Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mojowork_n

(2,354 posts)
11. I think your response is misleading.
Tue Apr 10, 2012, 01:44 PM
Apr 2012

Trying to do an accounting of capital expenditures for the cell phone industry
involves so much more than the cost of building towers. (And to even mention
that they don't manufacture the phones that use their networks is like suggesting
that because oil companies don't manufacture automobiles or trucks, there is a
'variable cost' penalty that Exxon or Mobile must constantly monitor, as if it were
a part of their own operations.)

The reality is that between deregulation and lax compliance enforcement from
government, the return on investment has never been higher for cell phone companies:

Here are 4 paragraphs from an Alternet article that lay out more of the real
picture:

http://www.alternet.org/story/148397/how_the_phone_companies_are_screwing_america%3A_the_$320_billion_broadband_rip-off?page=entire

In order to understand how the broadband con works, it is useful to examine how it has played out in one state and extrapolate this to the other 49 states. In this case, we will examine New Jersey as representative of a nationwide policy.

New Jersey state law requires that by 2010, 100 percent of the state is to be rewired with 45-mbps, bi-directional service. To meet this goal, Verizon collected approximately $13 billion in approved rate increases, tax break and other incentives related to upgrading the Public Switched Telephone Networks. To cover its tracks, Verizon submitted false statements year after year, claiming that it was close to fulfilling its obligations. For example, in its 2000 Annual Report, it claimed that 52 percent of the state could receive "45-mbps in both directions or higher."

Based on such false claims, Verizon has benefited for significant pricing increases for essentially inexpensive computerized services. For example, Call Waiting and Call Forwarding cost less then $.01 cent to offer yet the company charges $4-$7 for such features. In addition, fees for inside wiring went up to $7.00 from $1.25.

The company also benefited from more invisible perks. It secured massive write-offs on its network even though it wasn't being replaced; it actually secured a write-off of over 105 percent above the amount of construction. These write-offs helped save it billions in taxes. These factors have helped significantly heighten the company's Return on Equity, the standard measurement of profits, jump from 12-14 percent before deregulation to 30-40 percent.

You are defending Lightsquared? ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #1
I understand the frequency tech, please link the forum...regards uponit7771 Apr 2012 #12
not to derail your whole article... but lightsquared failed of their own accord belcffub Apr 2012 #2
Unnnnn, LS has a point..the weak signal isn't their fault and GPS companies had ample time (as.. uponit7771 Apr 2012 #13
sure... but to call this political... belcffub Apr 2012 #14
It is their fault since they are trying to convert frequency from space use to ground use ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #19
It's not unlike health care. We pay more for less. mojowork_n Apr 2012 #3
uh oh youre taking a swipe the sacred cow called cell phone. this will not go over well leftyohiolib Apr 2012 #4
The phones are useful, convenient and sometimes even fun to use. mojowork_n Apr 2012 #5
add to that the profit margin is so high that users are gouged leftyohiolib Apr 2012 #10
The " interference" is with cheap defective GPS units ONLY. Why should Lightsquared pay to fix them? saras Apr 2012 #6
The real issue is the attempt to reclassify the band from low power space based signals to ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #15
Interference accord99 Apr 2012 #17
This is the American business model. It was once called monopolistic and was unlawful. Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #7
Pretty good description of Lightsquared ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #16
fascist marshall gaines Apr 2012 #8
The graph and interpretation is misleading usrname Apr 2012 #9
I think your response is misleading. mojowork_n Apr 2012 #11
i hate my cell phone facultyandstaffshow Apr 2012 #18
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Corruption Responsible fo...»Reply #11