. If the next administration flip didn't erase it all, again... it will. The FCC gives a shit about one thing... no overlapping frequencies. We should all stop pretending they are there for anything else.