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

originally posted by: macman

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......

That's just it, the equipment isn't proprietary if I can go buy one off the shelf and use it just the same. It's a bunch of BS making people rent equipment at a high price when they can just go buy the same device and use it instead.

It's called having a choice. You know, freedom and liberty??? Remember when conservatives actually believed in such things???

I love how when it's progressives who create more options and freedom for people you're against it. Classic double standard. I didn't realize conservatives were now officially in favor of monopolies and corporatism. We all knew that's what you were for in private but not openly. Must feel good to get that out in the open after all these years.

Cut the cord entirely and get an amazon TV or similar device for under $100 bucks and install KODI media player. Get a VPN service (which we all should have anyways) for around $50 bucks a year. BAM, no more cable or satellite TV providers taking your money every month, and no more internet providers snooping on your traffic. Problem solved.

originally posted by: Spider879
Well done to the two pinkos.

Lets see Hillary or some socialist bastard... I pick the bastard...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is why I'm not impressed with Bernie. Or Warren.

They do this during an election year to give the illusion that they care.

All politicians do it. Which is my point. Bernie and Warren are no different than Hillary or Cruz or Bush or Rubio.

Hell, someone compared Bernie to Jesus in another thread. I thought the left was done with "hope and change" and making a political figure a "messiah".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is why I'm not impressed with Bernie. Or Warren.

They do this during an election year to give the illusion that they care.

All politicians do it. Which is my point. Bernie and Warren are no different than Hillary or Cruz or Bush or Rubio.

Hell, someone compared Bernie to Jesus in another thread. I thought the left was done with "hope and change" and making a political figure a "messiah".

You kidding me an election year is sometimes the perfect way to get somethings done that would often stall, because no one wants to be on the wrong side of this.
And as far as da Burn and Warren goes these two have been battling for the common man when it was never popular so tip o the hat to them both, and I don't think Warren is up for anything in this race.

a reply to: Spider879

I will caveat that perhaps others aren't as cynical as I am.

I'm not that trusting of politicians though. Don't care who they are.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Spider879

I will caveat that perhaps others aren't as cynical as I am.

I'm not that trusting of politicians though. Don't care who they are.

You shouldn't just trust what they did..results oriented.

a reply to: Spider879

If any politician wants to impress me (actually do their job) then I'll wait for headline news on a non-election year.

If anyone wanted to help in the matter of cheaper TV for all they would do away with a set top box. In my case my cable company only supports set top box, the AHOLEs have it rigged so I can't just screw coax into my TV. Bring back good old analog.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is why I'm not impressed with Bernie. Or Warren.

They do this during an election year to give the illusion that they care.

All politicians do it. Which is my point. Bernie and Warren are no different than Hillary or Cruz or Bush or Rubio.

Hell, someone compared Bernie to Jesus in another thread. I thought the left was done with "hope and change" and making a political figure a "messiah".

Sanders' voting record would beg to differ.

The companies lose $20 a month revenue. The price of the service will just go up $30 a month and a few companies will get to make money selling boxes. The consumers get to play with settings in their box. People will think they got a break.

a reply to: mOjOm

Ahhhh, so let me get this straight.
People are mad because a service they CHOSE to get, requires an end user box to be rented from the company providing this service.
The end user device isn't proprietary (Yeah, sure) but since people don't get off their collective asses to look and read, they rent the box from the provider.

How is this a problem, or an issue of "freedom"?
Not one damn person is forced to purchase cable TV. There is your freedom.


Here is the difference between you and me.
You want the Govt to force everyone into doing what YOU want.
I don't.


You want Govt to control business because it just isn't fair that they require you to rent a box for THEIR service.
I don't. Don't buy their service.

Progressives.........forcing their will onto everyone else one Govt policy at a time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Bernie Sanders And Elizabeth Warren May Have Just Saved Consumers $14 Billion

Ok this is some AWESOME news. Sticking it to the cable companies always gets me excited

Letting people choose the products they want to use rather than having it forced on them by a monopoly? Sounds socialist to me...

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Could this blow up in our faces? My cable company owns a monopoly on the television/internet market in my town because no other markets want to deal with the high taxes for trying to compete with the local cable company. I do not have or use much television, but I do use their internet. I am wondering if cable companies will spike the price of other services to make up for the profit loss.

All in all, I hate my cable company, so go Sanders and Warren!!

They might, but it's pretty simple to replace internet hardware. Most of the cable companies these days have moved to wifi/router combinations, and then they charge you rental fees to unlock services. For example TWC is my internet provider and everyone gets the same modem. If you want wifi enabled though you have to pay an extra $8/month and the device itself is $5/month. Instead I use my own modem and router which are both inexpensive pieces of hardware and helpful to own in the first place.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks for the helpful advice. We have been with our company for a few years and only use their modem because we use our own router. Should I drop the Modem and look for a combo?

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 think the NFL offers a service for that now. Sports for the most part require TV subscriptions though, it's the main driver of cable subscriptions these days and the TV providers are fighting to keep it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.

Where I live, as well as in my previous town, in exchange for the cable companies providing internet service and keeping the network maintained they were given 100 year exclusive contracts for cable technology. A competitor offering DSL for example can set up, but DSL can't achieve the speeds necessary to deliver content these days.

It honestly won't change until there's a new high speed technology out there. Whitefi is supposed to change things but is being implemented really slowly, and by the time it is available it probably won't be fast enough to handle the streaming resolutions people want.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks for the helpful advice. We have been with our company for a few years and only use their modem because we use our own router. Should I drop the Modem and look for a combo?

If you already own a router you don't need a combo, you just need a modem. They typically run around $70 or $80, so your break even time on it is a little under 1.5 years. Just make sure you get one that can handle both your current internet speeds and your future speeds as your providers speeds increase.

The real advantage to owning your own modem comes in liability. If the modem is somehow damaged the cable company will often charge you for a replacement so in the end you're out the cost of the modem and everything you paid to rent it. Where as if you own you're own you're just out the cost of a replacement, and if it never breaks you save a little bit of money, and can even resell it in the future if you upgrade to recoup some of that.