Where I live, competition has driven the price up.

Actually that's not competition. It's essentially price fixing when two competitors "agree" to raise the prices and not fight for customers. Why no one calls them on it is beyond me. It's probably hard to prove.

Actually that's not competition. It's essentially price fixing when two competitors "agree" to raise the prices and not fight for customers. Why no one calls them on it is beyond me. It's probably hard to prove.

It is very very hard to prove without breaking the law trying to prove it. The problem is that sometimes something that looks like price fixing can just be two competitors responding to each other in the free market rather than behind closed doors, and you need to catch them pretty explicitly talking about it privately.

[quote name='Bregma' timestamp='1308742429' post='4826381']
Where I live, competition has driven the price up.

Actually that's not competition. It's essentially price fixing when two competitors "agree" to raise the prices and not fight for customers. Why no one calls them on it is beyond me. It's probably hard to prove.
[/quote]


If one raises the prices on their own and the other matches the increased price that's allowed. If they were acting on their own it is not legally a problem.

The difficulty is the proof that they were in agreement.

[quote name='Sirisian' timestamp='1308848603' post='4826878']
[quote name='Bregma' timestamp='1308742429' post='4826381']
Where I live, competition has driven the price up.

Actually that's not competition. It's essentially price fixing when two competitors "agree" to raise the prices and not fight for customers. Why no one calls them on it is beyond me. It's probably hard to prove.
[/quote]


If one raises the prices on their own and the other matches the increased price that's allowed. If they were acting on their own it is not legally a problem.

The difficulty is the proof that they were in agreement.
[/quote]
That's the problem. If they are price fixing I don't think anyone could tell. This reminds me of all the bandwidth caps that will probably be coming for mobile devices. After I saw what Verizon is trying to pull I'm starting to think that competition is seriously dead. It's not even like they're losing money with their unlimited plans, but the thought of placing limits and tricking customers into overage charges is just too tempting for them. (I don't have Verizon since I have the sprint unlimited plan). Anyway Verizon's plan was $30 for unlimited. They changed their $30 plan to 2GB with $10/GB overage because, as most people know, going over 2 GB on a phone can be very easy watching videos especially with 4G. (It takes me 30 minutes to download a 2GB file on my phone). I know people that leave Pandora open on their phone and easy go over those limits.

I can't wait until like 20 years when we have fiber optic cables and 1 gbps rates and the only thing stopping an Internet utopia is the 10 GB caps.

I'm with Luckless. I wish all ISPs were controlled by the government and more focused on building the best infrastructure for people.

I'm with Luckless. I wish all ISPs were controlled by the government and more focused on building the best infrastructure for people.

Since when do governments act in the interest of the people ? Rather than, say, large lobbying organizations. Like big ISPs for example. Oops.

[quote name='frob' timestamp='1308851142' post='4826902']
[quote name='Sirisian' timestamp='1308848603' post='4826878']
[quote name='Bregma' timestamp='1308742429' post='4826381']
Where I live, competition has driven the price up.

Actually that's not competition. It's essentially price fixing when two competitors "agree" to raise the prices and not fight for customers. Why no one calls them on it is beyond me. It's probably hard to prove.
[/quote]


If one raises the prices on their own and the other matches the increased price that's allowed. If they were acting on their own it is not legally a problem.

The difficulty is the proof that they were in agreement.
[/quote]
That's the problem. If they are price fixing I don't think anyone could tell. This reminds me of all the bandwidth caps that will probably be coming for mobile devices. After I saw what Verizon is trying to pull I'm starting to think that competition is seriously dead. It's not even like they're losing money with their unlimited plans, but the thought of placing limits and tricking customers into overage charges is just too tempting for them. (I don't have Verizon since I have the sprint unlimited plan). Anyway Verizon's plan was $30 for unlimited. They changed their $30 plan to 2GB with $10/GB overage because, as most people know, going over 2 GB on a phone can be very easy watching videos especially with 4G. (It takes me 30 minutes to download a 2GB file on my phone). I know people that leave Pandora open on their phone and easy go over those limits.

I can't wait until like 20 years when we have fiber optic cables and 1 gbps rates and the only thing stopping an Internet utopia is the 10 GB caps.

I'm with Luckless. I wish all ISPs were controlled by the government and more focused on building the best infrastructure for people.
[/quote]




AT&T already got rid of their mobile plan that was unlimited. Verizon was very open about it last year that unlimited data packages were something they couldn't sustain. I think it's pretty rare that a free-market company hemmorhages money and then tries to fix the problem. They're usually on top of "fixing it" before it costs them much money and then allowing the price to come back down to where it belongs later.


I think you nailed the exact cause of this change, how easy and fast it is to use a lot of data with 4G. We'll see how long Sprint is able to stay competitive because this will be a great example of the market at work. AT&T (and their absorbed T-mobile) will have no unlimited plan. Verizon will offer no unlimited plan. Sprint will be the only nation-wide offering of unlimited internet. Will customers move to Sprint and we see them have a huge expansion? Will customers go to regional options? Will customers decide it's more worthwhile to live in the confines of limited capacity to be with the larger carriers? Will this stem the growth of the cell phone market as a whole?


As for me, I'll be signing a new Verizon contract before the end of the year with either an Android-based 4G phone or and iPhone 5. We'll see what the market as a whole does.

[quote name='Sirisian' timestamp='1308853116' post='4826917']
I'm with Luckless. I wish all ISPs were controlled by the government and more focused on building the best infrastructure for people.

Since when do governments act in the interest of the people ? Rather than, say, large lobbying organizations. Like big ISPs for example. Oops.
[/quote]

When the people come out with the torches and pitchforks around election time.

You want to give complete control of your internet experience to the company who brought you the US education system and the Post Office? That sounds more like a nightmare from hell. If you thought net neutrality sucked, what happens when sites the government doesn't like are banned? Every site you went to would be tracked and logged directly by the government with no middle man. Not to mention the lack of incentive for any upgrade in speed or technology. As adamantly as I oppose bandwidth caps, I'd take them over government regulated internet any day.

That being said, if Lulz and anonymous keep hacking companies and government agencies, it may not be too far off.

You want to give complete control of your internet experience to the company who brought you the US education system and the Post Office? That sounds more like a nightmare from hell. If you thought net neutrality sucked, what happens when sites the government doesn't like are banned? Every site you went to would be tracked and logged directly by the government with no middle man. Not to mention the lack of incentive for any upgrade in speed or technology. As adamantly as I oppose bandwidth caps, I'd take them over government regulated internet any day.

That being said, if Lulz and anonymous keep hacking companies and government agencies, it may not be too far off.

Hell no. I wouldn't trust the US government with a collection of used dental floss. Maybe you missed the maple leaf or the part where I was talking about a political party in Canada. Crown Corporations aren't that badly run for the most part.

Hell no. I wouldn't trust the US government with a collection of used dental floss. Maybe you missed the maple leaf or the part where I was talking about a political party in Canada. Crown Corporations aren't that badly run for the most part.

No I knew you were from Canada, I was responding to Sirisian who I thought was in US. I don't harbor any specific ill will towards the Canadian government but I would probably feel the same if I lived in Canada too though. Having one entity control internet access, whether it's a corporation or government, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It's just too much power for any one group to have.