COMCAST vs Direct TVFollow

The entry costs for getting into cable/high speed internet (infrastructure, content fees) are high enough to discourage start-ups. It's not like opening a hotdog stand.

Open Market Capitalism!

And we're suckers I guess.

At my house I have one option for cable (twc). I can get DSL from elsewhere, but the cost difference isn't much. Verizon is really the only cell provider without big dead spaces in the area.

This quote is from a NewYorker article early last year...

We used to be paying about $105/mo, then called up to cancel our TV and just keep the internet, which would have been something like $70/mo. They wound up offering faster internet and a slightly smaller cable package for $60/mo for 6 months. 6 months later when the rate jumped we repeated the process with similar results, and so on and so forth for like 3 years now, getting different variations of the same deal. Sometimes more channels, some times lower price, etc. etc. The discounts are one of their worst kept secrets around here at least.

Edited, Jan 8th 2015 3:10pm by someproteinguy

Correct. The exact dollar amount isn't the issue. It's the concept that "high speed internet is cheap in SK" that is. I can guarantee you that the people building the infrastructure in SK are no more competent or efficient at it than those in the US. It costs (relatively speaking) about the same amount of money per gig of data bandwidth there as it does here. Actually, it costs a bit more there than here. Host of factors why, but it does. And no. Lower labor costs in no way offset higher costs for the base equipment (and the reasons for that are a whole nother topic). Not even remotely close in fact.



Out of pocket? Sure. Because very little of the network you pay for in the US is subsidized by the US government (or any level of government). The internet is a net tax/tariff/license-fee gain for governments in the US, in fact.



Um... That's just wrong. Obviously wrong. Hilariously wrong. It's "the sun is a flaming chariot pulled by flying horses" wrong. I'd explain why, but the very fact that you think this means I'd have to explain about 5 layers of information just to give you a ground work to understand the explanation. And even I don't feel like writing that much.




Again. To the end customer? Yes. Total actual cost? Not even close. Your problem is that you literally don't even know about more than one tiny tip-of-the-iceberg portion of the whole picture, so you can't even begin to understand where the real costs lie. I've tried to explain this to you many many times. It's not home users. That's all you see though.




Maybe don't strip out the line just before my response? The private sector seeks government funding to pad profits, but you failed to ask "why does government allow them to do this?". The answer isn't "because it's full of people who want to help make life wonderful for all the little boys and girls in the country". It's "so we can control it".


Which is the point of my response. I'm far less worried about a profit driven motive. That's clear cut and doesn't hurt me usually. The government's reason for getting involved in industry is far more likely to be harmful than the other way around. Get it?

Edited, Jan 8th 2015 5:19pm by gbaji

You could reduce food costs at restaurants by requiring them all to rent space in their restaurants to food cart vendors at cost too. There are some long term negatives to creating that kind of regulation though. Oh. And see! The internet is just like a hot dog stand.


Let me help explain this.

Question: What incentive is there for a company to spend money on infrastructure (like say a restaurant or some network backbone) if the government will require them to let everyone else use it at cost?

Answer: None at all.

Result: Companies will stop investing in said infrastructure. So in the case of internet infrastructure, you get the current stuff cheaper today, but tomorrows network will suck really really bad. It's a moronic action for a government to take, unless their intent is to fall behind (but hey! You get great press today). This is a particularly stupid idea with regard to such a rapidly changing/improving product like data networks.

Edited, Jan 8th 2015 5:40pm by gbaji

Did you forget you wrote that part?

Actually, Smash wrote it originally. But I do agree that private industry accepts government funding/assistance/favorable regulations as a means to increase revenue and/or decrease costs. Which results in higher profits.

My point is that the motivation for the government to do this is control. And, as I pointed out just a bit ago, I'm far less concerned about someone pursuing a profit motive than a control motive. One enriches someone, which may or may not benefit or harm me at all. The other grants someone else control over me. Which always harms me.

Edited, Jan 8th 2015 6:05pm by gbaji

Huh? In both cases, the government grants the benefits as a means of control. It subsidizes marriage as a means of controlling marriage. I've made this exact argument many many times in the past, usually when pointing out how absurd it is to insist that not being allowed to qualify for the state marriage is a violation of someone's rights. Did you just not understand the point the last 8 times I made it?


Maybe this is the gap we have? To me, government funds things to control them. So when they subsidize an industry, it's not about helping the industry, but about controlling it in some way (or many ways). I accept that both sides engage in this kind of deal, but one can argue that it's businesses that are put over the barrel here. If you *don't* play the government funding game, you get left behind by companies that do. So while the owners absolutely do it for profit, the condition of "profit means working with the government" is first created by government. My position is that if you want to end the corruption this may cause, you have to stop having government fund things. Because it doesn't make sense trying to blame business for taking the money. Of course they're going to take it. If they don't, their competition will. Eliminate that condition and you eliminate the problem.


On the flip side, I suppose that if you adopt the idea that government funds things out of an altruistic motivation, then you might just see this as businesses taking advantage of that altruism for their own financial benefit. I think that's a naive way of looking at it, and it isn't terribly helpful either. But I can see how the mindset could be adopted. And yes, this will also result in people adopting the whole "I have a right to have the government define my marriage to me" bit (which I find absolutely hilarious).

Even if you don't agree with me, can you at least accept that this is actually my position and rationale? It's not inconsistent or hypocritical at all.


Oh. I didn't really respond to the "spending my money bit". Yeah. Of course that's an aspect. But, again, that's the result of the government getting involved, not the other way around. End the government meddling, and the problem(s) go away. I'm actually harmed two ways by the subsidizing process. First in that it's my tax dollars being spent, and second in that the government is controlling the thing they're spending my money on, and often in ways that I don't agree with. But both are resolved by simply *not* doing that in the first place.

Edited, Jan 8th 2015 6:41pm by gbaji

You wrote that if a government subsidy increases profit to a business that does not harm you.

You wrote that if same sex *married couples are subsided by the government that harms you.




Please explain the difference in no more than three sentences.


Thanks.




Edited, Jan 8th 2015 7:54pm by Bijou

Um... That's just wrong. Obviously wrong. Hilariously wrong.

I'll bet you $10,000 it isn't wrong.

Let me know.

You are a full-on devotee of Ayn Rand. Hypocrisy is built in to your belief structure. Too bad you are too blind to see it.

Payable in Farm & Fleet gift cards.

Payable in hardtack biscuits and tax consulting services.

Blain's Farm & Fleet is a regional chain of 35 retail stores in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa

You lost me at "regional". For obvious reasons, I don't spend a great deal of time in flyover country. Is it like wal-mart? I'm going to pretend it's wal-mart.