I Wear Pants;743248 wrote:There isn't a set number of companies you need to have real competition, but it does need to exist.

The problem with the cable/telecom companies is that there is no way for a new competitor to enter the market.

Skype, Vonage, Infinity... Yeah, NO WAY. :rolleyes:

I Wear Pants;743234 wrote:I agree the tax code is utter shit though I don't think the flat tax or fairtax are perfect solutions. Some good things in them sure but not perfect IMO.

OK. So what's the solution? Tinker with what we have? Adjust here and there? Add a deduction, phase out a credit, alter a rate? This is how we got here...and here sucks! It's broke. It's a disaster. Less than 5% of the population has the wherewithall to even know how to fill out their taxes properly. How in the hell can we have a tax system that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS?? I'm not picking on you, but our tax code is fucked...completely fucked. And yet, here are our elitist leaders advocating tweaks, twists, adjustments, additions, edits, and cuts to something that is a complete POS. We need to start over. Keep it simple, stupid (KISS). And then watch what happens. It'll never happen. We're too far down the shit pipe to get out.

Gotta keep all those attorneys and lobbyists employed...not to mention the small army at the IRS.

sleeper;743252 wrote:Skype, Vonage, Infinity... Yeah, NO WAY. :rolleyes:

Because those are real competitors to TW, Comcast, Verizon, and ATT right?

BGFalcons82;743267 wrote:OK. So what's the solution? Tinker with what we have? Adjust here and there? Add a deduction, phase out a credit, alter a rate? This is how we got here...and here sucks! It's broke. It's a disaster. Less than 5% of the population has the wherewithall to even know how to fill out their taxes properly. How in the hell can we have a tax system that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS?? I'm not picking on you, but our tax code is fucked...completely fucked. And yet, here are our elitist leaders advocating tweaks, twists, adjustments, additions, edits, and cuts to something that is a complete POS. We need to start over. Keep it simple, stupid (KISS). And then watch what happens. It'll never happen. We're too far down the shit pipe to get out.

I agree that it's messed up bad and think we need a major overhaul. I just don't necessarily think the two proposals that you linked are the answer. They are quite likely better than what we have now just because they're more understandable though.

I Wear Pants;743356 wrote:Because those are real competitors to TW, Comcast, Verizon, and ATT right?

They are on their way. It's not like you are going to wake up one night in any industry and all of a sudden be at the top. The point was, new competition can arise if the industries leaders get complacent and a new player arises offering cheaper costs or better service.

They don't offer competing products really. Vonage, Skype, etc still require you to have a service from one of the other major companies. The second that changes is when you see those companies either bought out or new legislation from the telecoms douchebag lobbyists to make it harder for those services to exist.

Internet, TV, and Cellphone are the services where there will never be a true competitor as long as the current environment exists.

I Wear Pants;743378 wrote: Internet, TV, and Cellphone are the services where there will never be a true competitor as long as the current environment exists.

Yeah, I'm not buying that at all. Is it tough to start a viable competitor? Yes. But it's not impossible and I wouldn't be surprised in the next 5-10 years if we see a new technology that eats heavily into this market share.

sleeper;743387 wrote:Yeah, I'm not buying that at all. Is it tough to start a viable competitor? Yes. But it's not impossible and I wouldn't be surprised in the next 5-10 years if we see a new technology that eats heavily into this market share.

You're going to have to look broader than that. Any new technology that would be replacing cable/sat TV, Internet, or Cellular Phone and Data in the next 5-10 years would have to already be close to starting to roll out or at least be testing. And there isn't anything plus even if there was something it is nigh impossible that it doesn't get bought by one of the big telecoms.

Any competition would come from inside the industry and they've no incentive to actually compete with one another. They have their nice regional monopolies in many places and in others they have the exact same services and prices.

I Wear Pants;743396 wrote:You're going to have to look broader than that. Any new technology that would be replacing cable/sat TV, Internet, or Cellular Phone and Data in the next 5-10 years would have to already be close to starting to roll out or at least be testing. And there isn't anything plus even if there was something it is nigh impossible that it doesn't get bought by one of the big telecoms.

Any competition would come from inside the industry and they've no incentive to actually compete with one another. They have their nice regional monopolies in many places and in others they have the exact same services and prices.

I'm not going to regurgitate what I just wrote. There is a ton of things wrong with this post, particularly dealing with "no incentive to compete with each other".

sleeper;743246 wrote:How many companies do you need for "optimal competition"?

Somewhere between 1,000 and 3. Much closer to 3.

sleeper;743401 wrote:I'm not going to regurgitate what I just wrote. There is a ton of things wrong with this post, particularly dealing with "no incentive to compete with each other".

Comcast has their nice little area of monopoly, TW has theirs, Cox has theirs. What's competitive about that?

Internet providers should be dumb pipe companies, not content companies. The internet is and needs to be far more like the natural gas industry than the television industry to continue thriving.

But surprise! All the telecom companies own tons of content production companies. Wonder why they hate net neutrality?

I Wear Pants;743408 wrote:Comcast has their nice little area of monopoly, TW has theirs, Cox has theirs. What's competitive about that?

If people don't like Comcast, then don't subscribe. That will raise the ability of another company to come in. I don't see a problem with a company having a monopoly when the customers are happy with the price they are paying and the service they are getting. Obviously, TW, Cox, etc, have done their research and have seen that, at the current price, they are unable to come in and gain a significant enough market share in that region to turn a profit. If they thought they could come in cheaper, then they would, simple as that.

That doesn't mean Comcast has a monopoly. That means Comcast is doing a great job providing the correct price for their level of service, and they should be rewarded for that.

sleeper;742868 wrote:Who elects the BOD?

The BOD are elected by a vote of the shareholders. Unfortunately, that isn't always democracy in action. Many times the top executives have, combined, a controlling interest in the company. That allows them to "elect" a BOD which will go along with their vision of where the company goes and what it does.

The company I worked for for 34 years has been employee-owned since 1986. All employees on the ESOP have voting rights, but the top executives have so many shares they dictate the voting. Therefore, the BOD is who they want.

I liked who this turned into a telecommunications debate and not a discussion of what the author was even remotely talk about...

stlouiedipalma;743432 wrote:The BOD are elected by a vote of the shareholders.

sleeper wrote:If the shareholders are okay with it, then what is the problem?

Okay?

Case closed.

Tobias Fünke;743446 wrote:I liked who this turned into a telecommunications debate and not a discussion of what the author was even remotely talk about...

Meh, I just like arguing with sleeper because he's got a hilariously "might makes right" view of the world.

I Wear Pants;743476 wrote:Meh, I just like arguing with sleeper because he's got a hilariously "might makes right" view of the world.

...you should see him talk about Notre Dame. hahah

I Wear Pants;743476 wrote:Meh, I just like arguing with sleeper because he's got a hilariously "might makes right" view of the world.

I believe in nature, it's called survival of the fittest. Inherently, I find nothing wrong with it in the private sector, so long as anti-trust laws aren't being violated.

Also, WTF is with the turn this thread took? LOL!

The idea that because you can do something means you should do something or that it's justified is insane.

Google could start selling everyone's private data assuming it jived with their EULAs. Could people then not use their services? Sure, but Google would still be wrong. Simply because you're not forced into something does not mean you have no right to criticize and doesn't mean that said company is correct per se on everything they do.

And it's not that huge of a turn. We went from discussing the problems with the top earners in the country wanting to keep themselves there and not have others join the party to discussing corporate shenanigans in the telecom industry. Both have to do with (and I'm not stating these are facts or things you can't disagree with just saying it was the topic) really rich people trying to dick us over.

Filing jointly, our income is in the top 90 percentile for the county we reside. Including FICA, we paid less than 7% on federal/payroll taxes. No wonder the country is in hock fior 15 tril.

Footwedge;743525 wrote:Filing jointly, our income is in the top 90 percentile for the county we reside. Including FICA, we paid less than 7% on federal/payroll taxes. No wonder the country is in hock fior 15 tril.

Indeed, 'taxpayers' like you aren't pulling your weight, imagine the top 50% of areas that aren't shitholes that are paying upwards of 40% of their income in taxes feel.

You should do us all a favor and volunteer paying more...its on the form.

Yeah, what an asshole...

I Wear Pants;743507 wrote:The idea that because you can do something means you should do something or that it's justified is insane.

Oh I'm not saying such things are ethical, necessarily. "Should" or "justified" were never concepts I meant to convey. However, I try to leave my moral views out of what is and is not allowed in private enterprise. Otherwise things like titty bars get thrown out.

I Wear Pants;743507 wrote:Google could start selling everyone's private data assuming it jived with their EULAs. Could people then not use their services? Sure, but Google would still be wrong. Simply because you're not forced into something does not mean you have no right to criticize and doesn't mean that said company is correct per se on everything they do.

Eh, ANYONE can be freely criticized. However, if Google has a customer base that, for whatever reason, creams themselves every time Google hands out their info, eh ... more power to them, I suppose.

However, Google isn't the best option for this analogy because they seem awfully close to a monopoly. Last statistic I heard was that they own 89% of the search engine traffic market. That's ridiculous. Pretty sure we've got Skynet in the making.

I Wear Pants;743507 wrote:And it's not that huge of a turn. We went from discussing the problems with the top earners in the country wanting to keep themselves there and not have others join the party to discussing corporate shenanigans in the telecom industry. Both have to do with (and I'm not stating these are facts or things you can't disagree with just saying it was the topic) really rich people trying to dick us over.

Ah. I just wasn't on the topic for a few days and we went from tax structure discussion (I think that was this topic) to cable companies.

For what it's worth, I don't think the top earners care about keeping others out of their tier as much as they just care about wanting to maintain their own lifestyle. I doubt many of them give much ... or any ... consideration about keeping others out of their earning tier. I'm speculating, though.

Manhattan Buckeye;743527 wrote:Indeed, 'taxpayers' like you aren't pulling your weight, imagine the top 50% of areas that aren't shitholes that are paying upwards of 40% of their income in taxes feel.

You should do us all a favor and volunteer paying more...its on the form.

LOL. Hit a nerve there....sorry. And the "volunteering to pay more" is so old and tiring, ya know? I'll pay more when you money bagger types pony up. Deal?

Again....as a couple, my wife and I earn more[B/] than 90% than others do in our county. And we pay only 7% on federal tax. We do pay a chunk on payroll tax...what a shame.