Here’s what I don’t understand about the kind of arseholes behind this kind of shit:
How in fuck do they fail to notice that the world they’re turning to shit is the same one they inhabit?
4 Likes
They look at the world through green coloured glasses.
2 Likes
Well businesses that actually have to compete in an open market need to treat their customers well so that they can make money. It may also surprise you to learn that many businesses are run by human beings that do care about people, I run one myself.
1 Like
The pro-telecom libertarian arguments being presented here are devoid of context: telecom networks are not strictly private business affairs - they have a public interest component, which is why they are regulated by the FCC. Way back in the 90s, they were gifted with billions of dollars of US taxpayer money to build out their digital networks, and their lobbyists per$uaded Congress to pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which deregulated the industry, allowing for cross-media ownership. Like other deregulation scams, this was presented as an opportunity to increase competition, but of course has proven to be exactly the opposite. This is why Americans pay more than they should for decidedly mediocre broadband speeds compared to the rest of the developed world. These networks are supposed to be public utilities, not private toll-roads.
6 Likes
A lot of commentators here seem to have happily lapped up the cable/telco kool-aid.
1 Like
And even more are content to simply engage in ad hominems.
1 Like
Tu quoque
1 Like
Pointing out that commenters, including yourself, have simply engaged in ad hominem attacks is not a tu quoque.
Why isn’t it a tuo quoque? Because you don’t seem to have a point other than your ad hominem for me to discredit, and I’m complaining that the only substance of your attack is an ad hominem. I’m not trying to deflect from any greater point that you have: you don’t have one (or at least you don’t have one that you’ve logically supported). And to the extent that legitimate arguments have been raised by others, I think I’ve done my best to address them in a factually-supported, logical manner.
It would be pretty ridiculous if it was always a tuo quoque to point out that someone is engaging in ad hominems. On the other hand, your response could be a tuo quoque since you seem to be using it to deflect my criticism of your ad hominems.
1 Like
hey, i get that you dig latin… but. had you seen the ‘see also’ from the current wiki? leads to:
just saying, this might also be off topic.
manere in loco
Neither, so long as your two statements aren’t mutually exclusive and/or contradict each other. On the other hand, if you kept her locked in the basement “for her safety” and then later admitted that no, actually it had nothing to do with her safety but just that you loved her and wanted to control her movements, then you definitely lied to her and she’d probably wouldn’t appreciate your “love” at that point, and rightfully so. The actual content of the different or multiple beliefs and how they affect us personally demand how we judge them.
Sure, the fact that any CEO is rich and that doesn’t necessarily tell us whether a company is profitable or not is it’s own problem. However, we do know that telecom companies are profitable in the US, even if one op ed has declared that we’re only 1/4th as profitable as our European counterparts, that doesn’t mean we’re not profitable.
Also, [another NYT op ed][1] claims that our European counterparts, while more profitable, are also cheaper for the consumer than in the US. Why might that be? Lack of competition, the op ed claims. So we’re more expensive but have worse profit margins? Why is that? We don’t know, but we do know they plainly lied about why they throttled consumers while charging us more. Which should rightly piss us off.
[1]: The Broadband Gap: Why Is Theirs Cheaper? - The New York Times[quote=“bwv812, post:17, topic:17112”]
Not buying it. If your chief objection is that they lied, then why would you lie in the first place and claim they are “HIGHLY profitable”?
In other words, there’s some terrible, factually-unsupported logic going on here.
[/quote]
Ultimately, neither you nor anyone else here has absolute proof of either stance, this does not put the burden of proof solely on those speaking out against the telecom’s practices. How do we know they’re profitable? How do you know they’re not? Profitability statements in the US allow companies loopholes to avoid taxes that may not be taken into consideration, especially “investment” categories that may or may not be something we’d agree we’re legit even if “legal”. There are more factors than any of us can get proper info on. Why do we have to prove it on a level that you don’t? Frankly, unless you want to provide cold hard evidence that someone on this forum is wrong in ways that invalidate their core points, no one else has to provide cold hard evidence that they’re right.
2 Likes
So we should take completely unsupported allegations as fact, and not grant any more weight to statements that carry some backing? The indeterminate nature of “truth” means all statements are equal? (All statements except those of telecommunications representatives, of course, because they are obviously lying.)[quote=“Dave_Baxter, post:32, topic:17112”]
Also, another NYT op ed claims that our European counterparts, while more profitable, are also cheaper for the consumer than in the US. Why might that be? Lack of competition, the op ed claims. So we’re more expensive but have worse profit margins? Why is that? We don’t know, but we do know they plainly lied about why they throttled consumers while charging us more.
[/quote]
Well, the very op-ed you reference gives you a pretty good idea of why we’re more expensive but with worse profit margins: each major provider has to build its own network, instead of being allowed to share someone else’s network by government regulation. Instead of the US market having artificially high pricing, perhaps other markets have artificially low pricing.
Also,network congestion and profitability are not mutually exclusive. Congested networks reduce profitability to the extent they require additional infrastructure investments. Maybe in the EU model, where all networks operate off of the same infrastructure, congestion wouldn’t be a problem since all service providers would be affected, but under the US model where different providers have different networks & different congestion, congestion can lead to loss of customers and lost profit in the absence of costly network upgrades.
Because their position privilege and profits allow them to float to the top on the backs of everyone else?
All statements are equal until someone, anyone delivers better factual basis. But with a lack of factual basis on either side, both are equal, yes. If both carry “some backing”, then both are still equal, depending on how much weight you give the respective backings. Even the “backings” can come from sources that are impossible to qualify - op-eds don’t exactly allow us to see the evidence they claim they themselves saw. It’s like the NSA claiming how much we need them. Do we? We’ll never know because they’ll never show us the evidence.
Possibly, but neither you or I know this. There have also been claims that when the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act was passed the phone companies lobbied to get over $200 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to build the infrastructure form the government. They were rewarded with this, and proceeded not to build it, instead investing in services that were presently profitable rather than investing in the future. Now, while there is no federal program there are state-by-state programs, including direct investment, tax breaks, public-private partnerships, etc., yet prices do not reflect the differences. Additionally, I think it was another $4 billion was given out during the latest stimulus package for more broadband infrastructure. Prices, again, did not waver. Maybe a federal program would affect prices, if it were the right program and ongoing, but to say that lack of government assistance with infrastructure is why prices are high, doesn’t bear out completely. So at the very least there has to be more to it.
Also, there’s no such thing as “artificially low” pricing if the companies are profitable. If they’re profitable, the price matches the costs involved. Artificially high, however, is harder to gauge - how profitable is “artificially high” profitability? That’s the real question at play in this whole debate, and probably the crux to what you’re trying to argue here.
The FCC regulations requiring everyone to build their own infrastructure is a game played by the telecos - it’s why the regulation was instituted in the first place, to stop third party competition from using telephone infrastructure back in the day. Instead it became a regulation to compete on a level only the massive telecos could manage - building infrastructure no one else could afford. This in no way allows for a defense of the telecos price gouging at this point in time so they can cover their unnecessary “infrastructure costs” which they lobbied into being in the first place.
“Congestion” is also an unknown quantity - are they throttling or is there really congestion? Is there really congestion because the network they build was intentionally limiting in this way with only a smaller percentage of networks build for super-speeds that could be gotten for elite pricing (the $200/month packages of 100GB speeds, etc). Nothing we’ve seen suggests that congestion happens naturally, especially with the European systems offering greater speeds with zero congestion in more densely populated areas.
1 Like
The op-eds I link to cite the sources of their data and the methodologies used. If you want to take issue with them, go ahead. To say that these statements are on equal ground as commenters saying as a statement of fact that telcos are HIGHLY profitable and their owners are one of the richest people in the US is absurd. The dslreports editorial contains no sources for its 90% profitability claim or the methodology used in reaching this. [quote=“Dave_Baxter, post:35, topic:17112”]
Also, there’s no such thing as “artificially low” pricing if the companies are profitable.
[/quote]
Sure there are. Slavery, for example, produces artificially low prices in comparison to a market where you have to pay for labour. The government subsidization of Wal Mart employees through medicaid, food stamps, and other forms of assistance creates artificially low prices. Government subsidization of internet infrastructure in other countries, as well as their right to use the infrastructure of others also creates an artificially low pricing structure as compared to the US system. The entire concept of anti-dumping sanctions is based on the reality of artificially low pricing.
No they don’t. The first one isn’t about profitability at all, and cites nothing about it and only links to a study about broadband speeds (and it’s good we’ve caught up a bit regarding speed, but it doesn’t change anything at all in the criticisms laid down in this forum). The second link is hugely suspect and comes across as mostly propaganda without citing anything at all. In fact it states - without citation - that companies have invested $200 billion since 1996 in infrastructure, suspiciously the exact same figure that the telecoms got in tax breaks and subsidies due to the 1996 law and proceed not to in fact built the infrastructure they were supposed to. I’d almost cancel that number right out due to what we know (or what has been reported) about the 1996 government assistance. So all that’s left is the $10 billion per year in upkeep. Which is also not cited.
Even Googling the big study that the NTY op ed writer was part of, there’s little to convince about price and profitability that I haven’t’ already addressed. It ignores entirely the enormous tax payer paid portion of the infrastructure already in place from the 1996 agreement, the state-by-state incentives as well, and the fact that the lack of competition and the need for telecos to build their own networks was a rule specifically lobbied for by the telecos themselves, and consistently lobbied to remain this way. It even tries to use as an example all the miles of fiber the companies laid in 2011 alone - which would time perfectly with yet another tax payer subsidized windfall, the $4 billion from the stimulus package dedicated to broadband. But no mention of this subsidy is made. So yeah, I take issue.
My point here is that - even though I DO take issue with your given sources - it’s irrelevant to the primary point/outrage. Whether they are HIGHLY profitable or just profitable, they are nevertheless profitable due to suspect practices in an industry consciously made to me monopolized and run precisely as it is. How horribly profitable they are isn’t the point, the point is WHY they are profitable, through what means, and whether we agree with them.
Not so. Natural Price is determined by demand, but the natural price of everything is determined by demand, including all the costs involved to make something or mine something or deliver something. If not enough can afford it, the price is driven down. Slavery and government subsidies merely change the profit margin for selling things at natural cost or near natural cost. Subsidies are generally used because governments don’t want to confront the harsh reality that would follow as its citizens couldn’t afford the price of a global commodity, a commodity that usually the government is to blame for having gotten it citizenry dependent upon. The fact that few can afford the price being demanded by the seller, means the asking price is artificially HIGH. It has to be high across the board because if subsidies are necessary, the subsidies are merely allowing all the corporate entities involved to keep their profit margins even when the price is lowered to match the actual natural price that consumers can afford. Slaves, similarly, allow their owners to gain from their businesses more than they could otherwise. If iPhones were built in America, the prices would not HAVE to go up. But they would to let Apple keep the same profit margins as Chinese labor allows them.
1 Like
The NYT piece isn’t so much about profitability except for the part I quoted. While you are correct that the sources for this claim do not appear in the text, I suspect that if you downloaded the report that appears in his byline you would find it supports for what he says.
The second link, which you describe as propagandistic, is really the counterpoint to claims about how telecoms are 90%/HIGHLY profitable (which seem even more propagandistic to me). You say he doesn’t cite sources, but he makes multiple references to Craig Moffet as being the source of the data he is responding to. He also makes clear the methodology he is using in arriving at his profitability figures and why he thinks it is a better metric. Note that I haven’t seen this from the other side, as I’ve only seen the 90% profit claims without any reference to what figures there using or why they think it’s a good idea to use those figures.[quote=“Dave_Baxter, post:37, topic:17112”]
The fact that few can afford the price being demanded by the seller, means the asking price is artificially HIGH.
[/quote]
I’m not going to argue with the rest of your comments because I don’t think there’s much point in doing so given your understanding of economics, but I would like to point out that you deny the very possibility of artificially low pricing while saying that there can be artificially HIGH pricing. Artificiality only enters the market when there are market failures or externalities in play, and if prices can be artificially high they can be artificially low.
No, it doesn’t, I already covered this in the paragraph that began with: “Even Googling the big study that the NTY op ed writer was part of…”
My understanding of economics is just fine. Some economists claim that subsidies lead to artificially low prices. I understand the argument, but I contest it with additional economic understanding, which is that if subsidies are being put in place to bring prices down to affordability, that’s a market failure to match the actual non-artificial price which must be in line with consumer demand at any given time. If consumers cannot afford something at a certain price, it is artificially high. If subsidies are being used to simply bring prices back into line with consumer ability, then subsidies are not making them artificially low (though they are correcting the market in an improper way, thus allowing corporations to keep profit margins when instead the prices should be allowed to plummet on their own).
I did not say there could not be artificially low prices, but that it would require a loss in profitability on the seller’s part. If they were profitable, the price point would be in line with costs and consumer ability and could not be fairly called artificially low. If a seller cut prices to gain a user base at the expense of all profit (or even negative profit) for a certain amount of time, that would be an artificially low price. But the attempt of some economists to define prices too high for consumer demand brought down (incorrectly, from a market forces standpoint) by government intervention as “artificially low” is simply wordplay. An artificially high price cannot be defined as “artificially low” simply because governments are willing to lower the prices without the corporations losing their profit margins. It’s not letting the market work correctly, but it’s exactly the reverse of “artificially low”.
1 Like
Yeah, but his methodology counts all the tax payer funded infrastructure costs as negative profitability for the telecos, which is b.s. That’s virtually the crux of his argument, and it’s misleading, incomplete, and mostly point blank wrong.
1 Like
OK. I looked at [the report][1] and it discusses profits extensively, including where he got his information from. I don’t know why I’m the only one providing sources here, but on page 56 we can read:
In reality, the last year’s average net profit margins of U.S. broadband providers were 1.9 percent, compared to rates of above 10 percent for eight OECD nations. (Table 6) Only three other nations had profit rates lower than the United States. The average margins for EU-15 providers were over four times higher than for U.S. providers. (Figures 31 and 32, and Table 6) Using a similar measure, return on equity (ROE), shows similar results. ROE is significantly lower for providers in the United States than it is for the average provider in the EU-15 and Korea and Japan. (Figures 33 and 34)
[1]: http://www2.itif.org/2013-whole-picture-america-broadband-networks.pdf[quote=“Dave_Baxter, post:39, topic:17112”]
My understanding of economics is just fine. Some economists claim that subsidies lead to artificially low prices. I understand the argument, but I contest it with additional economic understanding, which is that if subsidies are being put in place to bring prices down to affordability, that’s a market failure to match the actual non-artificial price which must be in line with consumer demand at any given time.
[/quote]
If your understanding of economics is fine, then why do you appear to essentially ignore the shape of both the supply and demand curves? Why is there this apparent assumption that things in the market are sold at their natural cost? What is the specific market failure in the situation you are describing above?
Hey, according to your theory of demand-derived natural pricing, any time a good or service is priced below its natural price, this is artificially low. It doesn’t matter that one part of the supply chain (such as the government) is taking a loss while another (such as a telco) is still making a profit: the price of the good as a whole is artificially low. Just because something is a loss leader for the government and not for the retailer doesn’t mean it isn’t priced artificially low.
That’s clearly an assumption on your part, and one you haven’t supported. You’ve assumed that all telecom infrastructure investments have been fully offset by government tax breaks and subsidies without providing any data to support your position.
