What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
66 Comments
- Civil44, on 10/12/2007, -2/+55wheres the price fixing investigation on this one?
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52All the people who are supposed to be investigating are to busy counting all their bribe money.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34First thing that came to my mind, too. Price fixing. Absolute failure of the free market here. Demand is mediocre, so the price goes up? Vonage is actually five dollars more expensive today than it was a year ago and they blame it on a $1.35 telecom tax. Yeah, right.
A decade ago, the bottom dropped out of the dial-up market as AOL's profit shares fell apart. Now cable companies are trying to consolidize power into an independent coalition that jointly maneuvers to defeat net neutrality and keep prices high by buying up smaller cable companies.
I blame Time-Warner first and foremost. The FCC is NOT doing its job to prevent monopolies that were destroyed 10 to 15 years ago from joining back together again. (Keep an eye on Bell, it's making moves right now.) - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15There are price wars, but only for introductory rates.
It's pretty simple. Cable companies almost never wire up the same customers as any other cable company. So they never compete with each other. As to DSL, well, the phone companies got rulings that said they don't have to carry DSL on their lines. So no competition there either.
Thanks Congress, for removing regulations on cable and phone because of all the "competition" they are engaged in.
Our only hope now is that WiMax operators are numerous. That'll be our only hope for some real competition. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"DSL operators then realize that they aren't in a price war, and subsequently raise their own prices."
This seems to be an issue. Why do DSL companies enjoy not gaining customers? - pooslinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It's right next the the cellular "price wars" after the ATT/Cingular merger. Less competition = stagnate or increased rates.
- saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10That's exactly the point. They are getting customers, because people want DSL, and if there's only one DSL provider, they'll pay that provider.
- coldphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13You know people would have dugg you up if it hadn't been for your arrogant ***** comment "side note"
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I don't care what you think either. Wanna hang out sometime?
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Its an enforced monopoly, theres only one provider allowed for each area and their is no clause that would cause them to share the fiber we all paid for with tax dollars. The result? Underutilized backbone, high prices, and no competition.
F*CK you very much FCC.
I don't care who's in power in Washington until someone takes strong action against this rampant corruption. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7To be fair, the US has plenty of metropolitan areas that are very dense, theres plenty of bandwidth running into rural areas through the backbone, the backbone isn't the problem. The problem is last mile, last mile is the telecoms and cable industries dragging their feet because only once one of them starts does the other have to think about it. I'd move to Japan if their language wasn't so hard to learn. Beautiful girls with Caucasian fetishes, an Improving economy, and 100mbs symmetrical broadband for next to nothing?
- DuxDucis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'd have to stop you there. Sure, you can get adsl2+ for $50, here in Australia but we have capped limits on downloads or are charged for going over a set limit. Most overseas countries don't cap you - you simply pay X dollars for X speed per month. Thats it. We don't have anything like a price war here in Australia. Telstra owns almost all of the infrastructure, so they are reluctant to open up their own infrastructure to other companies, but the government eventually forces them to. For example, Telstra only recently opened up speeds over 1.5mb over dsl lines. Last month! When it should have been done 4 years ago! Its only a few other companies who have built their own cable network that offer adsl2+, and is only available in small, select locations.
- Geekbeard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6For $40/month (au Canada), I get 5 Mb/second on cable, but I can pay $50 for 10 Mb/s or $100 for 25 Mb/s.
The only telco in the area only offers ADSL and for a few bucks more than what we're paying right now you only get 3 Mb/s, and for $45/month, you get 6 Mb/s.
The problem, however, is trying to get the advertised speeds on your cable network. I've been thinking of switching to ADSL just for the sake of more stable speeds. I can only get a maximum of 4.8 Mb/s on speed tests during non-peak times (2-3 am) and during peak times I'll be lucky to get above 1.0 Mb/s. - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I really dont blame time warner in this one at all. Every couple of months there speed goes up. The pay the same price but the speed is increasing so you really do get more. Sure its crappier than other countries and other business's but at least their staying ahead of the game. I blame this on AT&T, Verizon, and other Teleco's. Wheres FIOS? Wheres all that fiber?? Its nowhere to be found. Then when cities try and set up there own fiber, they get sued by these companies for getting in on there territory. Verizon and AT&T get all kinds of tax breaks cus there gonna put down fiber. Where the hell is the fiber?
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Demand isn't mediocre; in fact, it's very high. The "problem" is that (save for some in major metro areas) in most of America's broadband market, the demand is nowhere close to exhausting the available supply. Most broadband providers aren't struggling to handle their current consumer load, nor are they struggling to meet the demands of new subscribers.
Additionally, most cable providers are still operating with the same network infrastructure that they had in place ten years ago, more or less, with few changes to anything besides implementing different signal encoding methods.
So, why do prices continue to increase? - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@master2828:
I'm in Canada as well except I live on the west coast now so I can choose from a whopping 3 providers: Bell, Telus, or Shaw (sort of similar to Rogers). You shouldn't envy the US since they don't have it so great either. Their telcos steal tax money for upgrades that never happen. North America should envy Asia, or some of Europe. What the hell can we do to force the companies to offer us better service at a better price though? I mean, we are all on Digg so clearly a boycott is just not going to happen from our end. ... I doubt complaining is enough. - xdre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@nofxjunkee:
And here's the link to prove it:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_F.shtml
Billions from the gov't for free, and yet you get to hike your customers' rates too? Where can I get a gig like that??? - radioactivesmrf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Intersting. Here is my experience with internet prices. When I moved into my apartment in august of 05 I chose the weakes interent from Charter because it was only $20 a month and I needed to save money. It was just 384 up and 124 down so as you can see it is not even half a Megabyte of speed. I left them this month because that same connection was costing me $50. FIFTY FREAKING DOLLARS!! For that pittiful connection. I switched to ATT and got phone server with 3 mbps for the same price. We will see in time if ATT will do a price hike on me as well but for now Charter can kiss my ass.
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it doesn't matter how goofy they may think fiber is, they were paid insane amounts of money to put it in the dirt. they did not. they either need to pass that money back to their customers in the form of lower prices (treat the money as a government subsidy), or pay it back to the government so it can be passed back as a tax refund.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's not a failure of the market. It's manipulation of the market by government regulations.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem is that the monopolies are enforced by huge taxes and the bigger companies receiving government subsidies. A smaller competitor can not enter the market because they A. Can't afford the taxes and B. Don't have the massive government subsidies that the telcos get. It's not a failure of the market, it's a failure of bad regulation that prevents competition but doesn't prevent monopolization. If it were truly a market scenario we would have decent choices, much lower prices, and much higher speeds. But the lukewarm regulation has stopped the market competition.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, yeah. In the 90s, I paid $70/month for about 1.1mpbs/sec. Now I pay $55/mo for a premium version of 6mbit/sec.
When I got my $70/mo 1.1mpbs, I was ecstatic to get it. Before that, you could only get ISDN, and it was $130/mo for 112kbps/sec.
But I think we could do better now. For starters, I'd like to have about 1mbit uphill speed. 512kbps just isn't cutting it anymore. - iamjaredc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3its called the cable monopoly.
have fun breaking that. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3er, by "carry DSL on their lines", I meant carry DSL on their lines other than their own service. My bad.
- jerryparid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What is clear is that US broadband isn't so hot when compared to what's available in other countries. In Japan, symmetrical 100Mbps connections can be had for under $35 per month......
Burstein notes that in France, "twice the speed, 60 channels of TV, and free international calls have settled at about €30, or $40.
Drools, image the seeding power with that kind of connection. Most of the French I know have high speed symmetrical connections, not this ***** aymm crap in the United States. - NightBlade40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not all of us happen to live in or near the CBD, count yourself lucky. The suburb I live in only got widespread DSL last year, and even then I'm sure it'll be years before we get ADSL2+. I also agree with DuxDucis about the capping thing, though I've had 1.5mbit for a few months now. If I could choose between 8mbit and a 12GB monthly cap (which is what I have with my current plan) and 1.5mbit with no cap or limits, I'd pick 1.5mbit with no cap any day.
- master2828, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Im from Canada and we've got 2 compnies to choose from Rogers and Bell, oh how i envy the Us for having a variety of providers to choose from, when our market has essetially been monopolize by these two telecom giants. Choice is not an option for me.
- Geekbeard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4To be fair, the USA is a lot bigger and a lot less dense. It's unrealistic to expect American companies to provide the type of infrastructure they have in Europe for an analogus price when they have to do it over a much larger area for less profit.
*ducks* - MattElmore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Those are 1.5mbit ADSL speeds.
Jesus I think half the people on digg don't know what a "mbit" is.. - Eliasar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, I used to have Verizon FiOs (Fiber optics) and that was a 15Mb/s line for 40ish.
Is there the same problem with companies that introduce fiber optics? - crownedgriffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ugh. Because I went for satellite instead of Comcast (gawd their picture quality is HORRID), and I only use my cell phone, the only option I have for internet is ClearWire. I'm stuck paying $40 a month for an unreliable 1.5 Mb/s connection (which is more like a 4-500 Kb/s connection until early morning...)
- macnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You local government can put in fiber. Can out this special on PBS where a town voted for the bonds to lay fiber. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html
- MattElmore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just to clarify, BellSouth is still allowing third-party NSPs to utilize DSL on their line, but there is the fear that this will go away at some point.
- reticentnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are price wars in New Zealand..Some ISP's actually lose money on the DSL plans. At the moment it's largely regulated by Telecom, they impose strange upstream/downstream restrictions. Pretty much all the ISP's can compete on is price and value add services (the ability to turn interleaving on/off, webhosting etc). The loop has been 'Unbundled' which should mean we'll see changes in the next few years or so. We're still getting screwed at the moment though, you all could be worse off ;)
- fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They are the same companies selling all the rest of the broadband though!
It seems goofy as HELL that they would offer the same price for completely different and most likely differently costing services–almost as though they might be actually FIXING their prices... - LoveIsRegret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm with charter where the max is SIX mb/s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UlCXXZTTh8
This video that Ted Kennedy made makes a lot of good points about net neutrality, but at the end he makes his most important statement: it is important that the US has a world class infrastructure, and I'm sad to say we are poorly lacking.
That being said, I do realize that the sheer size of the US contributes to the problem, as does a lack in government funding. - Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some industries such as telecom, road construction, power, water are prone to monopolies due to the extremely high entry barriers.
This is a clear failure of the market. I am curious what the late Milton Friedman would have to say about it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You just work for a telecom or own stock and are full of sh*t.
- pablasso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and if you moved to mexico that would be 1Mps for those $40.. you aren't that bad
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2just call one and tell them to cancel your account, they will usually send you to their internal retention department, who will throw a more reasonable deal at you. do that and a service flip-flop once or twice a year and your prices stay reasonable.
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Available bandwidth has gone up 4x so prices are considerably cheaper from that aspect.
- GreatGrizzly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2WOW.
I get 160 KB down and 50 KB up for 35 a month.
1.5 mbit connection my ass, Im lucky if I even get 1 mbit.. - neebick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I get about ~180 KB/s over my dsl for $35. I keep thinking of switching to cable for $65 with ~600 KB/s but I am worried that I will get "punished" for overuse of the bandwidth I pay for. For me this is deal breaker and keeps me with my cheaper dsl. Nothing but shoddy services.
I still pray for fios... - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Internet is a very inelastic commodity and the telcos know it. It is much like gas (though not as extreme) people will want broadband, and theres a large window at which they're willing to pay to get that service. The telcos know that. That's why AT&T just scoffed at the idea of putting fiber optics under the houses of their costumers and rather harped on the genius of , "copper". They know their base will stay happy and pay upwards of 40 dollars for something that should be worth 20. In my opinion, until Wimax and other citywide technologies are available (preferably by governmental appointments, ***** telcos) then the internet will still be hindered to it's potential.
The internet is along the lines of electricity. It is so malleable that it has been extended to almost EVERY facet of our lives, just as electricity. It will be ubiquitous within a matter of time. I just wish these companies would stop living their own version of, "The American Dream", meaning, restrict, "The American Dream". - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem is there is a large amount of companies to get your cable modem from....at a national level. It's the local markets that are screwed. Where I live, my only cable provider is Comcast, I don't have a choice. When I lived in San Antonio, there was Time Warner. The city governments need to get off their asses and refine the monopoly laws.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why do people insist on confusing net neutrality with broadband competition? Net neutrality has nothing to do with broadband competition.
- Ascus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Recently arround here there as been quite a ittle spat with Brighthouse and Verizon, They are increasing speeds, and offereing lowend broadband for as low as 14.95 a month. There is competition, its not as hot as I would hope, but its now better that the 1.5Mbs for $69.99/mo it was, I have 15Mbs for $49.99/Mo.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The prices wars are at the same place that "lower cable" prices were in the 80s. Nowhere to be found. Cable prices never went down as the industry said they would, in fact, they've steadily increased.
There's definitely price-fixing within the broadband industry. For cable broadband, well cable companies own it.. and we know how they work. For DSL, the lines are owned by telecom companies and for companies to use those, they have to play nice and not lower prices too far below their competitors who own the lines. - Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you all want some cheese to go with your wine.
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So *this* is what "free trade" means. Now I get it.
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is