American government is stupid

[aidan80 9]

While text message rates are indeed absolutely ridiculous, considering what you pay per byte for TEXT versus what you pay, for instance, in internet browsing or actual phone usage on a data stream, maybe Kohl could examine why we don't have a la carte television first, and why companies force me to pay for a bundle that includes retarded channels I don't watch, or will never watch, before I can actually start choosing a couple channels on top of the arm-and-leg fee.

Thank you.. someone that makes sense! I mean don't get me wrong people am all for free and fair competition but at the minute we the consumer are not getting anything "free" and 100% not fair. We are being robbed in daylight and it's time it ended! I agree as well with TV, why should we have to pay what we pay when we don't want half the $hit they put on. In this age of digital everything can't they just charge us per channel and give us what we want?.. Wouldn't be a profitable as charging us an arm and a leg for everything!

[aidan80 9]

Btw, this is pretty funny too, just for the sake of the topic about text messaging:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cnet/830110784399822517

If the same pricing was applied on a per-byte basis to downloading one 4MB song it would cost the user almost $6,000 to download a single song via SMS texting.

Or, they could investigate if we calculated the cost of not running an unnecessary Iraq War, I wonder how many years of universal health care that would be, and how many soldiers would still be alive to reap the rewards of it.

I agree with the Iraq War statement.. never mind health care for your own people.. how many times could the costs of these wars fed the hungry of the world? Now there's a real "Christian" thing to do from a man that got elected on the back of the Christian.. although that was the Christian Right?

Reform is very badly needed in this country before it all falls apart, bankrupt and raped by the greedy.

[akdiver 3]

I disagree, you are being robbed when you get charged $5 for that text you didn't want or have the option of refusing.

Ah, now you're making a somewhat different argument. Nevertheless, if you don't want to pay for incoming text messages, then don't sign up for text message service. It's really pretty simple.

Anyway the person that sent it already paid their $5 to send it to you?

Yes, they paid $5 to SEND it to you. They did not necessarily pay for delivery, nor is delivery guaranteed. I'm sure if you read the fine print in the TOS, you will see this in there.

It's like me mailing you a package then you paying for the shipping again to the postal service?

If it were easy for the postal service to charge you money before releasing mail to you, they would - I can assure you.

Of course I could avoid using the service and get a landline..

Yes, exactly! I think now you understand.

my choices there are 1 provider in this area, same as cable.. there is no competition and nothing driving competition market is like a clogged toilet.

Why not start your own phone and cable company and charge whatever lower rates you would like?

[akdiver 3]

While text message rates are indeed absolutely ridiculous, considering what you pay per byte for TEXT versus what you pay, for instance, in internet browsing or actual phone usage on a data stream

That may be - but it's a little like saying that the price of tomatoes when you buy them individually is a lot more than when you buy an 18 wheeler full. There is a price discount for volume. Likewise, if you want to buy a tomato and have it delivered to your house the night you wish to eat it, you're going to pay more than if you go to the store and get it yourself. There is a price increase for convenience too. Comparing the price per KB for text messages against the price per KB, for say, e-mail, doesn't make much sense. It also doesn't make much sense to compare it against the price for web or email sent from your phone. They're different services. That they both involve sending a data stream really doesn't matter.

Kohl could examine why we don't have a la carte television first, and why companies force me to pay for a bundle that includes retarded channels I don't watch, or will never watch, before I can actually start choosing a couple channels on top of the arm-and-leg fee.

You're not forced to pay for anything. You can sign up for cable, or not. That choice is up to you. By the same token, it's like complaining that you have to buy a car with tires, when really what you want to do is put your own different tires on it anyway, so why should you have to pay for tires with the car? This happened to me by the way.

The bottom line is, if you don't like the product as it is offered, then don't buy it! Having government tell people (companies) what products they can sell, how much to charge, and what should be in the package makes no sense and is a dangerous use of government for all instances where there is not a SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST in doing so. On that note, simply because it is something the public may WANT is not enough.

Edited September 10, 2008 by akdiver

[aidan80 9]

I disagree, you are being robbed when you get charged $5 for that text you didn't want or have the option of refusing.

Ah, now you're making a somewhat different argument. Nevertheless, if you don't want to pay for incoming text messages, then don't sign up for text message service. It's really pretty simple.

Anyway the person that sent it already paid their $5 to send it to you?

Yes, they paid $5 to SEND it to you. They did not necessarily pay for delivery, nor is delivery guaranteed. I'm sure if you read the fine print in the TOS, you will see this in there.

It's like me mailing you a package then you paying for the shipping again to the postal service?

If it were easy for the postal service to charge you money before releasing mail to you, they would - I can assure you.

Of course I could avoid using the service and get a landline..

Yes, exactly! I think now you understand.

my choices there are 1 provider in this area, same as cable.. there is no competition and nothing driving competition market is like a clogged toilet.

Why not start your own phone and cable company and charge whatever lower rates you would like?

I don't understand why you appear to want to side with these companies and their at best is legalized theft in my opinion! Yes I've heard all the well don't take it if you don't want it $hit before but you know what people need basic services just to survive in this day and age. Like petrol/gas.. we all need it of course we could not use it but how could most of us get to work everyday or to the store? We shouldn't be robbed in daylight, in our homes for it just because they can rob us for it? Crime is crime and that is exactly what this is to me, theft!

You don't seem to get it?... there is no sign up or any way to refuse just by using the service makes you liable to accept charges for incoming texts which in itself I fell is wrong and is in my opinion again is theft in a legal way. We should not have to pay for something someone else already paid for to be delivered to us same as the mail system!

If it was easy for the postal service to charge they would.. I'm sure they would if private business took over and ran things like they run phone, cable and everything else we'd pay 2x 3x for everything! Yes getting a landline makes no sense anymore does it, it's just theft on a cable! Of course I could start my own cable company and get shutdown by one of the bigger operators in 2 minutes! That isn't compensation that is unfair and it limits choices for us the consumer.

I really don't get it.. you must be loaded and don't mind being ripped off everyday for everything? I do and I think it's time we had some changes and some choices instead of this $hit they are "selling" us!

Edited September 10, 2008 by aidan80

[akdiver 3]

I don't understand why you appear to want to side with these companies and their at best is legalized theft in my opinion!

Because I believe in freedom. Freedom in companies to offer the services they want at the prices they desire, and freedom for consumers to either buy those services or not. I even believe in your freedom to ###### about prices and companies. But I do not believe it is government's role to dictate what should be for sale and how much it should cost.

[IAMX 3,055]

It also doesn't make much sense to compare it against the price for web or email sent from your phone. They're different services. That they both involve sending a data stream really doesn't matter.

Uh yeah they are actually directly comparable, because they are all sent on the same spectrum (GSM/CDMA) and thus go through the same data pipe. Data = data, and in voice, internet, and, yes, SMS, it is measured in data (bits/bytes). Of course, the only reason SMS costs so much is because they can get away with charging a premium price for it, as in, idiots pay for it.

The bottom line is, if you don't like the product as it is offered, then don't buy it!

That's exactly what I do. I don't pay for cable, and I end up using other methods of watching TV shows I liked, and for hockey NHL Center Ice Online.

Having government tell people (companies) what products they can sell, how much to charge, and what should be in the package makes no sense and is a dangerous use of government for all instances where there is not a SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST in doing so. On that note, simply because it is something the public may WANT is not enough.

You realize the government itself also provides these services, right? Never heard of Muni? Indeed, that includes all data transmissions, internet, phone (VOIP), wireless => phones which can call over wi-fi.

Also, you realize the FTC can deem products, especially in limited competition/franchising agreements, to be too costly?

Price tying, a legal term for forced bundling, is generally illegal, and the FTC governs this. Recently they woke their asses up and forced AT&T to give unbundled internet service (rather than forcing them to least a voice line when they don't need it), albeit loosely at a reasonable price. Logically, there's no way it shouldn't be applying to cable companies as well.

This, my friend, is the reality of the situation, contrary to your supposed's.

Edited September 10, 2008 by SRVT

[Heracles 417]

That's exactly what I do. I don't pay for cable, and I end up using other methods of watching TV shows I liked, and for hockey NHL Center Ice Online.

Don't tell me because this was created by the white man..

[akdiver 3]

Uh yeah they are actually directly comparable, because they are all sent on the same spectrum (GSM/CDMA) and thus go through the same data pipe. Data = data, and in voice, internet, and, yes, SMS, it is measured in data (bits/bytes).

But they're not the same service. For example - consider shipment by rail. Suppose you want to book the contents of exactly 1 rail car, with, and I am making this number up, 20,000 pounds of whatever it is you want to ship. So that's 1 car, 20KLBS. The amount you will pay for shipping depends on what it is you want to ship. If you want to ship 20,000 pounds of, say, corn, you're going to pay a different price than if you want to ship 20,000 pounds of say, automobiles. Same weight - same volume (1 car), different rate. Why? Because the shipping company is going to charge you based on its perceived value to you. In this case, I suspect the auto company is going to be charged more than the farmer, even though they're both shipping the same amount of weight the same distance, on identical cars. It's the same way with data services. They can charge more for an SMS on a per KB basis, because, for whatever reason, people are willing to pay that higher rate because they perceive it to be worth it.

Of course, the only reason SMS costs so much is because they can get away with charging a premium price for it, as in, idiots pay for it.

Exactly. And if people are willing to pay it, then why on earth would they or should they charge less?

That's exactly what I do. I don't pay for cable, and I end up using other methods of watching TV shows I liked, and for hockey NHL Center Ice Online.

there are a lot of things that I do not pay for because I find the price too high. I think cell phone contract prices are just insane. So, rather than petition the government to force sellers to lower their prices, I simply do not buy a cell phone contract.

Never heard of Muni?

Nope.

Also, you realize the FTC can deem products, especially in limited competition/franchising agreements, to be too costly?

Yes, and that is unfortunate.

Aside from the basic freedom principle here - there is also the fact that people need a lot less in life than they think they do. They're convinced they simply must have this, that, or the other. Now, while that keeps the economy rolling, the fact is, we don't actually need the overwhelming majority of the ####### that is peddled to us. It's just a WANT. People WANT this that or the other, but they don't NEED it. This belief that our WANTS are actually NEEDS is what lead to the entitlement mentality that has brought this country to its knees.

Edited September 10, 2008 by akdiver

[akdiver 3]

Think about it this way.....suppose you bought your house for $100,000. Suppose you now want to sell your house and your relator tells you that based on the data and so forth, you can put it on the market for $200,000 and definitely sell it within a week. You think, "great, let's do it!"

Now - suppose the man from the government tells you that people need a place to live, and increasing house prices are bad, esp. since houses are essential, as after all, people need a place to live. For this reason, the government will not permit you to sell your house for any more than $125,000. That's still $25K more than you paid for it, but a lot less than the $200K you could sell it for without government's interference between you, a willing seller, and me, a willing buyer.

Are you going to tell me that you agree with government's reasoning here, that something MUST be done about the increase in housing costs, and you'll happily sell me the house for $125K? I think it is a lot more likely that you will not sell the house at all, you'll stay put - and I'll still need to find a place to live. Now, multiply this scenario by a million transactions. What do we find? No one wants to sell, and a lot of people still need a place to live. Even if people do sell, they're effectively being deprived of property - the extra money they could make selling their house in a free market. So, how is government helping in this situation?

[aidan80 9]

I don't understand why you appear to want to side with these companies and their at best is legalized theft in my opinion!

Because I believe in freedom. Freedom in companies to offer the services they want at the prices they desire, and freedom for consumers to either buy those services or not. I even believe in your freedom to ###### about prices and companies. But I do not believe it is government's role to dictate what should be for sale and how much it should cost.

That isn't freedom thats the law of the jungle, every man for himself that's total insanity! The government should be there to regulate to ensure there is a decent balance between freedom for companies to act as they please within the law and ensure their citizens the people who elect their lazy fat arses into office are not ripped of or robbed by these companies. After all lets face it a business needs money to survive and in a free for all market a lot of these "businesses" will become predatory e.g. banks for example without regulation. Regulation is the key to ensure a good balance. In the telecoms market at the minute regulation just isn't there? We're all being milked by these greedy b@stards, and thats exactly what they are greedy!

I do agree that government shouldn't dictate what should or shouldn't be for sale or how much to charge for it but they should be there to ensure a good balance and an even playing field.

[akdiver 3]

I noticed you didn't answer the question about the housing scenario above....

But I'm going to write this difference of opinion off to belief in socialism vs belief in capitalism. I think that's pretty much the bottom line.

Edited September 10, 2008 by akdiver

[aidan80 9]

I noticed you didn't answer the question about the housing scenario above....

But I'm going to write this difference of opinion off to belief in socialism vs belief in capitalism. I think that's pretty much the bottom line.

I agree... it appears your more a capitalist than I.. then again I do tend to lean more towards the more socialist ideas.

The house issue actually in my opinion yes the government should step in and say no you can't sell for that price and should try an maintain some control over the market and ensure there are enough houses available for the people. I mean look at the free for all market now, it's burnt out? Plenty of expensive houses that people can't afford and banks won't lend money to buy. Ok prices have come down here and there but the banks are scared of lending now.

I mean in an ideal world we'd have a perfect balance of everything and everyone would be happy but this isn't an ideal world

[akdiver 3]

The house issue actually in my opinion yes the government should step in and say no you can't sell for that price and should try an maintain some control over the market and ensure there are enough houses available for the people.

Wow - OK. Then there is really nothing more I can say (:

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

WHO gives a ####### about expensive Health Care!?! I want to send LOLs, OMGs, and WTFs to my buddies as many times as I want w/o costing me a WHOLE dollar for 5 txts!!