utiz4321

3 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Too many companies do not pay taxes. I would like something like a VAT based on revenues rather than profits. No loopholes, no exemptions.

Zero companies pay taxes. Employees, share holders and customers pay taxes. VAT has merits but because it is a consumption tax not because companies "pay". The best tax system is a progressive sales tax. 

What is wrong with him saying this is good for sprint and jt is hood for our customer's? It is a true statement. The taxes sprint pays are paid by employees, share holders and customers all of which got a reduction in taxes. That is a good message for a CEO to talk about. 

43 minutes ago, Rawvega said:

 

 

I never said otherwise although your assertion is not entirely accurate, but that's an altogether different discussion.




Key word is "companies". If something needed to be said then I feel that it would have been best for Sprint to have said it via a press release instead of Marcelo. Honestly, I think the vehement backlash that he's receiving is answer enough. Sprint doesn't have the cache of an Apple, Exxon, Walmart or a Berkshire Hathaway so in my opinion it's probably not a good idea for it's CEO to invite unnecessary criticism by lauding the outcome of a rather unpopular political vote. I don't see the benefit of Marcelo's tweet in this instance.

I think, if anything, Sprint probably should've given a response similar to Amazon's from the article that you linked and left it at that.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

 

I think they should explain to people what the lowering of the coporate tax rate means for their company and their future plans. Taxes aren't paid by companies anyway, all corporate taxes are paid by some combination of consumers, employees and shareholders. If we were being Really honest the corporate tax rate would be zero and if we wanted to tax wealth we would have a progressive consumption tax. 

1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

Then why do I get different prices for Charter than what At&t offers my neighbors down the road? It's not similarly priced.

Charter doesnt offer a different price to you than it offers to your neighbor down the street. ATT offers you a different price because it is a different service, using a different technology and a different brand. 

To clarify, the price each company sets is determined at a market level. The price carries between companies. 

1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

 

Dude...just stop.

That was the most convincing thing I have ever seen. I think I am going to through out everything that i learned studying economics because of that little emoji holding a sign that says "reality check" and your statement "dude....just stop". Grow up. Seriously. 

4 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

I used to live in a little small town called Anderson, TX. Ever heard of it? Probably not. It's off the beaten path and has absolutely no grocery stores. Whenever I needed to buy produce, my only choice was the local gas station which carried essentials (potatoes, carrots, oranges, bananas, etc.). But you know what I did if I wanted better variety? I drove my happy ass down to College Station or Conroe to stock up on goods. It wasn't hard and it wasn't impossible. HEB, Sam's Club, Target, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, even a damn Michoacana. If I want to buy groceries, I just drive and buy it.

If I want Comcast as an ISP, it may as well be impossible. Getting the option of buying from a wide variety of ISPs isn't as easy as getting in your car and driving.

You can awe at that number you provided all you want, but it's an alternative fact...nay, it's fake news. Those 45 providers are all spread out among the metroplex and not competing with each other. Stop being dense. They're aren't a threat to each other, hence NO COMPETITION.

What does me "probably" not hearimg of a Podunk town in texas have to do with anything. I know this a hard comcept for you to understand, but competition amongest ISPs doesnt happen at the individual home level. It occurs, for a variety of reason at a market level. For example, there are 20 ISPs in my market. Most residence have alternatives to choose from, some one (most of those are apartment complexes) and some there. The people with only one choice pays the same rate as the people with 3, why because it is the overall market competition that governs the price and incentives.

Ps if you want comcast you can get it, move. It is inconvenient but then again so is driving 3 hours every other week to get it to a different grocery store.

You are kind of proving my point with your last example. 

1 hour ago, tybo31316 said:

 

So what positives (for consumers) do you think can come out of ending Net Neutrality?

 

I think it will go along way in keeping the ISPs innovative and increase investment if ISP are able to capture more of the industries profit, which isnt guaranteed at all. It might be the case That demand for services like netfilx are sufficient  inelastic they wont have that ability and given that netflix brand is stronger than compainies like Comcast that might the case. 

7 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

This is the exact definition of "alternative facts".

A real fact is that I can buy my food from Kroger, Whole Foods, Walmart, Tom Thumb, Albertsons, Fiesta, Target, Aldi, Trader Joe's, Sprouts, and an endless amount of ethnic specialty stores in and around Dallas.

I can only get my internet from Spectrum.

 

But keep believing that these two markets are sooo similar . 

Lots of people have one grocery to choose from, for example people that live in rural areas. They arent forced to by the store brand. 

You might have access to one broad band provider where you live but compatition among broad band providers exist at a market level. How many providers does dallas have? 

https://broadbandnow.com/Texas/Dallas

45. That is a very competitive mark.  But countinue being completely ignorant of have markets work. 

1 hour ago, rkitt said:

I doubt it is going to alter the availability of a provider in either way.

 

What I can see happening eventually though is spectrum going and saying we are going to set up lanes and saying look I know your paying x $ for 100 Mbps connection but any traffic going to Y domain (work) or z domain (netflix, directtv now, essentially any non spectrum owned stream)  is going to be slowed to 10 Mbps unless you pay y $ additional to get back to the 100 Mbps you are already paying for.

 

Realistically though even if there were multiple providers available they could all put into play the pay for lanes or paid QOS and keep the pricing all close to each other any way so its not like having multiple options is really going to quell the desire to squeeze as much money out of the consumer as possible.  

 

Sure there could be the straight talks of internet that will say okay we can give you the connection for 50% of what spectrum charges and there will be no pay lanes no throttling of traffic but it is at 25 Mbps and capped at 200 GB which could be an option for some

That will not happen. You are not going to charge the end user for 100 mbs for part of the internet and then 10 for everything else unless they end users pays again to get it back up to 100.  That would run into all kinds of legal issues and in against the pre-2015 FCC rules governing broadband that we are reverting too.

The best way to think of "fast lanes" is two fold: a way of mananging network trafic and a way of pipe capturing a greater share of the profits on a two sides market. 

What would you rather have happen during peak times; everything you try to access is slowed (and streaming services impossible) or Netflix (and other) popular services to work fine and everything else is slow? 

Futher if pipe is able to capture a greater share of the profits their returns on investment are better and it becomes more atractive for new entrances. 

Pipe should not be treated as a utility unless you believe we have now or in the very near future reached the apogee of broadband internet. I don't. The industry has been incredibly Dynamic and Innovative and will continue to be so as long as regulations dont strangle it to death.

21 hours ago, greenbastard said:

If you can't see how ISPs and market stores are Apples to oranges (but closer to manure), then I can't help you. You want to believe your alternatives facts, then knock yourself out. 

The question is do the two markets share relavent characteristics in common and they do. You should really spend some time either reading about the economics of a two side markets or just informing yourself on some the basic insights of economics before you go off and start fantasizing about the doom markets will inflict because companies "can" do something.  People like you are why we cant have nice things. 

On 12/15/2017 at 5:04 AM, rkitt said:

That's great for those with more than one option.
Now how about the 50 million household's that only have one option, or you just saying sucks to be them.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/?amp=1

I would be curious as to how the arrive at that number. I omce live in an appartment complex that had one provider wired to in because the had worked out a deal with that ISP.  If the count those types of arrangments they are over counting as they are still choices. The end user has simplied allowed the property owner to make it instead of them. 

5 hours ago, greenbastard said:

So blame the government for creating anti competitive laws and blame the government for creating laws that prevent anti-competitive practices???

Damned if you do, damned if you don't . Are you some type of anarchist?

This isn't an Apples to oranges comparison. This is an Apples to manure comparison. You absolutely cannot and should not compare ISPs to stores. It's laughable that you even tried.

You are completely ignorant about economics. It is not apple to oranges it is apples to apples. They are both two sided market in with the distributers sell their own competing product with their suppliers.

If the government creates a problem with a shitty ser of laws and then kind of fixes it with another shitty set of laws, then yes the government is the problem.  You all seem to forget how innovative pipe has been and that treating them like a utility might not be the best thing in the world. After all how innovative are utilities generally? 

2 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

So you admit that ISPs WANT and are TRYING to be anti-competitive, yet you have no issue with the repeal of Net Neutrality, (which prevented anti-competitive practices)

Anyone else confused?  

So you admit that ISPs WANT and are TRYING to be anti-competitive, yet you have no issue with the repeal of Net Neutrality, (which prevented anti-competitive practices)

Anyone else confused?  

 

Sorry you couldnt keep up, but my statement was clear. The government is the necessary and sufficient condition for the anticompetitive regulations. The cable companies are neither necessary or sufficient therefore the cable companies cannot be causal. 

33 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

Tell us, how does the world work? 

No where near the way you fantasize. Tell me grocery stores prevent Innovation amongst food producers? Yet, the charge both the consumer looking to shop with them, carry their own brands, charge other food producers for shelf space and some how the market works just fine. 

4 hours ago, WiWavelength said:

Give me a fucking break.  Stop with your "alternative facts" bullshit.

This is documented anti competitive behavior from the telecom industry by leading the charge, funding, and actually writing anti municipal broadband legislation -- out of fear of public works treading on its private enterprise rent seeking.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competition-big-cable-tries-outlawing-municipal-broadband-in-kansas/

AJ

You are missing the point, behavior is an action. There are two separate actions occurring here: one lobbying and two government instituting a policy.  To lobby the government for anything isn't anti-competitive because everone can do it. It is hyper competitive actually. The government actions are the anticompetitive element in this process. Another way to put it is that cable companies, through lobbying, express a desire for the government to take anti-competitive action but the government is the one taking the anti-competitive action, and it is the only institution that actually can be anti-competitive. 

The government shouldn't have this kind of authority and this example you gave of government using it's force to create anticompetitive market would not be possible if it did not or if the voters didnt accept that this is a proper thing for the government to do. 

13 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Hmm, what industry lobby funds and helps write anti municipal broadband legislation?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

AJ

Sounds like That is local government using force to me and the best solution would be to disallow municipalities from having this kind of power. The anticompetitive behavior comes from the government here.  Nice Try though. 

2 hours ago, greenbastard said:

I answered all of this in the previous post. Do you not read and just post? ISPs will be able to do what they want if they don't deceive their customers. 

Good luck getting the FTC to do anything about it. Any good lawyer will be able to throw any "anti-competitive" claims out the window.

How do markets work in your mind? No company can do whatever it wants. No company can restrict new entrance by force without the government.  So in this fantasy world of yours, in which cable companies are omnipotent, then you would be right. That just isnt the way the world works.  

In any case the point I made from google fiber came from Schmidt himself.

His answer on Google fiber starts at 37:45

Note, he didnt complain about competitors,  he complains about Local government. 

2 hours ago, greenbastard said:

So are you just going to ignore the anti-competitive practices that existing ISPs use to keep new providers out from their territories?

And again, we are several years away from 5G deployment, with or without government interference. It's not going to cover every neighborhood and reliability won't be guaranteed. 5G will not be a safeguard to NN.

You keep blaming the wrong people for the lack of competition.

Go on name them. What anti-competitive practices? 

2 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

I supported the FCC’s action yesterday.

I don’t like monopolies, but I dislike duopolies more because it’s the illusion of competition.

I support policies that ensure and encourage vibrant competition between multiple market participants.

When physical threats and intimidation are involved, that undermines any legitimacy to one’s position in my opinion.

Duopolies do have competition and does transfer welfare to the consumer. Look, the number efficient of players in a market is determined largely by returns to scale.  The one thing the government can do to help a market have more competition and reach an efficient state is lower the fixed cost associated with regulations. 

8 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

This needs to be substantially improved.

Yup. This is the major problem. The process needs to be improved for fiber companies too. The reason why google  had cities bid to bring google fiber to their town was because the regulatory cost would have been too high to make it worth it to them.  Local government shouldn't be allowed to impose such burdens on infrastructure companies. 

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

Fixed 5G will not solve anything when the backhaul provider will charge you an arm and a leg and is the same provider whosex you're goring by providing competition for his last mile fixed wired connection.

There is a ton of backhaul competition. And even if there weren't it isnt as if a monopoly or duopoly can charge whatever they want. They are profit maximizing firms. You guys are freaking out over nothing. It would be quit amuzing to watch the melt down of the net neutral crowd if there werent bomb threats and threatening of children involved. 

2 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

Force feeding vs consumers making bad choices are not one and the same. At any given time the next "big thing" can happen organically (isn't Capitalism the American way?) and totally disrupt the industry. Good luck trusting ISP's choosing the winners and losers.

Why do you care that big content can use the government to rig the industry in their favor against big telecom? The market is more than capable of dealing with a two sided industry. 

2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Still have to get a wireline from cable or telco to put on a TV... unless you use your device as a hotspot.

I can see this as an end run around traditional cable/telco wireline if T-Mobile does fixed wireless with 5G. That’s something Sprint would do pretty well with its 2.5 GHz spectrum.

Any reason for SoftBank/Sprint to make a pitch for Dish?

Scale, spectrum and content relationships. That would be the case for a merger. 

27 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Mostly a rehash of the last conference. 

It was kind of cool that he mentioned twice that he wanted to talk about the network plans before they actually go to that point. It Points to some excitement with in the company for the or plans or messaging they want the markets to hear. 

1 hour ago, tyroned3222 said:

Was in Phoenix ( Glendale, tempe, Scottsdale ) sprint performed very well.... Phoenix was part of 1st phase of band 41rollout ..so, all site we're 3xca that I connected to with new band 41 site running Nokia mini macros 2xca... Also, band 25 is now 10mhz in Phoenix that was good to see.. band 26 is a nice fill in for indoor coverage not crazy on speeds, but around 5-7mbps.... Also, the cell grid looks to be dense... don't know if that just started happening recently or has Phoenix been a pretty dense market?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Phoenix itself is really good, but there are a ton of weak areas in the east valley and Glendale. But it has improved a ton too. We need more density in the area surounding phoenix. 

He was pretty good at being a public brand advocate for sprint. Too bad he is being cut out.