Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Bernie Sanders: The Cable Bill Is Too Damn High

  1. #1
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947

    Bernie Sanders: The Cable Bill Is Too Damn High

    Bernie Sanders: The Cable Bill Is Too Damn High

    WASHINGTON -- Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter on Friday accusing big cable companies of using monopoly powers to muscle consumers into paying higher prices.

    In the letter, addressed to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, Sanders and Warren wrote that mega-mergers have left over 60 percent of Americans with no choice whatsoever when it comes to their cable and Internet providers. This state of things, they wrote, makes it possible for companies to jack up prices without losing customers to competition. Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also signed the letter.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000063


    Funny that the private sector can charge too much for something in their opinion yet they never look at themselves.

    monopoly powers to muscle consumers into paying higher prices.
    Maybe he doesn't know how "services" are supplied in NYS/local towns

  2. #2
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    There is a big difference between a private company providing a service and service provided by a a government.

    First, customers of non-government companies can't vote for the directors or run for election as a director. Customers of a government can do both.

    Second, most government services are provided district wide without regard to making a profit. Non-government companies provide service where they will make a profit and no where else.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    These companies are racist! Taking advantage of American Indians, this cannot be tolerated.

  4. #4
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    There is a big difference between a private company providing a service and service provided by a a government.

    First, customers of non-government companies can't vote for the directors or run for election as a director. Customers of a government can do both.

    Second, most government services are provided district wide without regard to making a profit. Non-government companies provide service where they will make a profit and no where else.
    Yes there is a big difference. A home owner doesn't have to have cable where as a property owner is stuck with the bad contract negotiations some political party "negotiated" for themselves.

    And it's time to drop the BS about "services are provided district wide without regard to making a profit"

    All irrelevant.

  5. #5
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Roman View Post
    These companies are racist! Taking advantage of American Indians, this cannot be tolerated.
    The democratic party has been taking advantage of minorities for decades.

  6. #6
    Member HipKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pekin, IL
    Posts
    8,744
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    The democratic party has been taking advantage of minorities for decades.
    Oh brother. :facepalm:
    Let me articulate this for you:
    "I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
    HipKat's Blog

  7. #7
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    Yes there is a big difference. A home owner doesn't have to have cable where as a property owner is stuck with the bad contract negotiations some political party "negotiated" for themselves.

    And it's time to drop the BS about "services are provided district wide without regard to making a profit"

    All irrelevant.
    Important factors that deflate your argument are not irrelevant.

  8. #8
    Member FMD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    There is a big difference between a private company providing a service and service provided by a a government.

    First, customers of non-government companies can't vote for the directors or run for election as a director. Customers of a government can do both.

    Second, most government services are provided district wide without regard to making a profit. Non-government companies provide service where they will make a profit and no where else.
    you assuming that there is no voting fraud.

    Furthermore wasnt it our wonderful govt that allowed Comcast to buy TW?
    Willful ignorance is the downfall of every major empire in history.

    "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao, 1938

  9. #9
    Member tomac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    1,953

    Thumbs down Time to drop the BS....

    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    Yes there is a big difference. A home owner doesn't have to have cable where as a property owner is stuck with the bad contract negotiations some political party "negotiated" for themselves.

    And it's time to drop the BS about "services are provided district wide without regard to making a profit"

    All irrelevant.
    That's where you're wrong. If you want to watch 2,4, 7 or any of the local UHF stations, then hook up a set of rabbit ears. However, if you want to watch CNN, Turner Classic movies or any of the premium channels, then you're screwed.
    Those lies that the cable providers are not a local monopoly are something that they've been shoving down our throats for years and it looks like you've bought into it. (Proving that Joe Goebbels was right, "Tell a lie often enough and forcefully enough and people will eventually believe it.")
    And what BS is it to say that a government provides services district-wide? Who plows your streets, picks up your garbage and keeps your family safe at night? I'll give you a hint, your highway workers, your garbage men and your police.
    Think you can trust the government?
    Ask an Indian!

  10. #10
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by tomac View Post
    That's where you're wrong. If you want to watch 2,4, 7 or any of the local UHF stations, then hook up a set of rabbit ears. However, if you want to watch CNN, Turner Classic movies or any of the premium channels, then you're screwed.

    Those lies that the cable providers are not a local monopoly are something that they've been shoving down our throats for years and it looks like you've bought into it. (Proving that Joe Goebbels was right, "Tell a lie often enough and forcefully enough and people will eventually believe it.")
    And what BS is it to say that a government provides services district-wide? Who plows your streets, picks up your garbage and keeps your family safe at night? I'll give you a hint, your highway workers, your garbage men and your police.
    I don't agree that I am wrong. You are not forced to pay for CNN, Turner Classic or any premium channels unless you want to. You might have premium channels for a while but as the cost increases you can cancel the service or look for another vendor of content that may be less expensive. You don't lose your TV set over it. I know a lot of people dropping cable/direct TV because they are going to services like Netflix.

    The only choice you have in the local town monopolies is to sell your home and move. The town as a whole can not "switch" providers even when the cost of that provider is detrimental to the town. IE: population loss because the cost of services are high and/or the services are not worth what is being charged for those services. We do need town services and don't twist what I am saying into something it's not.


    Joe Goebbels was right, "Tell a lie often enough and forcefully enough and people will eventually believe it.")
    And that my friend is an excellent example of the Cheektowaga Democratic Party marketing scheme. I started to save examples of their mailers since I started speakup. And as 4248 states it's not "registered democrats" in our town it's the small group of people who belong to that social club.

    And what BS is it to say that a government provides services district-wide? Who plows your streets, picks up your garbage and keeps your family safe at night? I'll give you a hint, your highway workers, your garbage men and your police.
    Totally agree but you get to the point where you are paying too much for services rendered. Here is an example

    You have Larry's Lawn service charging you $200 to mow your lawn.

    Following season Larry mails you an invoice for $206 + an extra $40 to cover their health insurance cost increase since Obama Care went into effect. You are happy with the service and cut a check for $246.00.

    Third year you get an invoice for $212.18 + $40 to cover last year's health insurance increase + another $40 to cover this year's increase for a total of $292.18

    Forth year rolls around and you get an invoice for $218.54 + $80 to cover the last 2 years health insurance increase + another $40 to cover this year's increase for a total of $338.54.

    Then your wife asks you I thought it was $200 a year to mow our lawn? I see you just paid $338.54. That is almost 40% more than when you started. Then your wife hands you the latest Val-Pack coupon mailer. You see a coupon for Olly's Lawn service starting at $99 and up. Olly's takes the call and says I'll do your lawn for $179.95. You really don't know if Olly is going to do a good job but you also didn't know what type of job Larry was going to do either.

    You call Larry's lawn service and say "Thank you for the years of service but we are going to use Olly's lawn service this year". Larry's seems confused and why you made this decision. You are honest and say Olly will charge me $179.95 and the quote you gave me this year would have been... $225.09 + $120 for the last 3 years of health insurance cost increases + $40 more to cover this year cost increase for a total of $385.09. Larry immediate blurts out we have only raised prices 3% a year!!!! You being an intelligent home owners states "No Larry, you raised your base cost 3% a year while charging me to cover your health insurance increases. You are charging me about 49% more over 4 years.

    You can't replace me. We have to get someone to negotiate for us but in the mean time I'll continue to only charge you $338.54. You say no. I want to hire Olly who will charge me $179.95.

    Now would you have signed a contract with Larry that would give him a monopoly on your lawn mowing needs? I don't think so.










    Don't give me any BS that you would just keep paying no matter what that cost is. Same goes for just about any other service you may need.

  11. #11
    Member 300miles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    9,612
    I think the mistake is when people frame the argument just around premium television. That's not a necessity... but internet access has become close to being a necessity like a utility. And the companies that provide television access are the same companies that provide internet access. The cable companies like to point out that people can get TV from different sources now and not just from Cable... but they don't like to point out that most of the other options are on the internet whose access is provided by themselves.

  12. #12
    Member HipKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pekin, IL
    Posts
    8,744
    Not Dish Network, which is probably why the bill never really goes up, but if all you have is internet and rabbit, you can watch pretty much anything
    Let me articulate this for you:
    "I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
    HipKat's Blog

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •