AT&T has flat profits despite the horrible recession and loss of hundreds of thousands of land lines. Why? Because they have increased network (DATA) growth across the board.
However, they aren't investing any more than they ever have in keeping up with demand. Customers are coming on board for the first time or upgrading from feature phones to smart phones and AT&T doesn't invest in making that experience better.
Frankly with the shrinking land line buisness I would expect them to have extra capacity in that area allowing at least a modest growth in wireless investment to keep up with demand and address areas not blanketed with 3G.
AT&T is failing their customers. That's the bottom line. They need to make an investment or free the iPhone from their grasp early by allowing off-contract customers to unlock their phones.
They are playing a dangerous game and they are going to pay for it in the end. No company is immune to poor customer service for long and the telecoms across the board are about to learn this lesson.
People are dropping land lines like never before. People are searching for low prices, unlimited plans, and fair contracts.
Across the board consumers are feeling the pinch of inflation and stagnant or decreasing wages. Even the wealthy are not immune.
In a time where discounts are steep in other sectors the telcom industry is running things as a status quo with a slew of anti-consumer issues from increasing ETF's (Verizon), fighting network neutrality (AT&T), failing to invest properly in networks to meet capacity needs (AT&T), charging data fees for accidental key presses (Verizon), making getting and leaving voicemail tie up extra time (Everyone), charging separately for SMS and DATA (everyone), rediculous prices for going outside of minutes/data/texts plans (everyone), etc.
At the same time, they seem to make some consumer friendly moves. T-Mobile has allowed any phone to go PAYGO on their network. Verizon allowed the Droid to be left very open. AT&T ceded marketing on the iPhone to Apple and let them really control their product.
What I wonder is why don't they just do what is right for the consumers? What does doing right look like? Why does it scare them?
Well back in 2007 Google came to the table and said it should look like this (in reference to the 700mhz auctions):
* Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
* Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
* Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
* Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
In other words, the telcom providers would be reduced to dumb pipes where they get a cut on everything that flows through. Seriously? Why is that so scary? Because it allows competition.
Why is competition so scary? Because it wrecks their chokehold.
I say operation chokehold is a go. For 15 minutes, I'm watching youtube.
Right now these same people that have become filthy rich off of the abuse of copyright are pitching a fit about having a disproportionate amount of tax on their obscene wealth while people who don't have enough savings to make it a month without working worry that they might get sick and be financially destroyed.
Britney Spears....$750k/month! Are you kidding me!?!?!
sheeeesh.
Balance. Balance. Balance.
Otherwise our Government is saying...it's "We (the rich) People"...wink wink...nod nod.
Until recently it was difficult to buy digital music without DRM. As a result I bought the CD or I didn't buy it at all.
Now I can buy from iTunes with no DRM...I have bought several "cd"'s. Those are a direct result of the music industry dropping DRM. You see the extreme convienance of clicking a button and getting my music and the lower than store CD prices equals quick and easy pure profit.
I don't like that copyright is so long. I believe it should be much, much, much shorter...however, I fully support copyright as a mechanism that allows artists of all types to earn a decent living from their work.
Still I object to the length of the protection.
Likewise, I will not purchase pictures of my family from a photographer unless they give me rights to the images. What is the point to that? I will gladly pay a photographer for his time if they do a good job but the image is of my family...what use is that to them...they just want more money for doing nothing...which is stupid. Does a plumber charge me based on how much water flows through the pipes? Of course not.
I'm sick of copyright abuses.
If I have a device that can record a concert that I paid good money to attend...then I should be able to record that concert or if I want to take video of a movie I paid to watch....how does that violate anyones rights...but I can go to jail for doing either of those things.
I'm not talking about recording it and making it available...I'm talking about recording it and watching it again on my own.
If my memory was perfect, I would be able to play watch it again....but my memory isn't and I might want to watch something again. I should be able to...I already paid for the right to watch it.
I don't do these things....but I should have the right to. Better yet would be if on the way out I was offered the ability to buy a copy of a concert on CD or dvd of a movie....for some reasonable price so I didn't have to hassle with recording it. Reasonable is $7 or less here folks.
They would make even MORE money. They need to start thinking and stop whining.
Cut copyright and patents to 10 years max or less if they stop selling it commercially. (Think abandonware)
The law as it stands is dumb and unbalanced. Copyright was intended to be used to provide a temporary protection for profits. Since the speed of adoption and profit are so much faster than they were at the time the laws were created the law should be SHORTER not LONGER (and longer and longer...)
I will buy something if the price is sufficiently low and the copyright limitations are reasonable.
IE:
- DRM free music
- games for the iPhone/iPod Touch (these are both cheep and legally usable on every device I own). Dozens and dozens of games and applications from big companies and one man shops...if it was the same price but I had to pay for each device I own...I would only have bought a couple...maybe...and I wouldn't have bought the 2nd and 3rd devices at all (iPhones)...
- rent a movie (from Netflix or Redbox
I'm not their worst enemy...but I'm not the content providers friend either. I want things to be *FAIR*. I want a *BALANCE* to their rights. I want them to be able to become rich but not lazy in their work.
Perhaps the value of profit that someone can obtain through a copyright should be limited to 100 times the fair value cost. IE: Labor + expenses for production. How about that one. Fair value could be average pay over the time period where work was done on the songs.
Imagine that. A world where they need to justify their copyright. That would be great.
It took you 4000 hours of people time to make a CD at a national average salary of $50/hour (taxes + benefits...estimated HIGH) that's a max of $200k of profit. After copyright is gone...you can still sell it....but I can also ask my friend for it free.
The prices on music should drop with online delivery *significantly* but they have not. There is something wrong with that.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by fattychance.
Profits flat
AT&T has flat profits despite the horrible recession and loss of hundreds of thousands of land lines. Why? Because they have increased network (DATA) growth across the board.
However, they aren't investing any more than they ever have in keeping up with demand. Customers are coming on board for the first time or upgrading from feature phones to smart phones and AT&T doesn't invest in making that experience better.
Frankly with the shrinking land line buisness I would expect them to have extra capacity in that area allowing at least a modest growth in wireless investment to keep up with demand and address areas not blanketed with 3G.
AT&T is failing their customers. That's the bottom line. They need to make an investment or free the iPhone from their grasp early by allowing off-contract customers to unlock their phones.
They are playing a dangerous game and they are going to pay for it in the end. No company is immune to poor customer service for long and the telecoms across the board are about to learn this lesson.
People are dropping land lines like never before. People are searching for low prices, unlimited plans, and fair contracts.
Across the board consumers are feeling the pinch of inflation and stagnant or decreasing wages. Even the wealthy are not immune.
In a time where discounts are steep in other sectors the telcom industry is running things as a status quo with a slew of anti-consumer issues from increasing ETF's (Verizon), fighting network neutrality (AT&T), failing to invest properly in networks to meet capacity needs (AT&T), charging data fees for accidental key presses (Verizon), making getting and leaving voicemail tie up extra time (Everyone), charging separately for SMS and DATA (everyone), rediculous prices for going outside of minutes/data/texts plans (everyone), etc.
At the same time, they seem to make some consumer friendly moves. T-Mobile has allowed any phone to go PAYGO on their network. Verizon allowed the Droid to be left very open. AT&T ceded marketing on the iPhone to Apple and let them really control their product.
What I wonder is why don't they just do what is right for the consumers? What does doing right look like? Why does it scare them?
Well back in 2007 Google came to the table and said it should look like this (in reference to the 700mhz auctions):
* Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
* Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
* Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
* Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
In other words, the telcom providers would be reduced to dumb pipes where they get a cut on everything that flows through. Seriously? Why is that so scary? Because it allows competition.
Why is competition so scary? Because it wrecks their chokehold.
I say operation chokehold is a go. For 15 minutes, I'm watching youtube.
Screw them.
Re: Legal downloads vs. piracy
Oh...and one more thing...
Right now these same people that have become filthy rich off of the abuse of copyright are pitching a fit about having a disproportionate amount of tax on their obscene wealth while people who don't have enough savings to make it a month without working worry that they might get sick and be financially destroyed.
Britney Spears....$750k/month! Are you kidding me!?!?!
sheeeesh.
Balance. Balance. Balance.
Otherwise our Government is saying...it's "We (the rich) People"...wink wink...nod nod.
Legal downloads vs. piracy
Until recently it was difficult to buy digital music without DRM. As a result I bought the CD or I didn't buy it at all.
Now I can buy from iTunes with no DRM...I have bought several "cd"'s. Those are a direct result of the music industry dropping DRM. You see the extreme convienance of clicking a button and getting my music and the lower than store CD prices equals quick and easy pure profit.
I don't like that copyright is so long. I believe it should be much, much, much shorter...however, I fully support copyright as a mechanism that allows artists of all types to earn a decent living from their work.
Still I object to the length of the protection.
Likewise, I will not purchase pictures of my family from a photographer unless they give me rights to the images. What is the point to that? I will gladly pay a photographer for his time if they do a good job but the image is of my family...what use is that to them...they just want more money for doing nothing...which is stupid. Does a plumber charge me based on how much water flows through the pipes? Of course not.
I'm sick of copyright abuses.
If I have a device that can record a concert that I paid good money to attend...then I should be able to record that concert or if I want to take video of a movie I paid to watch....how does that violate anyones rights...but I can go to jail for doing either of those things.
I'm not talking about recording it and making it available...I'm talking about recording it and watching it again on my own.
If my memory was perfect, I would be able to play watch it again....but my memory isn't and I might want to watch something again. I should be able to...I already paid for the right to watch it.
I don't do these things....but I should have the right to. Better yet would be if on the way out I was offered the ability to buy a copy of a concert on CD or dvd of a movie....for some reasonable price so I didn't have to hassle with recording it. Reasonable is $7 or less here folks.
They would make even MORE money. They need to start thinking and stop whining.
Cut copyright and patents to 10 years max or less if they stop selling it commercially. (Think abandonware)
The law as it stands is dumb and unbalanced. Copyright was intended to be used to provide a temporary protection for profits. Since the speed of adoption and profit are so much faster than they were at the time the laws were created the law should be SHORTER not LONGER (and longer and longer...)
I will buy something if the price is sufficiently low and the copyright limitations are reasonable.
IE:
- DRM free music
- games for the iPhone/iPod Touch (these are both cheep and legally usable on every device I own). Dozens and dozens of games and applications from big companies and one man shops...if it was the same price but I had to pay for each device I own...I would only have bought a couple...maybe...and I wouldn't have bought the 2nd and 3rd devices at all (iPhones)...
- rent a movie (from Netflix or Redbox
I'm not their worst enemy...but I'm not the content providers friend either. I want things to be *FAIR*. I want a *BALANCE* to their rights. I want them to be able to become rich but not lazy in their work.
Perhaps the value of profit that someone can obtain through a copyright should be limited to 100 times the fair value cost. IE: Labor + expenses for production. How about that one. Fair value could be average pay over the time period where work was done on the songs.
Imagine that. A world where they need to justify their copyright. That would be great.
It took you 4000 hours of people time to make a CD at a national average salary of $50/hour (taxes + benefits...estimated HIGH) that's a max of $200k of profit. After copyright is gone...you can still sell it....but I can also ask my friend for it free.
The prices on music should drop with online delivery *significantly* but they have not. There is something wrong with that.