COX Communications Sucks (Was: moving e-mail)

Thu May 31 10:19:02 MST 2007

I firmly agree with number 2, though this is far from how it really is.
As for 1 & 3 I believe you have the right to get the service you pay for
and contractual obligations are binding.  

________________________________

From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of
Joshua Zeidner
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:02 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: COX Communications Sucks (Was: moving e-mail)

On 5/30/07, Bryan O'Neal <BONeal at cornerstonehome.com> wrote:

Yes, basic market rules say if there is money to be made people move in
to make money.  No one will enter a market if there is no demand for the
product or service, or the demand is not high enough to make a profit.
Arbitrage rules say that if the product or service can be given with a
lower cost (thus higher profit) by a competitor or a competitor has
greater tolerance to a thinner margin then the competitor will enter the
market.  If there is competition in the market place and excess demand
is not met, then the supply goes up and the price goes down.  If the
price goes down a new supply/demand intersection is reached with a
greater demand and supply.  The longer this goes on with excess demand
(thus a larger initial price and no steep price point steps) then the
lower the final price will be. In other words the first person in the
filed has a high barrier to entry, and unless there is a payback they
will not enter.  The larger the payback and the greater the demand the
more people who are willing to cross that barrier for a piece of the
action. As more people enter the field two things happen, the barriers
become lower and the competition (supply) becomes greater, thus if you
follow the demand curve the price drops.  There are endless examples,
but since we are on the subject, let us look at cell phones.  The
original cell phones weighed a few pounds and were the size of bricks,
only a few carriers (AT&T) had them and fewer people (Motorola) created
them.  If only a few very few people were interested in them we would
not be as far as we are in cell phone tech.  However many people wanted
them and were willing to pay outrageous prices for them, infrastructure
was built to handle them and to build them.  People poured money into
R&D to make them cheaper so their profit would be greater (Since
competition was driving down the price) this allowed them to drop the
price more and offer better product thus capturing more market at the
same or better margins and creating greater profit, and others followed,
thus the game cycles it's self through until you arrive at were we are
now.  The reason people in Japan have more features is because they
demand it and are willing to pay for it.  We (as an economic collective)
are not.

As far as regulation, there are two reasons for it.  To provide
protectionist incentives to the first entries into market (thus ensuring
they can pay back their initial investment) and two protect the public
at large (need I remind people of thalidomide).  Then you have
incentives, and no one can dispute the effects of projects like the
Tennessee Valley Rive Authority.  However the political question becomes
when you can eliminate the protectionist aspects of an industry.  For
the most part the Telecom industry has had their protectionist
incentives removed (save the most basic nature of the regional Telco
structure) and what has not been removed is being phased out.  However,
we are now in the midst of the imposition of additional protectionist
schemes (Ted Stevens fight agents net neutrality).  And yes, your
argument was better then the typical winning I hear, but I hear so much
of it I sometimes lump it all together when I should not.  But I stand
firm that all things cost, there is no such thing a free lunch, there
are unlimited desires and limited resources to fill those desires, and
that a free market driven economy is the best way to distribute those
resources.

  the situation is quite complex and is wrought with much sketchy
behavior on the part of the major telecoms.  I will try and be as
concise as possible here.  The issue is the normalization (because the
world 'regulation' is unacceptable in some circles) of the
'communication product'.  I should be gauranteed certain things as a
consumer, and these things are implicitly expected by the public.
Amongst them are, 1) fast delivery, 2) no peeking or adulteration, 3)
accessibility.  I believe these basic 'telecom rights' will inevitably
give people a lot more value in their service.  We have been through
these issues before with standard phone lines, but it seems we are
currently suffering from a bout of amnesia.  Republicans seem to be
terrible at managing telecom. 

  Remember, when you hear the telecoms complain :
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=T
  they are not struggling.  Also of note is the infamous Ed Whitacre is
set to retire in June:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?Feed=ACBJ
&Date=20070427&ID=6810011 

  -jmz

________________________________

	From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of
Joshua Zeidner
	Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:41 AM

	To: Main PLUG discussion list
	Subject: Re: COX Communications Sucks (Was: moving e-mail)

	On 5/30/07, Bryan O'Neal <BONeal at cornerstonehome.com> wrote:

	Ok, but different things are important to us.  If you worked 12
hours a day six days a week to purchase a new car every two years, a new
cell phone every six months,  and spent the equivalent of $400 / Mo on
internet, and $7/ltr on gas and didn't mind cramming your entire family
into a 600sqft apartment and every one you knew and everyone they knew
did the same then in just 15 -20 years we would have the same standard
of living they do with cheep high speed internet and great mass transit.

	  Im not really sure if I understand your argument here...  if
we spend $400/month on internet for long enough were going to get 'cheep
high speed internet'?  

		It's a package deal people, you can't look at only the
things you want and blame the government that you don't have it and look
at the things you don't want and blame the government you have to suffer
with it.  The basic issue is we are capitalists, if you want it buy it
and if you don't want to pay for it I bet I can find some one in Japan
that does.

	  First off, I like to think what I am presenting here is a bit
more sophisticated than whining about prices and lack of public
services.  Although statements like 'this is the Free Market(tm)!' ala
Barry Goldwater seem to garner much applause out here in AZ, a close
look at the situation reveals that our current market situation is as
much due to the introduction of regulation policy as the absence of it.
There are a lot of experts who have illustrated these problems far more
lucidly than I.  -jmz 

________________________________

		From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of
Joshua Zeidner
		Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:45 PM
		To: Main PLUG discussion list
		Subject: Re: COX Communications Sucks (Was: moving
e-mail)

		On 5/29/07, Kevin Brown <kevin_brown at qwest.net> wrote:

		>    It may surprise many that the U.S. is considered to
be relatively
		> behind in terms of broadband penetration and market
maturity( aka.
		> affordability ).  In my view, this situation is due
entirely to our 
		> current regulation policy.
		>
		>    http://www.freepress.net/docs/bbrc2-final.pdf
		>
		>    "In Japan, symmetrical 100Mbps connections are
available for less 
		> than $35 per month"
		>
		>
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060913-7731.html

		They also have half the population of the US crammed
onto islands the 
		size of California and a huge chunk of that land is
unusable (mt. Fuji).
		  With such a high density it is much easier to build
the infrastructure
		and their culture supports the idea of the upgrades
(workers can work 
		longer hours via telecommuting).  Look at the difference
in cell phone
		technologies.  Most people I know here in the states
prefer to replace a
		damaged phone with a similar model and tend to keep a
phone till it dies 
		before replacing it.  In Japan it is normal to replace a
perfectly
		working phone with a new model with new features every 6
months.

		  true, but remember: the technology was developed here,
we are the supposedly the wealthiest and most advanced nation on earth,
and we have pumped billions in tax money into communications
infrastructure development( the infrastructure is there, its the
'legendary last mile' that is the problem ).  Remember the 'Information
Superhighway'?  There is no doubt that there are political dimensions to
this seemingly technological problem.  There is the 'digital divide'
scenario, and there is the general issues of the telco monopoly holding
residential areas hostage. 

		  Its true that the Japanese are quite crazy when it
comes to electronics... and keep in mind the US is not trailing right
behind Japan, it rates below a number of European and Asian countries in
broadband deployment.  In my view there is no excuse for this.  There is
something wrong when these mega-telco companies simultaneously plead to
the public for policy concessions while their stock valuation goes
through the roof. 

		  -jmz

	<http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss> 

-- 
.0000. communication.
.0001. development.
.0010. strategy.             
.0100. appeal.

JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
IT Consultant

( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner at gmail.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20070531/64553e04/attachment-0001.htm 