Bernie Sanders And Elizabeth Warren May Have Just Saved Consumers $14 Billion

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I struggle with Warren as VP. Ultimately, I think she should stay in the Senate (she's probably going to become Senate President). Then I end up thinking about what happens if Bernie gets sick or worse. If Bernie is elected and by 2020 he does actually seem too old or if Hillary gets elected, she should definitely run. Then of course if it were announced that she was going to be his running mate before the third Primary State... Hillary could just go home.

Argh lol.

a reply to: Kali74

Lol. So few good politicians and so many political positions to fill right?

a reply to: hubrisinxs

I am wondering if cable companies will spike the price of other services to make up for the profit loss.

You betcha they will, that is why they have started to implement DataCaps. However, I think it won't be for the long run do to competition from the Online Oligopolies.

The good thing is that Oligopoly Cable providers of America who also happen to be Content provider who also happen to be Internet providers ,are getting hit by the Online Tech Olgiopoly in their cash cows.

Google Fiber and now the founder of Aereo are hitting them in the ISP market.
NetFlix and Amazon Prime are hitting them in the Content market.

The cable industry is hanging on to an Extortion tactic business model that no longer works, but they have been dumb fat and happy for so long they don't see it or don't want to see it.

The reason the Extortion tactic business model doesn't work anymore is, because its effecting the Online Tech Industries bottom line and they are fighting back $ per $.

What we have now is competition at an Oligopoly level . The Online Tech industry Oligopoly versus the ISP Oligopoly.

IMO The Politicians are beginning to see that the ISP are fighting a loosing battle , and that the Online Tech companies will be the ones coming out the winners, hence they are siding with them. This also happened recently with the net neutrality ruling.

This is Politics as usual and special interest at play as usual.

Luckily for us ,the Online Tech industry and their deep pockets has a more consumer friendly business model in-line with what is best for the consumer. Its not because the Online Tech industry cares for the consumer but because they make more money having more people online with unlimited usage and fast speeds.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kali74

Lol. So few good politicians and so many political positions to fill right?

Exactly! Although there's some buzz about Nina Turner (fmr. Ohio state Senator) who has been campaigning quite passionately for Bernie. I haven't looked into her background at all yet, I like what she says though... so far.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cable corporations are people too, and in fact, are people with no cap on their political contributions, unlike mere humans. They're probably making the corporations sad by doing this. Have they no compassion? Have they no empathy for the emotional pain they're causing these SuperCitizens? I feel as though the cable corporations rights as people are being violated here, all in the name of commie ideals like "competition" and "human rights." It's just wrong. I bet the corporations are going to be tossing in their sleep under these threats against their God-given rights!

a reply to: dogstar23

Well then as people just like you and I, they can feel the burn of being screwed over by government just like the rest of us.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have mixed feelings about this.

The laws of supply and demand dictate that, of course in places that there are only one or two providers, the prices will be higher because people demand their product regardless of cost. That really is a no-brainer and is, IMO, appropriate, because those companies have to create the infrastructure from scratch, usually, in order to provide the services, which costs more (admittedly, I assume this) than in places where multiple companies exist.

Furthermore, history shows that when there is a federal attempt at limiting what some people claim to be "economically pointless profit," the profit won't necessarily go down by much, as the companies will increase price on other things to compensate.

That said, I'm an absolute fan of consumer choice, and being able to choose to not pay the cable company for access to the content that they provide--or, at least, pay for the vehicle that allows the access--and choose another route would be nice. I see it as similar to being able to keep your same phone as you transfer from carrier to carrier--that seems like an obvious no-brainer (but it isn't always the case with every phone).

But my biggest problem with congressional bullying of companies and industries is that when they get started, it's hard to get them to stop overusing that influence. To call an industry that has multiple providers and companies a "monopoly" is also ridiculous. Sure, in some locales there may only be one or two providers, but hey, that's life. No company HAS to provide you with a service just because you live in an area of the United States.

Furthermore, this won't affect me or my household because we have already left the whole cable industry--well, sort of. We own an antennae that provides us access to local news and weather, but we also have a Roku box (which is a one-time cost) through which we access all the stuff that we need, only paying subscriptions to places like Netflix and Hulu and Amazon. So, we shelled out $80 to get the Roku, and we pay about $35/mo for subscriptions to access shows.

My point being that there already exists a free-market solution to this price-gouging problem, but America is afraid to break from the norm and is apathetic in finding its own solutions, so people in government think that they have to do it for us.

I disagree with that premise as a whole, even if I might agree that the proposed product of this move is a good one for consumer freedoms.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I am wondering if cable companies will spike the price of other services to make up for the profit loss.

Yes--whenever companies are forced to do something by the government that ends up costing them profit, they always pass the cost of that to the consumer. Basically, people who use the internet or cable (or phone, or whatever other service) these companies provide will make up for that loss somehow, but it will still come out of their pocket.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a good thing no doubt.

However, I wouldn't say its not special interest motivated.

I doubt Bernie , Warren and the others were sitting around and thinking "What could I do today to help Americans " and the first thing that pop to their mind was cable boxes or the cable oligopoly?

More likely , Google , Amazon, Netflix, and other Online enterprises approached the Democrats as they have a vested interest in the game. The existing Cable-ISP Oligopolies business model is impeding on another Oligopolies business model and they are fighting back $ per $ in lobbying.

Its also pretty apparent that the existing cable business model is under attack and dying and will likely take down the companies behind them.

So the politicians are smart to jump on the Online Tech industry side on this as they are likely going to be the winners. Even the Republicans will come around once they realize it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Furthermore, history shows that when there is a federal attempt at limiting what some people claim to be "economically pointless profit," the profit won't necessarily go down by much, as the companies will increase price on other things to compensate.

True, but the cable companies have been hemorrhaging profits because of tactics like this lately. If they try more of this, they can expect more lost sales along with more government intervention.

But my biggest problem with congressional bullying of companies and industries is that when they get started, it's hard to get them to stop overusing that influence. To call an industry that has multiple providers and companies a "monopoly" is also ridiculous. Sure, in some locales there may only be one or two providers, but hey, that's life. No company HAS to provide you with a service just because you live in an area of the United States.

But that's what they are. They are given limited monopoly rights based on the idea that they installed the infrastructure to supply their product so competition can't arise against them. These rights are contingent on the fact that the government is allowed to fully regulate their business.

Furthermore, this won't affect me or my household because we have already left the whole cable industry--well, sort of. We own an antennae that provides us access to local news and weather, but we also have a Roku box (which is a one-time cost) through which we access all the stuff that we need, only paying subscriptions to places like Netflix and Hulu and Amazon. So, we shelled out $80 to get the Roku, and we pay about $35/mo for subscriptions to access shows.

My point being that there already exists a free-market solution to this price-gouging problem, but America is afraid to break from the norm and is apathetic in finding its own solutions, so people in government think that they have to do it for us.

Regardless of alternate options to cable, it is something that needed to be done. The reason people are leaving the cable companies is because they have no incentive to improve and in many cases are actively getting worse.

I disagree with that premise as a whole, even if I might agree that the proposed product of this move is a good one for consumer freedoms.

Some reading for you to get a background on the cable industry:
Why the Government Won't Protect You from Getting Screwed by Your Cable Company

How the cable industry became a monopoly

We Need Real Competition, Not a Cable-Internet Monopoly

United States antitrust law

I get that you are speaking from a basic free market supply and demand standpoint, but the cable industry is NOT a free market economy. Sitting back and letting the cable companies rape us in prices then shrugging our shoulders and saying "well that's economics" is only doing yourself a disservice. These guys are literally in bed with the government on purpose so it behooves us to speak up about mistreatments by these companies.

a reply to: interupt42

I doubt Bernie , Warren and the others were sitting around and thinking "What could I do today to help Americans " and the first thing that pop to their mind was cable boxes or the cable oligopoly?

Considering Bernie's voting record I could TOTALLY see him sitting around and thinking that.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: the owlbear

I have Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime and in total, I pay about the same for a whole year of those, as I would for one month of Dish Network. I like Dish, but to get the 20 channels I actually wanted, I had to get the whole package, which drove the price up and up and up and................
Now, I just have an HD antennae to get local channels and the others. I will never go back to a satellite or cable company.

We did the same. Bought Amazon firestick, plugged it into the tv and watch Amazon prime, Netflix and Hulu all on the big screen. Much cheaper imo. We haven't gotten an antenna and I doubt we will. Anything else we need we get on the computer.

a reply to: Krazysh0t



So,you don`t have cable?No wonder you can`t keep up on current events!

You do know who won the lasr election ,right?


www.chicagotribune.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't have cable so good for those that do, still companies will always find the way.

My family is being outright violated by high cable bills. We pay over $250 per month for the bundled services (phone/internet/cable). I keep telling my husband we don't need a landline phone, and none of us really watch TV channels - EXCEPT - my husband likes to watch his sports games.

Do you guys know how my husband could watch his hockey/football/golf/basketball/baseball stuff without cable or satellite? If it wasn't for sports, I think we could cut the cable company out of our lives forever.

a reply to: marg6043

That's why we have to stay on top of them.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
My family is being outright violated by high cable bills. We pay over $250 per month for the bundled services (phone/internet/cable). I keep telling my husband we don't need a landline phone, and none of us really watch TV channels - EXCEPT - my husband likes to watch his sports games.

Do you guys know how my husband could watch his hockey/football/golf/basketball/baseball stuff without cable or satellite? If it wasn't for sports, I think we could cut the cable company out of our lives forever.

I can't think of any way to watch them live outside of cable. The various sporting organizations like the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc have all made deals with cable channels to allow exclusive access to their games for live broadcasts. So I doubt you'll be able to go without cable to watch them. Though football gets aired on basic television.

This is one of the few drawbacks to my Hulu setup... I can't watch football reliably. Well I guess I can watch my home team, the Ravens, easily with basic television, but any other games and I'm SOL.

a reply to: kaylaluv

If it wasn't for sports, I think we could cut the cable company out of our lives forever.

Sports and live events are tough. Those are really the only thing keeping their industry alive.

I don't watch sports myself but you may want to look at the option of sling . Supposedly its a cheaper cut down version of sports?

There are ways online but not are reliable or hassle free.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I remember when the discussions about fees were been worked out in congress hearings many years ago, their lobbying was strong, a lot of money went around and the consumer lost at that time.

We got stuck with the high fees, that's when I got off cable.

a reply to: marg6043

I migrated away because of the customer service and not so much the fees myself.