LAT - phone bills are moving back up (consolidation leads to higher prices)

[msongs]

from today's LA Times (Sunday Jan 28) business section -

the gist of the article is that consolodation in the telecoms is no longer leading to lower prices for customers, and that these companies are starting to jack the customers with higher rates and schemes. for example, if you don't take the package deals to get things you do not want, you are going to pay much higher prices for the things you really want.

- entry level prices for stand alone services such as DSL rose as much as 34%

- lowering some prices for services is compensated with price increases in others within packages

- people may not be able to get telecom internet unless they buy packages and there is no requirement for phone companies to provde such services independently if they do not wish to

- increases to cover alleged cost increases to the phone company: frequently are not actually costing the companies more because these services have already been built in to the equipment

- low cost plans are being stripped of features and the industry justifies this by saying these features cost more and cannot be provided at the low rates. (IMO -this of course is just a price increase by default, less for the same price)

- the industry is trying to stave off a PRICE WAR through its bundling packages

-
_________________________________________________________

IMO:

att is a monopoly around here. it does NOT offer DSL in our neighborhood. our city riverside has cut a deal with att to start wiring the city with wireless internet which will be ANOTHER monopoly service - no competition allowed. This means att will not have to build in dsl access via land line, which means you cannot choose your own dsl provider via land line. the wireless low end service will be free, but you have to use att. to get better quality you will have to pay more or put up with ads etc.
thus our city has sold us to the corporate masters and given att a gold mine.

BTW, these companies spend billions on advertising and promotion, then turn around and claim they are losing money. the legislature should tell them to stop advertising next time those companies come looking for a price increase.

Msongs
www.youtube.com/videos/msongs

[MADem]

1. No wonder VONAGE is airing a half hour infomercial....

The new competition will be in VOIP offerings.

[SharonAnn]

5. But you have to have DSL or cable broadband to use VOIP. Or Wireless ATT.

So first you've got to have broadband (only available from a monopoly). Then you can use VOIP to long-distance calls.

[MADem]

6. A lotta people have cable, so they'll "bundle"

Verizon is getting into the TV business, too....

[SoCalDem]

7. I pay double. I have a cable modem (left over from when we had Adelphia)

but we have Dish for tv (no internet option), and we still have our AT&T landline (we LOATHE cell-phones, and will never have one)

I "could" switch to verizon and get the whole shebang, but I quit them a LONG time ago, and when I called to inquire about their "bundle", the "switch-over/installation/whatever" was a BUNCH of money, and there was no guarantee that I would actually save money or even have the same quality of service I have now..

[MADem]

8. I know whatcha mean.

I have DSL, but I don't get it through the phone company. I could save a few bucks, but I think they're faster at fixing the connectivity issues of those companies that are subcontracted to them --after all, their own customers are pretty much a captive audience. Sure, they can switch, but it's a pain. I used to have a cell, and I dumped it. Didn't use it enough to make it worthwhile. For TV, I'm still schlepping along with cable. I've thought about a dish, but the cable's been quite reliable lately so I've not bothered to switch.

[SoCalDem]

9. I switched to dish so I could get FSTV & Link

we got okay service with cable, but I wanted those two channels :)

[Newsjock]

2. Story link here

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-prices28jan28,0,956590.story?coll=la-home-business

[TahitiNut]

3. M&A's put the (faux) 'market price' on the books to be amortized.

If all the stockholders attempted to sell their stock on the open market (which 'establishes' the price), the market value would drop faster than Paris Hilton's panties at a rave. However, when the company is acquired, the fictional 'market price' is put on the books - and gets close to being "real money." That's when customers, taxpayers, and employees take it in the pants - paying more, getting paid less, reducing booked (and taxable) 'profits,' and working harder and longer to pay off the faux 'debt' to the "ownership class."

[joemurphy]

4. Proof again that we're all better off in an unregulated free market

economy.