Why are you paying "thousands" for HDTVs?
If I may say, perhaps you are silly if you are buying your TVs around your streaming choices.
\.*duh*
None of us can tell you why *you* buy "thousands" of dollars or TVs..period. *yeesh* (thousands??????)
How so?
If I recall correctly, everyone seemed to get a very nice buyout for severence..
Job losses stink...but true competition does produce results that are best for the country
(consumers is such a shitty word...customers works so much better)
The nice part about the old ATT doing dickish shit is that they invested in tech (back when they were ATT monopoly),
The new ATT doesn't invest in anything...the dictate that others do it for them if they want their business and only promise to pay out when they can produce the returns ATT needs in the stock market. Nothing significant will come of this, but it will mirror the innovation of the web over the past 5 years...VZ / Sprint is basically the same.
The business model has changed since the elimination of local/long distance. Vertical integration is the new old.
if you have to ask, you definitely don't remember before 1984.
phones were paid per line (and they monitored for multiple line usage)
You mean 1 phone line to the house could incur multiple charges if more than 1 phone was plugged in?
If so, sounds like the video provider model (Cable Sat and LEC provided Video per box)?
Heck, I'd argue that the "family bundle" is the same thing in the cellular world.
touch tone was extra
For a period of time, that made sense, for people that wanted that service. Once the switches were all digital, not so much...
at one point you had to buy the phone from Bell at a premium cost
Just like today with cell or cable boxes. Word is that the larger telcos expect a ruling on this eventually..just a matter of when (1 yr or
20 yrs??) Let "Walmart" or or other stores sell the handsets, let the manufacturers develop to spectrum requirements and eliminate the
need to purchase "subsidized" phones. Phones as an excuse for pricing is pathetic....like arguing the internet wouldn't have grown
without free computers.
high base prices
This will become the norm. Infrastructure costs.
High Install Fees, lower monthly (shorter/non-existent contracts)
Low Install Fees, higher monthly (longer contracts)
and anywhere between...at the end of the day the base prices need to reflect a balance between the fixed costs of infrastructure and
the revenues generated by third parties that want to use the infrastructure to sell their services.
every feature cost extra (call waiting, caller ID, etc)
Amen. Some of this has to do with the local regulatory bodies (telephone companies) and license fees by vendors (per user).
Nevertheless, we pay for it, it just ain't itemized. It might be argued that the people that use those features are "feature hogs" in the
same manner as the people that use their bandwidth are "bandwidth hogs". Costs are per user regardless of use usage under typical
licensing agreements.
long distance charges
Those are slowly being replaced by on-net/off-net charges (and/or data usage caps). Cellular companies are training us to the new model
as the users are becoming younger and "no nothing better".
Instead of LD, the future WILL BE data usage related. The BOCs (and Cable Companies) will put forth relatively good arguments that they need to rationalize the costs of providing bandwidth to the users, therefore, per bit pricing will work.
Of course per bit pricing only makes sense when there is perfect competition...(until then we are stuck with imperfect competition)
overseas long distance charge premium
that scrapes the surface.
That really hasn't gone away....at least on my cell phone plan.
As with all rates, it is all about arbitrage and political objectives. (how do you ensure everyone has connectivity to the network?)
International has gone down for a reason (sometimes "illegal").
There is a reason Ma Bell invested...the same reason our "Universities" invest in research. Do some background checking on Netscape, Google....these companies were not born of profit...they were born of "government blessings and grants" through colleges. The ATT monopoly on communications was never fully altruistic, but certainly not without cost to ATTs original business model back in the day...(100 years ago?)
Frankly, the tech that was invented isn't too far from what the Gov does today via universities to produce viable business ,...(which are not reducing costs...more sad to not subsidize education than communications in this day and age, no?)
Slashdot is certainly responsible for removal of redistribution of copywritten works once notified.
If they weren't, we might be reading the NYTs article instead of having to visit a link that we need to use bugmenot to view (or subscribing to NYT).
Reading the actual article would certainly promote more intelligent discussion of the article, but the article itself is probably copywritten or slashdot would have allowed it to be posted fully.
Will they if you try?
As far as YouTube...it's simple enough to filter based on combinations of takedown requests, copyright violations provided by owners and userids. If goog can provide the most effective search of what the web wants, they can certainly determine what the web can't have. There is a reason they are betting on advertising and marketing as a model...
Simple enough, cancel service:)
Sorta sounds like xmas at the relatives..."we need cable tv"!
At what price point do you finally "really" cancel a service?
Maybe Cable and Cell services are really worth a large amount more than what we currently pay.
Your local ISP (i.e. telco and cable company) can provide these services to you.
We are finally coming around to the old "pay to keep your telephone number unlisted" nonsense.
Why not just finally lay down and tell your "ISP" that you want a small discount for targeted ads!
The ISP is the most logical choice for targeting ads, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you paying "thousands" for HDTVs? If I may say, perhaps you are silly if you are buying your TVs around your streaming choices. \.*duh* None of us can tell you why *you* buy "thousands" of dollars or TVs..period. *yeesh* (thousands??????)
How so? If I recall correctly, everyone seemed to get a very nice buyout for severence.. Job losses stink...but true competition does produce results that are best for the country (consumers is such a shitty word...customers works so much better)
The nice part about the old ATT doing dickish shit is that they invested in tech (back when they were ATT monopoly), The new ATT doesn't invest in anything...the dictate that others do it for them if they want their business and only promise to pay out when they can produce the returns ATT needs in the stock market. Nothing significant will come of this, but it will mirror the innovation of the web over the past 5 years...VZ / Sprint is basically the same. The business model has changed since the elimination of local/long distance. Vertical integration is the new old.
if you have to ask, you definitely don't remember before 1984.
phones were paid per line (and they monitored for multiple line usage)
You mean 1 phone line to the house could incur multiple charges if more than 1 phone was plugged in? If so, sounds like the video provider model (Cable Sat and LEC provided Video per box)? Heck, I'd argue that the "family bundle" is the same thing in the cellular world.
touch tone was extra
For a period of time, that made sense, for people that wanted that service. Once the switches were all digital, not so much...
at one point you had to buy the phone from Bell at a premium cost
Just like today with cell or cable boxes. Word is that the larger telcos expect a ruling on this eventually..just a matter of when (1 yr or 20 yrs??) Let "Walmart" or or other stores sell the handsets, let the manufacturers develop to spectrum requirements and eliminate the need to purchase "subsidized" phones. Phones as an excuse for pricing is pathetic....like arguing the internet wouldn't have grown without free computers.
high base prices
This will become the norm. Infrastructure costs. High Install Fees, lower monthly (shorter/non-existent contracts) Low Install Fees, higher monthly (longer contracts) and anywhere between...at the end of the day the base prices need to reflect a balance between the fixed costs of infrastructure and the revenues generated by third parties that want to use the infrastructure to sell their services.
every feature cost extra (call waiting, caller ID, etc)
Amen. Some of this has to do with the local regulatory bodies (telephone companies) and license fees by vendors (per user). Nevertheless, we pay for it, it just ain't itemized. It might be argued that the people that use those features are "feature hogs" in the same manner as the people that use their bandwidth are "bandwidth hogs". Costs are per user regardless of use usage under typical licensing agreements.
long distance charges
Those are slowly being replaced by on-net/off-net charges (and/or data usage caps). Cellular companies are training us to the new model as the users are becoming younger and "no nothing better". Instead of LD, the future WILL BE data usage related. The BOCs (and Cable Companies) will put forth relatively good arguments that they need to rationalize the costs of providing bandwidth to the users, therefore, per bit pricing will work. Of course per bit pricing only makes sense when there is perfect competition...(until then we are stuck with imperfect competition)
overseas long distance charge premium
that scrapes the surface.
That really hasn't gone away....at least on my cell phone plan. As with all rates, it is all about arbitrage and political objectives. (how do you ensure everyone has connectivity to the network?) International has gone down for a reason (sometimes "illegal"). There is a reason Ma Bell invested...the same reason our "Universities" invest in research. Do some background checking on Netscape, Google....these companies were not born of profit...they were born of "government blessings and grants" through colleges. The ATT monopoly on communications was never fully altruistic, but certainly not without cost to ATTs original business model back in the day...(100 years ago?) Frankly, the tech that was invented isn't too far from what the Gov does today via universities to produce viable business , ...(which are not reducing costs...more sad to not subsidize education than communications in this day and age, no?)
Slashdot is certainly responsible for removal of redistribution of copywritten works once notified. If they weren't, we might be reading the NYTs article instead of having to visit a link that we need to use bugmenot to view (or subscribing to NYT). Reading the actual article would certainly promote more intelligent discussion of the article, but the article itself is probably copywritten or slashdot would have allowed it to be posted fully. Will they if you try? As far as YouTube...it's simple enough to filter based on combinations of takedown requests, copyright violations provided by owners and userids. If goog can provide the most effective search of what the web wants, they can certainly determine what the web can't have. There is a reason they are betting on advertising and marketing as a model...
Simple enough, cancel service :)
Sorta sounds like xmas at the relatives..."we need cable tv"!
At what price point do you finally "really" cancel a service?
Maybe Cable and Cell services are really worth a large amount more than what we currently pay.
Your local ISP (i.e. telco and cable company) can provide these services to you. We are finally coming around to the old "pay to keep your telephone number unlisted" nonsense. Why not just finally lay down and tell your "ISP" that you want a small discount for targeted ads! The ISP is the most logical choice for targeting ads, no?