AT&T Kills The $30 Unlimited Data Plan
- Thread starter sidewinder101
- Start date
You're right in that the bulk of the revenue is from services, however, they don't give away new phones. They push customers to new phones, which on average are about 120-150% above manufacturing price.
Don't get me wrong, it's not negligible, however those engineers make on average upwards of $70,000 and cell companies STILL post huge net incomes. Verizon for example, despite losing nearly 4% of their customers in the last two quarters of last year, actually posted an INCREASE in net income. There's a disconnect there, and it's the overpricing of the industry in general.
True, but with the upgrades cell companies say they are annually performing, and the money they claim they're spending, it'd be cheaper to build a new one, as the parts involved would inevitably be cheaper than when the aforementioned towers were built 5-10 years ago.
That's what cracks me up about AT&T. After getting slaughtered for so long by Verizon, they lock up the iPhone to gain market share, then realize they can't provide service to all of the new customers. And just for good measure, they step outside of the cell phone market into the iPad market and put even more users on their cell networks. BRILLIANT.
Many new subscribers pay fractions of the retail price for phones as the phones are deeply discounted with period contracts. Other phones are deeply discounted when existing customers simply upgrade. Are they interested in making some money on phone sales? If the choice is between "yes" and "no"..the answer is obviously "yes" but the revenue amounts to gravy.
Point being, when the cost is analyzed as to what it takes to operate a cell network...it's not in the hundreds of dollars per site. The engineering and operations of a cell network consists of more than just a guy with a watt meter tuning and testing a cell site. Beyond all of that, wireless communications has always been a premium service. They are in business to make profits off of what's generally still a "luxury" type item. With the proliferation of cell phones today many people tend to forget it is still a "luxury" item and service.
Well...the upgrades you mention are not usually coming in the form of new towers per se but new, more expensive equipment to go in them and in the switches. That usually means new switches, new radios, fiber, etc. designed to relieve congestion or deliver more bandwidth.
Sorry ...
Hot Mega you are just flat out anti-capitalism in its entirety.
The problem you have, like many do, is that you do have the additional choice to start a business and compete. In places like the telcom industry, there are major laws that favor independents because they force the "big boys" to offer access to their infrastructure at flat rates.
There's no reason someone can't start up their own wireless operation in this country if they don't like the "big boys." Several have. This is consumers bitching about what they want, for less, and questioning the profit of companies, when there are options from others.
It's the attitude what has destroyed capitalism in this country. Not greedy corporations, but whiny consumers who have forgotten the fact that if they don't like things, they can do something about it. They believe they cannot, belief out of lack of entrepreneurism, which I'll just flat out call, "laziness."
Not only are corporations allowed to profit, you, the consumer are allowed to start your own company and do the same. That's what the US was founded on, and not this bullshit new-age crap of "entitlement." No wonder we are so, so fucked!
Hot Mega you are just flat out anti-capitalism in its entirety.
The problem you have, like many do, is that you do have the additional choice to start a business and compete. In places like the telcom industry, there are major laws that favor independents because they force the "big boys" to offer access to their infrastructure at flat rates.
There's no reason someone can't start up their own wireless operation in this country if they don't like the "big boys." Several have. This is consumers bitching about what they want, for less, and questioning the profit of companies, when there are options from others.
It's the attitude what has destroyed capitalism in this country. Not greedy corporations, but whiny consumers who have forgotten the fact that if they don't like things, they can do something about it. They believe they cannot, belief out of lack of entrepreneurism, which I'll just flat out call, "laziness."
Not only are corporations allowed to profit, you, the consumer are allowed to start your own company and do the same. That's what the US was founded on, and not this bullshit new-age crap of "entitlement." No wonder we are so, so fucked!
Re: Sorry ...
:wtf:
Are you being Facetious? All I've done in this thread was explain some of what I see as practically happening in this case. In so doing, I've made just about every case as can be made for a company doing this and it's rationale for deriving profit if they should.
What the hell are you talking about??? "Anti captitalism"??? Did you read anything I've posted in this thread?? In fact, in my last post I specifically made the statement these companies are in business to make a profit off a "luxury" (not provide a necessary utility).
It is just a simple fact that the average Joe would not be able to compete for the license to provide services like this. Even when the g'ment HAS commissioned new licenses/spectrum specifically for small operators (LMDS for example) and banned major operators from bidding, it hasn't panned out.
You seem to have a few concepts confused. In the case of radio communications...g'ment agencies regulate and license it's interoperability. If that's true..then that means there are conditions for securing a license. One of which is you pay a fee....with respect to commercial wireless...the fee for the license is paid by way of auction block. Because there is obviously big money to be made, investors with deep pockets bid. You are free to go bid too...no one's stopping you. But as it happens, these licenses end up costing billions of dollars when they are finally sold.
Once someone is licensed to operate on those frequencies...that means others may not. Which is the whole purpose for licensing in the first place. This process is necessary in order that there be some order and these technologies work as intended. Pretty difficult to operate successfully if anyone can wantonly infringe, interfere, jam, etc. your radio signals.
Once these companies begin to build out and operate these services basic principles of supply and demand kick in. They can't offer the service too cheap otherwise they won't be able to adequately service all their customers. When there are too many customers taking advantage of a price so much so that it's outstripping there ability to deliver...they raise or adjust their pricing plans.
But again, what the hell are you talking about???
:wtf:
Are you being Facetious? All I've done in this thread was explain some of what I see as practically happening in this case. In so doing, I've made just about every case as can be made for a company doing this and it's rationale for deriving profit if they should.
What the hell are you talking about??? "Anti captitalism"??? Did you read anything I've posted in this thread?? In fact, in my last post I specifically made the statement these companies are in business to make a profit off a "luxury" (not provide a necessary utility).
It is just a simple fact that the average Joe would not be able to compete for the license to provide services like this. Even when the g'ment HAS commissioned new licenses/spectrum specifically for small operators (LMDS for example) and banned major operators from bidding, it hasn't panned out.
You seem to have a few concepts confused. In the case of radio communications...g'ment agencies regulate and license it's interoperability. If that's true..then that means there are conditions for securing a license. One of which is you pay a fee....with respect to commercial wireless...the fee for the license is paid by way of auction block. Because there is obviously big money to be made, investors with deep pockets bid. You are free to go bid too...no one's stopping you. But as it happens, these licenses end up costing billions of dollars when they are finally sold.
Once someone is licensed to operate on those frequencies...that means others may not. Which is the whole purpose for licensing in the first place. This process is necessary in order that there be some order and these technologies work as intended. Pretty difficult to operate successfully if anyone can wantonly infringe, interfere, jam, etc. your radio signals.
Once these companies begin to build out and operate these services basic principles of supply and demand kick in. They can't offer the service too cheap otherwise they won't be able to adequately service all their customers. When there are too many customers taking advantage of a price so much so that it's outstripping there ability to deliver...they raise or adjust their pricing plans.
But again, what the hell are you talking about???
Capitalism is the UNFAIR Distribution of Good things SOCIALISM is the Fair Distribution of Bad things Winston Churchill quoted this. Capitalism creates ass kissers to get ahead while socialism robs from peter to pay Paul.
Re: Sorry ...
You mean all I need to compete on the level of the major telecom companies is billions of dollars in funds and resources, not to mention all the local, state, and federal political connections they have? Why didn't you just say so? I'll get right on it.
You mean all I need to compete on the level of the major telecom companies is billions of dollars in funds and resources, not to mention all the local, state, and federal political connections they have? Why didn't you just say so? I'll get right on it.
Re: Sorry ...
Well...at one time there was some entrepreneur who created the circumstance for those telecoms to have the billions. They didn't just appear out of whole-cloth.
Every American has the opportunity to become wealthy and create their circumstances.
Well...at one time there was some entrepreneur who created the circumstance for those telecoms to have the billions. They didn't just appear out of whole-cloth.
Every American has the opportunity to become wealthy and create their circumstances.
Re: Sorry ...
But people like yourself believing such is why you keep berrating what you don't understand. I think I've explained this enough times now, I'm not doing it any more.
Obviously you didn't read the fact that the telcoms have to sell to you at the same rate as anyone else, per regulation. That's how small start-ups have been able to get into the business. It does not take billions of dollars.
But people like yourself believing such is why you keep berrating what you don't understand. I think I've explained this enough times now, I'm not doing it any more.
Re: Sorry ...
I have two colleagues that are providers in the mobile market. They resell at rates that are regulated, and do quite, quite well. They avoid a lot of the non-sense.
Consumers should either make their statements with their money, or one-up the corporations they are complaining about by beating at their own game. It doesn't take much money to get started, honestly!
I'm a small business owner myself. People said nothing like my business had a chance either. So I really don't give a flying fuck what people think, I only care about what people actually do.
I have two colleagues that are providers in the mobile market. They resell at rates that are regulated, and do quite, quite well. They avoid a lot of the non-sense.
Consumers should either make their statements with their money, or one-up the corporations they are complaining about by beating at their own game. It doesn't take much money to get started, honestly!
Re: Sorry ...
You have 2 colleagues that are likely equipment and service retailers...not providers.
Comparatively speaking...it doesn't cost much money to set up a retail shop dealing in service reselling and equipment retailing. Not even a drop in a pond as compared to what it takes to be a provider.
Although wireless carriers are regulated by the PUC they still provide a "luxury" type service and as such they have unlimited autonomy to be as profitable as they can be as long as they don't engage in anti trust practices.
Those who say they engage in some sort of price fixing amongst each other really aren't watching the market place. Of course the pricing is near each other...they offer comparable service. That's like complaining Ford and Chevy are engaging in price fixing because they have similar models priced near each other and generally are headquartered in Michigan.
Certainly their pricing is based somewhat on what their competition offers...they're competing against one another. But they don't sit around deciding what their rates will be collectively. Their pricing is based on some formula for profitability, competition and network forecasting.
I missed this whole part.
You have 2 colleagues that are likely equipment and service retailers...not providers.
Comparatively speaking...it doesn't cost much money to set up a retail shop dealing in service reselling and equipment retailing. Not even a drop in a pond as compared to what it takes to be a provider.
Although wireless carriers are regulated by the PUC they still provide a "luxury" type service and as such they have unlimited autonomy to be as profitable as they can be as long as they don't engage in anti trust practices.
Those who say they engage in some sort of price fixing amongst each other really aren't watching the market place. Of course the pricing is near each other...they offer comparable service. That's like complaining Ford and Chevy are engaging in price fixing because they have similar models priced near each other and generally are headquartered in Michigan.
Certainly their pricing is based somewhat on what their competition offers...they're competing against one another. But they don't sit around deciding what their rates will be collectively. Their pricing is based on some formula for profitability, competition and network forecasting.
Re: Sorry ...
No, they are providers. There are lots of small providers out there. Some of them grow. The big telcos have to resell at a fixed rate.
Re: Sorry ...
As am I. Discussion of the intersection between private and public sphere isn't "anti-capitalist" by any means. It's a reality of the world we live in. Knowing what limitations or handicaps one has in the presence of shared public real-estate (conceptual or physical) is a cornerstone of successful business management or investment. Because you or I have learned that nuances of particular patent/trademark/copyright law make it exceedingly difficult for new green to compete in a particular field doesn't make us "whiny." It makes us knowledgeable management or venture capitalists.
As for the subject, I had an association in the early 2000's with a small wireless provider that vaporized within a single quarter, despite having tremendous employees and management. Things are far worse now. Boost pretty much struck when the iron was hot and managed to hook a life line onto Nextel. Even with such excellent fortune, they have been getting absolutely HAMMERED of late. I cannot recommend anyone set foot in that arena unless they have an absolute understanding of exactly what niche they want to carve out and (the much nastier part) knows that niche won't simply be absorbed any number of the Goliaths out there.
As am I. Discussion of the intersection between private and public sphere isn't "anti-capitalist" by any means. It's a reality of the world we live in. Knowing what limitations or handicaps one has in the presence of shared public real-estate (conceptual or physical) is a cornerstone of successful business management or investment. Because you or I have learned that nuances of particular patent/trademark/copyright law make it exceedingly difficult for new green to compete in a particular field doesn't make us "whiny." It makes us knowledgeable management or venture capitalists.
As for the subject, I had an association in the early 2000's with a small wireless provider that vaporized within a single quarter, despite having tremendous employees and management. Things are far worse now. Boost pretty much struck when the iron was hot and managed to hook a life line onto Nextel. Even with such excellent fortune, they have been getting absolutely HAMMERED of late. I cannot recommend anyone set foot in that arena unless they have an absolute understanding of exactly what niche they want to carve out and (the much nastier part) knows that niche won't simply be absorbed any number of the Goliaths out there.
Re: Sorry ...
?? What frequency band are they operating at?????? They have created at network consisting of cell sites which link to their service's mobile phones connected by a series of PSTN offices and mobile switches???? The licensing fee for that ain't cheap nor is building that kind of network.
A while back the PUC allowed the LEC (local exchanged carriers) to sell off switches to private, small owners creating CLECS (see lecs...competitive local exchange carriers) for the purposes of breaking up the monopoly on local wireline carriers but I am totally unaware of a frequency band where small carriers can operate and build a network around.
?? What frequency band are they operating at?????? They have created at network consisting of cell sites which link to their service's mobile phones connected by a series of PSTN offices and mobile switches???? The licensing fee for that ain't cheap nor is building that kind of network.
A while back the PUC allowed the LEC (local exchanged carriers) to sell off switches to private, small owners creating CLECS (see lecs...competitive local exchange carriers) for the purposes of breaking up the monopoly on local wireline carriers but I am totally unaware of a frequency band where small carriers can operate and build a network around.
Re: Sorry ...
Boost doesn't have a network nor are they a provider per se. They essentially resell Sprint's network and service.
Boost doesn't have a network nor are they a provider per se. They essentially resell Sprint's network and service.
Re: Sorry ...
This country still has a little capitalism in it, supported by regulations that force large providers to sell access at a fixed rate that makes it possible for others to enter.
Exactly! There are others out there. My point is that if you build it, they will come. If you want your own network, you can not only build it, but find clients. I have two colleagues that do -- small, regionalized contracts with roaming options.
This country still has a little capitalism in it, supported by regulations that force large providers to sell access at a fixed rate that makes it possible for others to enter.
Re: Sorry ...
You are saying some pretty conflicting things there IMO. Reselling someone else's service isn't owning your own network. You applaud capitalism but in the same sentence praise regulations which force a business case influencing their rates.
If you do not determine how the network of the service you sell is operated you are not a per se provider.
You are saying some pretty conflicting things there IMO. Reselling someone else's service isn't owning your own network. You applaud capitalism but in the same sentence praise regulations which force a business case influencing their rates.
If you do not determine how the network of the service you sell is operated you are not a per se provider.
Similar threads
