flareback Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 It was just a joke, I kind of figured flareback was just kidding around so I just said something silly. Plenty of guys and gals wash dishes, but in general I don't think the male gender is as known for cleanliness as the female gender is. Trust me, while I might not be gay, I'm not one to really bash people for their preferences in that area. I was kidding. I just thought it was funny. I don't do dishes a lot but I do them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 You won't like this news AT&T is sending a warning to people who illegal tether there phones and demands they stop otherwise they will be signed up for an additional plan Wow AT&T just struck an all time low once again...SO glad I'm on sprint. I tether up a storm on my phone, glad to have the only unlimited network that actually will let me stretch my $$ given to them. I couldn't ever feel clean if I was on an AT&T contract Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wevsspot Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 There are so many valid arguments in the first 8 pages of this thread....................... I think the data cap issue goes much deeper than just the providers wanting to "line" their pockets though. The communications business is big business. Therefore the majority of companies that are in the communications business (and I'm including ISPs here) are public companies - meaning stocks, shareholders, board of directors etc. I also imagine that in some less fortunate countries the communications and internet service providers are either owned or closely controlled by the governments in those countries............ but back to the capitalist version................. These public companies are bound by market principals that include being able to generate dividends for those persons and entities that have invested in them. If you can't generate returns then your investment capital declines (because no one wants to buy stocks in a company that doesn't or can't pay dividends), when investment capital declines so does research/development and improvements to the existing infrastructure. And by default, so does the development and deployment of additional infrastructure. We all know that the web has grown well beyond it's original functions and intentions - and web content is changing as fast as the seconds on the clock tick by. The future of the web IS bandwidth intensive. In order for us to enjoy those services the core infrastructure and technology of the internet delivery systems has to be constantly improved - and that requires cash plain and simple. A previous poster asked why some of us always seem to side with the "business". My answer is easy, I'm a small business owner as well as an employee of a larger company. I understand the finances and economics of trying to run a profitable business. For-Profit businesses do not exist to lose money or even break even. We are in the business of making money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedCrazy Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 There are so many valid arguments in the first 8 pages of this thread....................... I think the data cap issue goes much deeper than just the providers wanting to "line" their pockets though. The communications business is big business. Therefore the majority of companies that are in the communications business (and I'm including ISPs here) are public companies - meaning stocks, shareholders, board of directors etc. I also imagine that in some less fortunate countries the communications and internet service providers are either owned or closely controlled by the governments in those countries............ but back to the capitalist version................. These public companies are bound by market principals that include being able to generate dividends for those persons and entities that have invested in them. If you can't generate returns then your investment capital declines (because no one wants to buy stocks in a company that doesn't or can't pay dividends), when investment capital declines so does research/development and improvements to the existing infrastructure. And by default, so does the development and deployment of additional infrastructure. We all know that the web has grown well beyond it's original functions and intentions - and web content is changing as fast as the seconds on the clock tick by. The future of the web IS bandwidth intensive. In order for us to enjoy those services the core infrastructure and technology of the internet delivery systems has to be constantly improved - and that requires cash plain and simple. A previous poster asked why some of us always seem to side with the "business". My answer is easy, I'm a small business owner as well as an employee of a larger company. I understand the finances and economics of trying to run a profitable business. For-Profit businesses do not exist to lose money or even break even. We are in the business of making money. That all makes sense, but the problem is that the ISPs are wanting to charge us more without improving service. And that is why we are griping. If they were going to offer me improved service for the extra money i would be less disagreable. **Note this is hypothetical as i dont use AT&T, though my ISP is upping prices and still drops out about once a week.** Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporX Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 While it is all well and good to say no to this the truth is an ISP is no different than a cable company or any other service provided. If they choose to limit the choice they have the right too, just as we have the right to use someone elses service. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedCrazy Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 While it is all well and good to say no to this the truth is an ISP is no different than a cable company or any other service provided. If they choose to limit the choice they have the right too, just as we have the right to use someone elses service. How bout those of us who live in monopolized areas? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathmineral Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 While it is all well and good to say no to this the truth is an ISP is no different than a cable company or any other service provided. If they choose to limit the choice they have the right too, just as we have the right to use someone elses service. Unless they're the only provider available to you, and that's often the case for a a lot of people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flareback Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 How bout those of us who live in monopolized areas? Then how about lobbying your local leaders to let in competition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedCrazy Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Then how about lobbying your local leaders to let in competition. Noone wants to come here, too poor. Both isps would lose money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathmineral Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Then how about lobbying your local leaders to let in competition. Why should anyone have to do that? Isn't that why we live in a capitalist society? To encourage competition? If I was going to go through the trouble of doing that, I would just try to get them to remove the data caps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJCRO Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 LOL, I saw "Heck no!!!!!" and right away I clicked that, hahahaha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHippi Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) There are so many valid arguments in the first 8 pages of this thread....................... I think the data cap issue goes much deeper than just the providers wanting to "line" their pockets though. The communications business is big business. Therefore the majority of companies that are in the communications business (and I'm including ISPs here) are public companies - meaning stocks, shareholders, board of directors etc. I also imagine that in some less fortunate countries the communications and internet service providers are either owned or closely controlled by the governments in those countries............ but back to the capitalist version................. These public companies are bound by market principals that include being able to generate dividends for those persons and entities that have invested in them. If you can't generate returns then your investment capital declines (because no one wants to buy stocks in a company that doesn't or can't pay dividends), when investment capital declines so does research/development and improvements to the existing infrastructure. And by default, so does the development and deployment of additional infrastructure. We all know that the web has grown well beyond it's original functions and intentions - and web content is changing as fast as the seconds on the clock tick by. The future of the web IS bandwidth intensive. In order for us to enjoy those services the core infrastructure and technology of the internet delivery systems has to be constantly improved - and that requires cash plain and simple. A previous poster asked why some of us always seem to side with the "business". My answer is easy, I'm a small business owner as well as an employee of a larger company. I understand the finances and economics of trying to run a profitable business. For-Profit businesses do not exist to lose money or even break even. We are in the business of making money. A company's first priority should be to serve its customers,and through that act, the stockholders. If they don't, then I take my business elsewhere. The problem is that industries like petroleum, cable, and telecommunication often have merged and coalesced into a few monopolistic corporations. That's why we need government to place limits on big business. Otherwise they'll do their best to screw us up the butt in the name of the stockholders, while all they are really doing is lining their pockets. Edit: Plus the current stock trading system is so broken it's unreal. If a company doesn't make a 7% profit every quarter, then it is regarded as a failure and the stock price falls a result. It fails to overlook that sometimes companies have a long term goal beyond that quarter's profit. Edited March 22, 2011 by TheHippi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now