Time Warner, Embarq Hopes to Kill Little ISP

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Local Government make plenty of monopolistic practices. They often offer utilities and various trash services. I don't see why this is any different.

Look at Linux, it operates at a loss, but somehow Windows holds a huge marketshare while operating for profit. The fact is, price isn't the only facet of the product. If Time Warner can't compete in price, they need to make a better product. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve any sympathy.
 
"If I move out of state i'm going to make sure I dont get TWC."

The problem is that, for most Americans, the local cable company has a monopoly on the cable franchise for their town. The residents have no choice. Where I lived, the local cable company was charging $10/month for basic cable... until Comcast bought them - now it's $50 for the same service.

I'm sure something similar was true for the town of Wilson. Yes, there is the "advantage" of being government-run to lower costs. But Time-Warner has the "advantage" of their huge size giving them significant buying power, and probably lower costs than Wilson would ever see. I hope the town of Wilson prevails... but politicians see money, so they probably won't. Too bad, as I'm cheering for the town.
 
[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]Local Government make plenty of monopolistic practices. They often offer utilities and various trash services. I don't see why this is any different.Look at Linux, it operates at a loss, but somehow Windows holds a huge marketshare while operating for profit. The fact is, price isn't the only facet of the product. If Time Warner can't compete in price, they need to make a better product. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve any sympathy.[/citation]
First, tv and internet isn't a utility. Second, you can't excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. Third, Linux does not operate at a loss. It is an open platform, which BTW steals many of Microsofts patents. I'm sure Microsoft would try to stop Linux if they thought they could. Fourth, you can't compete against a system that can sell a product at cost as well as being city run in a industry that is based on city permits.
 
[citation][nom]San Pedro[/nom]There is nothing wrong with what Wilson did. Bottom line is TWC doesn't want competition to be able to start up. All the citizens of Wilson are its shareholders, and what the shareholders want is good internet at a decent price. Unfortunately for the consumer, these tel-com companies have used government for a long time to allow for monopolies in areas, and they aren't used to having to compete, and they certainly don't want to start now.[/citation]

Quoted for truth the citizens of Wilson are shareholders in the way their city and run and governed they earn their city stocks through city taxes they pay annually if anything they own more stake in how there town/city is run. As for TWC crying about about it and saying they can't compete that is a bunch of hogwash they have plenty of money to compete and offer a superior product, but it's simply not in there best interest to do so.
 
[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]I've said my peice and your arguments aren't valid to me. You guys make the call. the question is, can you set aside your own greed for fast internet at cheap prices in favor of fair business practicess. If the answer is No then you are just as bad as you accuse Time Warner and Embarq of being.[/citation]

You miss the point.

As I said previously, as a monopoly on a public utility, Time Warner has a responsibility to the public to charge reasonable prices. And as most monopolies, Time Warner does not do this.

I don't think anyone would say as a private business that Time Warner is not entitled to a profit. But the AMOUNT of profit they make on broadband is ludicrous, as is the AMOUNT of profit they make on everything else, and this is because in the majority of markets they are in, they are a monopoly that CAN charge whatever they want.

Take a look at the profit figures from some of the previous articles on their hair-brained tier scheme. Their costs are squat, and their profits are on par with oil companies when it comes to broadband. And in the majority of cases, it's the taxpayers that gave them the money to build their infrastructure in the first place.

If they want to provide a public utility in a monopoly environment, they have a responsibility to charge fairly. The people of Wilson fought back, and because Time Warner is no longer a monopoly, this is "unfair" to Time Warner. Bull. If they made $10 profit a month from every customer they had, that would be enough. But they want $50 - $100 due to corporate greed. If they stuck with that $10 profit each month, those with their triple package of cable, phone, and internet would pay maybe $75 for all of it. Instead, it's more like $150, and that's why the people of Wilson are fighting back.

Thinking they are entitled to more just means you are delusional, or employed by TWC or their lobbying firm.
 
[citation][nom]mav0100[/nom]You miss the point.As I said previously, as a monopoly on a public utility, Time Warner has a responsibility to the public to charge reasonable prices. And as most monopolies, Time Warner does not do this.I don't think anyone would say as a private business that Time Warner is not entitled to a profit. But the AMOUNT of profit they make on broadband is ludicrous, as is the AMOUNT of profit they make on everything else, and this is because in the majority of markets they are in, they are a monopoly that CAN charge whatever they want.Take a look at the profit figures from some of the previous articles on their hair-brained tier scheme. Their costs are squat, and their profits are on par with oil companies when it comes to broadband. And in the majority of cases, it's the taxpayers that gave them the money to build their infrastructure in the first place.If they want to provide a public utility in a monopoly environment, they have a responsibility to charge fairly. The people of Wilson fought back, and because Time Warner is no longer a monopoly, this is "unfair" to Time Warner. Bull. If they made $10 profit a month from every customer they had, that would be enough. But they want $50 - $100 due to corporate greed. If they stuck with that $10 profit each month, those with their triple package of cable, phone, and internet would pay maybe $75 for all of it. Instead, it's more like $150, and that's why the people of Wilson are fighting back.Thinking they are entitled to more just means you are delusional, or employed by TWC or their lobbying firm.[/citation]
It's not a utility. They don't have a responsibility to the public at all. This is America, their is no limit to the amount of profit they are allowed, if you don't like it move to a communist country. I am none of the things you accused me of.
 
[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]First, tv and internet isn't a utility.[/citation]
Oh really?
A public utility (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure).
Click to expand...

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]Second, you can't excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.[/citation]
What? You think Cities providing services to their constituents is a bad behavior?

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]Third, Linux does not operate at a loss. It is an open platform[/citation]
How does it being an open platform change the fact that people put in large amounts of resources while gaining no financial gain? It being an Open Platform just means that it's an acceptable loss, much like giving to a charity.

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]which BTW steals many of Microsofts patents.[/citation]
Yeah, and Macs "Just Work".

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]I'm sure Microsoft would try to stop Linux if they thought they could.[/citation]
They are trying to stop Linux. If they could sue someone, they would have already. But they obviously know, they have no case.

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]Fourth, you can't compete against a system that can sell a product at cost as well as being city run in a industry that is based on city permits.[/citation]
Yes, yes you can. Price isn't everything. You can either make a better product, or you can work on making a cheaper, and moe efficient product to compete in price while still making a profit. This wouldn't have happened in the first place if one of those companies offered a satisfactory product.
 
Oh, also in response to mav0100, the tax payers did not pay for Time Warners infastructure, unless of course you're referring to the money they pay for cable service since I assume all Time warner customers are technically tax payers, but the money they paid in taxes did not go towards the infastructure. Time warner has not been given any money from the stimulus package either (not yet at least), and if they are given tax payer dollars take that up with your government, not Time Warner. Besides of which that is still off point. The government should not be involved with providing internet or television service. It is not fair to private business and it opens the door for government controlled censorship over these things.
 
As for Tinytim, 1.) You just proved my point. It is not a public utility, only the telephone portion of it is, but not internet or television. 2.) You are taking it out of context. I think that a government run private business forcing out competition that could never compete is bad behavior and I know the courts will agree. 3.) Linux is not sold, it is the customer service and hardware that is sold and that is how companies make money off Linux. 4.) I don't get your Mac comment, perhaps you're trying to say that I'm perpetuating a lie, however I would have to disagree with you since it is common knowledge that Microsoft owns patents used in many forms of Linux which originated from their contributions to Unix. 5.) Microsoft has sued someone in regards to this, the most recent case being TomTom. They accused TomTom of infrginging on their patents based on the Linux operating system in their GPS devices. They both settled out of court since Microsoft was also infringing on a few of their patents and they agreed to both share patents as well as TomTom paying Microsoft an undisclosed sum. 6.) Probably the only comment you made which comes some what close to a valid point. You're still missing the point about the conflict of interest when the city is providing the same services as the competition without having to make a profit (which I dont think they can legally do) as well as havign the power to dictate laws and make decisions on permits for the very same companies they are competing with.
 
From what I am gathering about how this works, is, it's much like a co-op company. Have any of you ever lived in a rural area or small town where the electric company is a co-operative instead of being connected directly to say SWEPCo, Detroit Edison, Consumers energy?

More or less these companies are started up by the city council in the small town selling bonds to bring in money to construct the company and infrastructure. The bonds are pretty much equal to selling shares in a company. This is more what it sounds like, a locally owned internet service/communications co-op.
 
[citation][nom]Mathos[/nom]From what I am gathering about how this works, is, it's much like a co-op company. Have any of you ever lived in a rural area or small town where the electric company is a co-operative instead of being connected directly to say SWEPCo, Detroit Edison, Consumers energy?More or less these companies are started up by the city council in the small town selling bonds to bring in money to construct the company and infrastructure. The bonds are pretty much equal to selling shares in a company. This is more what it sounds like, a locally owned internet service/communications co-op.[/citation]
Yes, but an energy company is a utility, thats a big difference.
 
I don't understand how Water and Electricity are "Public Services" but Internet isn't.
Public services is a term usually used to mean services provided by government to its citizens, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing private provision of services.
Click to expand...
This would make Internet a public service. A Utility seems to be defined by what is provided.
 
[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]Yes, but an energy company is a utility, thats a big difference.[/citation]

Whether you choose to believe TWC is a public utility or not is semantics. It IS a utility. They are required to obtain a franchise from the cities or towns they operate in, just as an electric company or telephone company would.

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]You just proved my point. [/citation]

I believe with your lack of acknowledgment of a cable companies status as a UTILITY proves mine and your obstinate rebuttals proves mine. Either you work for them, or your one of their lobbyists - or maybe just a greedy shareholder. But it does not change the FACT that they ARE a utility.

And I would suggest you do some research genius - TWC received huge government grants in the 90's to help build their broadband infrastructure. Not only do you not know what constitutes a utility, you are clueless how your tax dollars are spent as well. The public paid for a large percentage of TWC's infrastructure with their tax dollars, and the same can be said for the majority of other cable companies as well. This is a fact.

If you can't back up your OPINIONS with FACTS, don't bother arguing any further, because I sure can, and you will just continue to embarrass yourself and put your foot in your mouth.

 
[citation][nom]The Schnoz [/nom]Fourth, you can't compete against a system that can sell a product at cost as well as being city run in a industry that is based on city permits.[/citation]

To burn you further - if you acknowledge that this is an industry that requires "city permits" (read: their government franchise), then you clearly acknowledge that they ARE a utility, as only utilities require a franchise in the first place.

Television may have been considered a luxury in the 1950's, but today, it is not - hence why the FCC exists, and hence why they have the emergency broadcast system tests all the time smart guy.

What you fail to differentiate on is that electricity and water are utilities that even welfare recipients need to survive, but things like cable, telephone and internet, are not needed to survive, but are still utilities just the same - hence the reason why welfare doesn't pay for them - yet. At some point I'm sure it will, and then I'll begin to wonder why I work for a living...
 
wether its a utility or not.
TW are allowed to compete, who said they cant get their service in that city in the first place.
but THEY KNOW that they can compete with their garbage against ftth and its obvious.
 
A business does not have to be set up just to maximize profits. Who ever starts a business has a right to run it at operating cost or close to it if they see fit.

 
Remember that whole digital tv fiasco with the convertor box coupons, it was because the federal government didn't want citizens to loose their tv as it's considera vital communication line. As many cities don't have the same quality over the air channels, the cable company takes their place. If a vital communication line doesn't make them a utility I don't know what would, other than the franchise agreements of course :)

Internet has become a primary form of communication and news gathering for a very large portion of americans, it is easily in the same vain as telco's. In fact the internet is slowly forcing out regular phone service. Whether it be cable, DSL, some form of wireless, that your VOIP line goes over, it's still on the internet at some point.

You are simply ignoring reality if you think the internet isn't a utility.

And no, american companies are not allowed to make as much as they can. At a certain point it becomes theft or extorsion and the government will shut you down. Granted this system is broken but simple ethics will dictate that just because you can get away with charging exorbanent amounts, doesn't mean you should.

If I sell you a hotdog for $20 cause it's "The best dog in the world", I have just cheated you out of your money. Morally, ethically, what ever you want to call it, it's wrong. Just cause you were dumb enough to buy it doesn't place the blame on you.
 
Unfortunately Michael the company IS allowed to make as much profit as they can. There is no limit to the amount of money you are allowed to make in America nor is there a line where morals make it wrong. The American structure of law is designed to really let businesses like this flourish while at the same time limiting government influence. That was the entire intention of the society we are in.

What has occured however is that the government is on uncertain terms. It tries to regulate a little here and a little there and then a whole lot over here. It tries to push businesses to be responsible for themselves and then helps them out when they start to collapse. The system's outdated origin and various "exceptions to the rules" have made it a very tricky line when the government (local or not) decides to step in on business profits.

The arguments people are making for TWC are that the local government in Wilson is able to decide laws that TWC relies on to build up its own business, while at the same time building its own business on the same line. They are talking about favoritism, not monopolies. It could very well lead to a monopoly down the line from the local government, but hasnt yet because as it is already pointed out, TWC still exists in Wilson. They just suck compared to their competition.

With the local government being able to decide if companies like time warner are able to expand their utility while at the same time being their competitor, it could definitely look like an unfair case of favoritism. There are however several things that dont make this quite so cut and dry.

1) the government TWC and embarq are competing against is local and run by local citizens. if TWC wanted to expand to increases its competitive edge against Greenlight, it would have to go to the local town government and it would come to a vote from the locals. This means that the locals could decide if they wanted this or not, which would be the case regardless of Greenlights existence.

2) Time warner and embarq, as pointed out by an earlier poster were OFFERED THE JOB OF BUILDING THE NETWORK. They had the option and decided it wasnt in their best interest, thereby opening the door for the Greenlight company.

3) Greenlight is a company built and supported by the citizens of Wilson. It is a company that got a contract to do something in the town with the town's funding. It has just as much right to profit and business and operate as anyone else, but was created with the intention of low profit as part of the agreement with which it got the contract.

4) Citizens of Wilson are willing to spend money. They are willing to shell out dollars to increase the service in their area. If TWC came up tomorrow and offered to expand and build on a fiberoptic network then the citizens would be all for a superior connection (as long as this whole fiasco didnt piss them off too much in the first place).

People want service. They want better service when they can. They will go through lengths to get the service they desire. If other companies cannot compete with that then it is a burden on them to change how they operate. This is not a monopoly and its case of favoritism is unrealistic given the circumstances of how this whole thing happened. They had their chance to build this network for Wilson, they declined and are in no position to whine about another company that did it with the stipulation of low cost/profit.
 
[citation][nom]michaelahess[/nom]If I sell you a hotdog for $20 cause it's "The best dog in the world", I have just cheated you out of your money. Morally, ethically, what ever you want to call it, it's wrong. Just cause you were dumb enough to buy it doesn't place the blame on you.[/citation]

I agreed with you, up to this point. It is my fault for being so stupid and buying a hotdog for such prices. If someone can get away with that in a competitive market, good for them.

Where it becomes morally reprehensible is when you're the only person with food, and you decide to sell your hotdogs for $20.
 
TWC is upset because a local community government can get it done cheaper. Now I don't now about you, but my local government is in no way shape or form fast or efficient, and sometimes is lacking a little in competency. Now TWC is telling me that they can't more efficiently provide people with the same level of internet service or better and still make a profit, especially when companies in other countries have been doing just that for years? Yeah, I'm a little skeptical.
 
I think every city should look into this. For a VERY long time, TWC was the only real broadband service here.

These companies can offer lower prices and faster service if they wanted to, they just have no incentive.

Down with TWC, up with affordable net!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom