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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Awww, dang it. That's what my husband tells me - I was hoping there was a way that he wasn't aware of. We could still drop the phone part, but that's probably the smallest charge out of the whole bundle.

I hate cable companies...

a reply to: interupt42

I will check Sling out. Thanks!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The stories I can tell you, but you know what I mean, the monopoly that cable companies has become has made them soo arrogant that they careless about consumers needs.

The government doesn't help they took away people's abilities to have a variety of choices outside the monopolies.

But anything that help is welcome.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Bernie & Elizabeth, what a team!

I have a sneaky feeling those two will save us a lot more than that if given the chance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

That's kind of my point, though...they should lose customers if the customers are paying attention. But in this instance, I don't think that the government needs to be interjecting any of its 'wisdom' when it come to fiscal matters and how to properly run a business.

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.

But what stops another company from coming in and putting in the effort and money to install their own infrastructure? That's a serious question, as I don't believe anything stops them (other than not wanting to expend the time and money), but I don't know for sure.

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.

We'll disagree that this action is a "need" more than just a government trying to help because it thinks that the general public is either incapable or unwilling to help themselves. There are other options in the free market, therefore government should not be mandating (or writing letters and influencing) anything that can be handled by the individual.

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.

I appreciate the reading...some of which I already have a good handle on.

But you're missing my point altogether--we don't need to "sit back and let the cable companies rape us." I don't, and I did that all by myself without the government telling the cable companies that they had to let me get a Roku instead of use their cable box and service.

I'm not arguing that there isn't shenanigans going on by the industry, but what I'm arguing is that we have an out already, so your claim (or forwarded message) that The Bern and Warren are saving us billions of dollars is (a) disingenuous, because nothing has happened yet, and (b) not applicable to millions of Americans who don't have cable for one reason or another. Oh, and let's not gloss over the reality that the companies will recoup their losses in other way, so the proclaimed "savings" will just get shuffled around. It's always a shell game when gov't messes with private industry's profits, and those who really lose (or keep losing) are the consumers, because the effects of the changes end at us, not at the companies.

a reply to: kaylaluv

BTW there is another option that streams cable via online.

www.ustvnow.com...

It was designed for Americans overseas to watch American tv channels. I have used their free subscription which hasn’t been the most reliable but decent . However they do have a premium subscription but I have never used it.

When registering make sure that you select that you are a US citizen but make sure to select another country to indicate where you plan to use it at.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yea, I've been trying to solve this dilemma myself... Right now I'm going without and just going to my buddy's place on Sundays to watch football, but baseball season is tough... Those are the only two sports I watch though.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
That's kind of my point, though...they should lose customers if the customers are paying attention. But in this instance, I don't think that the government needs to be interjecting any of its 'wisdom' when it come to fiscal matters and how to properly run a business.

Then these monopolies need to be broken up immediately, because they exist because of the government's will currently.

But what stops another company from coming in and putting in the effort and money to install their own infrastructure? That's a serious question, as I don't believe anything stops them (other than not wanting to expend the time and money), but I don't know for sure.

Apparently the government does. Plus it isn't very cost effective unless you are an established company with capital to spend.

I appreciate the reading...some of which I already have a good handle on.

But you're missing my point altogether--we don't need to "sit back and let the cable companies rape us." I don't, and I did that all by myself without the government telling the cable companies that they had to let me get a Roku instead of use their cable box and service.

I found a solution myself as well, but I do miss having sports... But still practices like this shouldn't be condoned.

I'm not arguing that there isn't shenanigans going on by the industry, but what I'm arguing is that we have an out already, so your claim (or forwarded message) that The Bern and Warren are saving us billions of dollars is (a) disingenuous, because nothing has happened yet, and (b) not applicable to millions of Americans who don't have cable for one reason or another. Oh, and let's not gloss over the reality that the companies will recoup their losses in other way, so the proclaimed "savings" will just get shuffled around. It's always a shell game when gov't messes with private industry's profits, and those who really lose (or keep losing) are the consumers, because the effects of the changes end at us, not at the companies.

So you really should be arguing that we need to end government protection of these monopolies. Break them up and force them to rely on competition. To be honest, I consider things like Roku or Hulu plus to be stop-gap measures. You still can't watch live tv with them so you end up missing out on things that only live tv provides (like sports). So these alternate options aren't exactly the best either.

Cable companies are losing customers left and right. Technology is quickly making their services obsolete. We don't need government interfering with the free market.

What really keeps the cable monopoly in place is really the production companies that make it harder and too expensive to unbundle popular channels and shows from cable providers.

The technology is there now for anyone to pretty much get rid of cable if you have high speed internet and stream shows to your hearts desire. However, the show producers are the ones making it difficult and cumbersome. It is isn't unlike how record companies were making it difficult to stream / download music and were trying to force everyone to buy albums, etc.

Napster was the straw that broke the camels back and then Apple came along and made it super easy. Sooner or later the same thing will happen with cable and television.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wait....so for a service that is optional, that people choose for entertainment, that a company spent money in R&D, equipment/cable and everything else, can't have their own chosen equipment for end user termination and people are applauding this??

What is ironic about cable is that the vast majority of cable users only watch like 10 channels and that is being generous. When we were looking to cut the cord, my wife and I figured out what channels we had to have and it was literally only maybe 12 channels between the two of us. Yet, we have a cable package with like 200 channels. WTF?

The problem is that when we tried to see if we could get all the shows and channels by cutting the cord, it didn't really work out and the cost savings wasn't worth it over what we pay now. We are busy professionals and didn't want to be bothered with having to unhook and rehook multiple services and computers to stream all the shows we wanted to watch. I just want to pick up my remote and watch whatever.

Until the producers of shows figure out a new economic model where it pays for them to just immediately make their shows available online to anyone connected to the net, then it cable is going to have its users.

it is getting there, but not quite as user friendly as I'd like and the cost differential isn't there once you add it all up for many people.

The last thing we need though is liberal academic hacks like Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren who hasn't worked a day in the private sector interfering in business markets.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wait....so for a service that is optional, that people choose for entertainment, that a company spent money in R&D, equipment/cable and everything else, can't have their own chosen equipment for end user termination and people are applauding this??

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with how the government supports the cable companies as legal monopolies before you make statements like this.

We decided to "cut the cord" last year and haven't really regretted it. We didn't think we would be able to make it work because we are big sports fans in our house (mostly college & pro football & basketball) and ESPN broadcasts a majority of it.

We can actually get most of the big games OTA and I use friends accounts for ESPN and Big Ten Network. We don't really watch any sitcoms or dramas, so Netflix fills in the rest. It's not as convienient as just switching on the cable channel, but it's worth the pain.

The cable companies are dinosaurs that have refused to adapt to technology and their customers needs. Because of this, they soon will be extinct. People are tired of paying $100+ a month for 8-10 channels they watch regrularly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am well aware of how companies, cable, telecom and ISPs work.

Funny, as not one damn person is forced to purchase cable. Yet everyone bitches and complains about paying for it.

Cable TV isn't even a necessity.

As for support???? Why in the hell is the Govt supporting any company? Oh yeah, I forgot. Progressive ideals like paying fro cell phones, discounted rates for land lines, offset costs for internet. All for people that are already receiving handouts from the same Govt.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am well aware of how companies, cable, telecom and ISPs work.

Funny, as not one damn person is forced to purchase cable. Yet everyone bitches and complains about paying for it.

Cable TV isn't even a necessity.

As for support???? Why in the hell is the Govt supporting any company? Oh yeah, I forgot. Progressive ideals like paying fro cell phones, discounted rates for land lines, offset costs for internet. All for people that are already receiving handouts from the same Govt.

The point is that the government is allowing these companies to operate as monopolies so it is on the government to make sure they aren't price gouging their customers. If you want to whine about the government fixing prices, then advocate the government break up the monopolies first.

You're basically being a cable company apologist right now. Complaining about customers upset for being priced gouged and asking the government to do something about it while ignoring the fact that the government has set up the system in the first place to allow for that price gouging.

Again this ISN'T a free market we are talking about here. They are government regulated monopolies.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


The point is that the government is allowing these companies to operate as monopolies so it is on the government to make sure they aren't price gouging their customers. If you want to whine about the government fixing prices, then advocate the government break up the monopolies first.

Are you kidding me.
You do realize all the fees and taxes the companies pay for being considered as utilities??
They are "monopolies" only because they, the company, paid the money to lay cable in the ground to service customers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You're basically being a cable company apologist right now.

Oh boo freaking hoo.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Complaining about customers upset for being priced gouged and asking the government to do something about it while ignoring the fact that the government has set up the system in the first place to allow for that price gouging.

So, people, buying something on their own accord, that is not needed for sustaining life, where in order to get the product they have to use equipment that is proprietary, is a problem.
WOW........just wow......

Is there anything else in America that you and the Progressive others think should be controlled by the Govt and us unfairly priced?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Again this ISN'T a free market we are talking about here. They are government regulated monopolies.

Anyone with money can drop cable down and provide these services.

a reply to: macman

So in your words, it's ok for cable companies as government sanctioned monopolies to price gouge us because cable isn't necessary? Glad to see you don't care about a free market. Only business owners are important in your economies. They get government help, but consumers are moochers whining about unfairness. Yea, I'm going to go ahead and just disagree with you. I'm glad the government is finally cracking down on this blatant unfairness.

Are you kidding me.
You do realize all the fees and taxes the companies pay for being considered as utilities??
They are "monopolies" only because they, the company, paid the money to lay cable in the ground to service customers.

Sorry buddy, but that argument didn't work when the government dismantled AT&T's monopoly a while back.

Is there anything else in America that you and the Progressive others think should be controlled by the Govt and us unfairly priced?

Cable companies are ALREADY controlled by the government! That was already the case before these changes were implemented. You clearly need to go reread up on government sanctioned monopolies like I told you to do earlier.

You are arguing against government intervention in favor of the consumer while supporting government intervention in favor of businesses.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


So in your words, it's ok for cable companies as government sanctioned monopolies to price gouge us because cable isn't necessary? Glad to see you don't care about a free market. Only business owners are important in your economies. They get government help.

Oh good hell.
Having been in the Telecom world for a long time now, the common knowledge of the public is about as crap as what Bernie Sanders is pitching.

The Govt has no business is dismantling cable TV. It, the Govt, didn't do a damn thing to produce the infrastructure needed for this.
Anyone can provide cable services.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Sorry buddy, but that argument didn't work when the government dismantled AT&T's monopoly a while back.

Oh, here we go.
So, since the breaking apart of old Ma'bell, the creation of CLECs happened.
CLECs are allowed, by the Govt, to force LECs to provide a competitor transport means to customers, at a wholesale rate.

That right there, is the wonderful Progressive ideal. Forcing someone to do something for someone else.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So you really should be arguing that we need to end government protection of these monopolies. Break them up and force them to rely on competition. To be honest, I consider things like Roku or Hulu plus to be stop-gap measures. You still can't watch live tv with them so you end up missing out on things that only live tv provides (like sports). So these alternate options aren't exactly the best either.

End government protection, sure. Endorse further government intrusion by telling private/non-govt-public companies what they must do, not so much--that's what Sanders et al. are doing (or, attempting to do).

Buy a $50 antenna (or a cheaper used one) and you have your sports, at least those on local channels.

I believe the cable oligopolies are aware of the cable cutting behavior. People have been dropping cable tv in favor of Internet services for some time now.

However because they are also the ISP oligopolies they just have to practice their price gouging activities on the Internet connection side now. Notice how we are now being given data caps on our Internet services.

Comcast has been slowly rolling these limits out to various areas of the country. They're giving their customers sufficient amounts of data for now such that few people are complaining. But once the caps are in place everywhere, I suspect they will start to tighten up. And with more and more bandwidth being required for higher resolution entertainment, customers will start bumping up against these caps sooner rather than later.

But not to worry, Comcast will allow you to buy more data for a small fee. But, if you hit their data cap without prepaying that fee, expect to pay exorbitantly for any overages. Remember how roaming charges used to work on cell phones. I remember being hit with a $200 bill for a $50 per month phone service because my cell phone preferred a different tower, from a different provider.

-dex