Media, Business & Politics

Next month, Comcast will be announcing three exciting new services to join StreamPix: StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps. Like StreamPix, content downloaded or streamed from any of these new services will be exempt from the company’s monthly data caps.

StreamJamz is an unlimited streaming music service, similar to offerings from Spotify, Grooveshark and Sony.

StreamGamz is an unlimited video game download and multiplayer gaming platform, similar to offerings from Steam and EA’s Origin.

StreamPeeps is a VoIP 1080p HD video conferencing service, similar to offerings from Skype and Apple.

All 4 services are included with XFINITY HD Triple Play packages for no additional charge. You can add any of the streaming services to other packages for only $4.99 a month per service.

.
**********[ 3 months later ]***********
Comcast has announced the addition of an ‘Internet-Lite’ option for all of their XFINITY High Speed Internet plans. Any current plan can be converted to a ‘Lite’ plan, which will include a $20 discount off regular rates, and lower the monthly data cap to 10GB. This should come as great news for XFINITY Triple Play customers who already have unlimited access to XFINITY’s great SteamPix, StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps services for all of their streaming video, music, gaming and video-conferencing needs. One stop shop entertainment, no need to subscribe to multiple services.

.
***********[ 2 years later ]************
Comcast has announced that it will be raising rates on all of their XFINITY High Speed Internet plans by $25. This includes their 10GB capped ‘Lite’ plans, as well as their regular 250GB plans. At a recent stockholder meeting, a top Comcast executive was heard saying, “We believe the added value of our unlimited SteamPix, StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps services warrant the price increase, as they provide our customers with all of their streaming video, music, gaming and video-conferencing needs, without having to worry about silly data caps.

.
***************************************
And just like that, Comcast has managed to lower the data cap on their broadband plans to a measly 10GB, while actually raising the price, and putting Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Grooveshark, Steam, Origin, Skype, Apple, all in a greatly disadvantaged competitive position. By not blocking any particular competing service, Comcast will have managed to sidestep Net-Neutrality restrictions, while severely limiting how much their customers can use any competing services. Yes, I made all of this up, but there’s nothing stopping Comcast from following this plan to the letter (including the stupid service plan names), if their new StreamPix service is allowed to proceed unchallenged by the FTC.

With nothing stopping them, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T et al will surely follow suit. How long will Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Grooveshark, Skype and the rest of the free-market competition last? How many new services, like the one Sony was considering, will never have been started? And most US customers don’t have many, if any options when choosing their ISP, so they can’t just go somewhere else if they don’t like Comcast’s (or whoever)’s offerings. The FTC needs to step in now, to stop ISP’s from dictating what their networks can be used for, and putting countless competitors out of business.

More at
ars technica, Engadget, Gizmodo

I was attempting to watch a YouTube video a friend posted on Facebook today; but since I was on my iPhone, I was instead served a message, ‎”The content owner has not made this content available on mobile.” I have the same problem on Hulu (Plus) on my iPad – videos are often marked ”Web Only,” which is Hulu’s way of saying they aren’t licensed for viewing on mobile devices. This is confusing to me; Shouldn’t content providers want me to watch their content, regardless of what device I’m using? They’re not going to make any money if I don’t view their content, or obtain it via unlicensed sources.

Quite a bit of Hulu’s content is available for free on a traditional computer; however, without a Hulu Plus subscription, none of that content is available on mobile devices such as the iPad. In and of itself, that’s an odd decision, since the free content is supplemented by ads on the PC, similar to broadcast (and most premium) content. But worse than that, even with a paid Hulu Plus subscription, some shows are still unavailable for viewing on mobile devices. And I’m not talking about premium content, at least in the traditional sense of HBO & Showtime. Shows from all major broadcast networks, including 30 Rock (NBC), Fringe (Fox), Happy Endings (ABC), and How I Met Your Mother (CBS) are all marked “Web Only” on the iPad, even with a paid Hulu Plus account. And rather than offer an option for a higher-tier ‘Super Hulu Plus’ subscription, or make those shows available for a small fee, you’re simply directed to watch it on a traditional computer, or not at all.

Sometimes when I run into one of these content-blocks, I just switch to my laptop, in which case the content owner gets their cut all the same. But sometimes I decide the content isn’t all that important, so I just don’t watch it, leaving the content provider out in the cold. Yet other times, when I do want to view the content on my iPad, I’ll connect to my computer, and with a few seconds of work, and after a few minutes of downloading, I’ll get a perfect copy from one of the myriad of unlicensed sources available online, ready to stream to my iPad. In two out of the three scenarios, the content owner doesn’t get my view, or my advertising-revenue-generating attention.

So it would seem the content providers would rather I ‘pirate’ a copy of their content than generate a return by allowing it to be viewed on my iPad or smartphone. Sure, for now they can say most people aren’t like me; Most people will just watch it on their computers. But for how much longer? Tablets and smartphones are already making a huge dent in the PC market; it won’t be long before mobile web browsing overtakes the PC, and eventually, many households will find they don’t even need a traditional PC anymore. At the same time, TVs are getting smarter, and consumers expect to have access to their online content sources there as well.

The reason content owners make (or buy) content is to make money off of it, usually by advertising during or around the content. So to maximize profits, they need as many viewers as possible. This is why they spend money advertising the content itself – they make the money back if there are enough viewers of the content, and likewise the advertising. So why would they in their right minds block access from any device? In the end, it’s their loss, not ours; but it would sure be nice if they could figure it out sooner rather than later.

AT&T’s strongest argument for the need for the T-Mobile merger was that it was neccesary for them to be able to exten 4G coverage from 80% to 97% of the country. But in a leaked document, they had previously estimated it would cost $3.8 billion to do exactly the same thing without T-Mobile — they just decided at the time that it wasn’t worth the investment due to a lower ROI per subscriber! That, compared to the $39 billion AT&T was offering for T-Mobile. Note, there’s a decimal point in the first number, but not in the second. Funny that AT&T was not willing to spend the cash to build out their network themselves, but they are willing to pay 10x more to get that same coverage via the T-Mobile merger. So, now that AT&T’s strongest argument for the merger has been proven completely untrue, it’s obvious AT&T only wanted T-Mobile to kill the competition and continue their tradition of raising prices.

If this merger had gone through, we would have lost T-Mobile’s option for $5 unilmited texting plans, left with only AT&T, Verizon and Sprint — all at $20/mo. Data plans are similarly much cheaper at T-Mobile. For instance, what I’m paying AT&T $85/mo for right now, T-Mobile is offering for $50! That’s $35/mo less! So if T-Mobile gets the iPhone this time around, even if they were to offer it unsubsidized for $600, over a 2 year contract it’s a savings of $240 over AT&T. If you use the phone for longer than that, you’re gaining $35/mo over what you’d still be paying AT&T, since they don’t offer you a discount even after you paid off all the subsidies on your phone. (and don’t forget the resale value of an iPhone, although that’s no difference which carrier you’re on).

This, folks, is why Capitalism in its truest form – free from regulation – does not work. And if T-Mobile does get the iPhone, they might have a fighting chance to stay in the game with the big boys.

DSLReports.com: AT&T Blows Smoke to Cover Leaked Document Snafu

I spend $5/mo on text messaging, for 200 texts. Under AT&T’s new rules, I will have to spend $20 to send the same number of messages. Does anybody else see a problem with this?

I currently use around 150 text messages per month. That means I send about 75, and I receive about 75. If you’ve ever had a text conversation, you know those texts can add up pretty quickly, but I’m disciplined about it. I’m still on an outdated plan where I pay $5/mo for up to 200 texts, and then $0.10 each additional. I very rarely go over, and that works for me. But under AT&T’s new rules, my only option will be to pay 4 times that amount – $20 – to send and receive the same number of texts. This is because AT&T is dropping all text packages except for their unlimited plan for $20/mo. They claim it’s because the vast majority of their customers are already on the unlimited plans; but that hardly justifies forcing users like myself to overpay by such a large factor.

It’s clear the reason AT&T is making this move now is the availability of free smartphone messaging services like Facebook Messanger and the soon-to-be-released iMessage for iPhone & iPad users. If the majority of SmartPhone users switched over to 1 or a combination of these free apps, their direct text messaging through the carriers will plummet; however, while there are still non-smartphone users out there sending ‘classic’ texts, even the free-app users will still need at least a few text messages every month to correspond with them. Under AT&T’s new plan, if a user were going to go on their per-text plan, at $0.20/text, if they were to use more than 100 messages in any given month, it would be cheaper to buy the unlimited plan. This is nothing more than AT&T’s way of extorting more cash from each one of their users, while supplying absolutely no additional service.

In my case, my 150 messages will now cost me $30 under the per-text plan, so I’ll be forced to upgrade to the unlimited plan. I’m going to be overpaying $15 every month, just to protect myself in the off-chance one of my friends decides to go text-crazy on me one night. For a lot of other people, it’s going to be $5 or $10 more than they’ve been paying for 1000 or 1500 message plans. That’s anywhere from $60 to $180 more per year, per subscriber, for absolutely no additional service. Multiply that by every American with a cell phone who uses less than 1500 messages a month, and we’re talking millions of dollars straight into AT&T’s money bin.

Now, imagine if we didn’t have to pay this text tax. We would have an extra $100 or even $240 per year that we could all spend on something else. All this talk about government taxes, and how we’re already spread so thin and we can’t afford mortgages and education and healthcare; and now we’re going to be charged $60 to $180 more every year for the exact same service? It’s a tax – by private companies – on Americans, for the right to communicate over the PUBLIC wireless spectrum; but because it’s a ‘free market,’ these companies are free to price their services as they see fit. The argument is, we can always take our business elsewhere — go to Verizon, for instance. The problem is, every time Verizon or AT&T has raised their texting prices in the past several years, the other followed suit within a few months. Now that T-Mobile is being swallowed up by AT&T, and Sprint is flailing, it won’t be long before there is no other choice, other than not texting at all, or paying this exorbitant tax. This will limit our ability to effectively communicate by pricing text messaging plans too high for millions of Americans.

These companies’ vulturous practices are what is bankrupting our country: Working Americans can barely afford gas to fill up their cars or power their stoves, but Oil companies are still handing out record bonuses; Cancer patients who can’t afford their medication because the Insurance company they’ve been paying all their lives denies their claim on a technicality, and the Drug company that supplies the pills sets the per-pill price in the thousands, all so the Insurance and Drug Companies can keep raking in billion dollar profits; Families being evicted from their homes because their Mortgage lender told them they could afford it, knowing they couldn’t, because it meant a hefty bonus for him; and Wireless customers, overpaying just to be able to send text messages with their phones.

So if gas & oil prices were a little lower, and insurance payed on what they promised, on the drug that isn’t overpriced 1000x its value, and bankers only sold loans to people who could afford their mortgage, and wireless providers stopped charging customers for messages that don’t cost them a thing, if we could cut the private-company-taxes we’re all paying every day, every family would have that much more money to start putting back into the economy, to buy new clothes, and new cars, and a better home. It’s not a silver bullet for our battered economy, but it would at least be a start. It’s too bad, under a ‘free market,’ this is the best we get. I don’t know about you, but I would like the government to be a little bit bigger when it comes to regulating what these multi-billion dollar companies are allowed to do, and charge, every American. If not, we will all end up paying more for communicating, and traveling, and trying to get better, just so that extra money can go into the pockets of someone who already doesn’t need it.that

I propose we start a new Tea Party that’s against all this private-industry taxing. That demands the corporations providing us with vital necessities must be kept in check, and not allowed to overcharge American citizens for services we need to live. That puts the wellbeing of the collective American people above that of pure profits. What’s good for 1 company, but bad for millions of people, is not good for the economy. If we were to keep these companies in check, perhaps we’d have a chance to start turning the economy around without cutting even more vital government programs. It’s not even tightening belts for these companies; it’s nothing more than shedding massive amounts of unneeded fat, so that our country can survive and thrive. Is that so much to ask?

This is what’s wrong with politics. Doing one thing, and then not only claiming that you didn’t, but blaming your opponent for doing exactly what you’re guilty of. Here are a few quotes from Michelle Bachmann: “I have no doubt that we will not lose the full faith and credit of the United States.” “I am committed to not raising the debt ceiling.” And she stood by her word, putting the country at risk of having our credit downgraded, which it subsequently was, causing massive volatility in the markets. But when pressured about it, she claims she was not threatening default (while that’s EXACTLY what she voted to do). She goes one step further and claims it was President Obama who was threatening default. She made this claim this morning on Meet the Press: “The president has so mishandled this entire debate; he’s the one who threatened default. Not me. Not Republicans. I didn’t see Republicans threatening default. I saw the president threatening default.”

My question is, why do we let this go? Yeah, she’s just pandering / campaigning, but does that give her a free pass, allowing her to blatantly lie to advance her political ambitions? Yes, she CAN lie, but the media should be all over this! Sure, if you’re a Fox News viewer, this is probably the only viewpoint you’ll ever hear, and you’ll probably take her at her word. It’s is sad, pathetic, and scary that someone can come out and blatantly blame someone else for something they are fully guilty of. This should be enough to end her bid for President immediately; but somehow, it isn’t even an issue. It’s just shrugged off as politics as usual. If this is politics as usual, our country is in a lot more trouble than anyone realizes. Idiocracy, we’re on our way.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60172.html#ixzz1V1VI5mrW

iPod profits may have dropped 20% from the same quarter last year, but if you look back a few more years, you’ll see Apple is still making more on the iPod than it was just 6 years ago, a time when the iPod was considered a runaway success for the company. What’s astonishing is that in 2005, the iPod accounted for a little over 30% of Apple’s profits; and now, while still bringing in about the same amount of revenue (slightly more), it only accounts for 5% of Apple’s total revenue. This, of course, is due mostly to the iPhone, with a little help from the iPad and the halo effect around them.

So just to put this into perspective, imagine this:
It’s 2005. The iPod is on fire, bringing in more revenue than any of Apple’s other segments (desktops, laptops, music, or ‘other’). Apple stock has been on an absolute rampage, up over 400% over the past 2 years to a whopping $55/share. Someone who looks like an older version of yourself but with shaggier hair, jeans that are too tight, and neon 80s shoes, walks up and tells you to withdraw your life savings and put it all into Apple stock immediately. Of course that’s crazy, and you tell him not even the iPod can keep selling like this forever. But he says no, it’s not because of the iPod, although in 6 years, it will still be bringing in more revenue than it is in 2005; but by 2011 it will only account for 5% of Apple’s total revenue. It doesn’t even even make sense. The iPod is Apple’s saving grace, and everybody knows it. There’s no way they can top that; And it’s not like everybody’s going to go out and switch to Macs just because the iPod was a hit. Then he explains that it’s all because Apple releases a phone; and shortly after that, a giant version of that phone, called an iPad. Do you think you’d follow his advice? If you did, it would be worth a 600% increase over 6 years.

The numbers really are something. But I’m not writing Apple off yet. In another 6 years, maybe I’ll be writing the same thing about how the iPhone was dwarfed by… the iPad? Or even something else. Only time will tell. If only I had a time machine.

Disclosure: I own Apple (AAPL) shares and I do not plan on initiating any new positions within the next 72 hours.

In Colbert’s first email blast since establishing his Super Pac, he hints at what’s in store:

Soon we’ll release our first TV commercial, and send Washington a strong message: “We can afford a commercial.” And that’s just the beginning of the commercial. There will be twenty-six more seconds in it, chock-full of other messages.

And let’s face it: those messages are long overdue. America has forgotten who it is, where it’s going, and how it got there. It’s like America is the protagonist in one of those TV crime shows where a good cop loses his memories in an accident and has to piece them back together while solving a new murder every week. Luckily, America has help from a sexy love interest: Me. I should also mention that this show is on HBO, so you know there’s gonna be boobs.

But we have to act now, or this promising drama will go the way of my other great ideas for shows, from “Wolf Attack: The Sitcom” to “Frasier 2.” Colbert Super PAC needs YOUR support to make America great again, and I think we both know I’m talking about the kind of support that is green and worth money, because it is money, or an emerald. Both are acceptable.

So I urge you to drop everything and head to www.ColbertSuperPAC.com. Then pick up the credit card you dropped when I told you to drop everything.

Donate now. Donate often. Make a difference. Make a donate.

And together, we’ll make a better tomorrow, tomorrow.

Sincerestly,

Stephen Colbert

Chairman and Dictator for Life, Colbert Super PAC

It will be interesting to see what kinds of ads he makes. Whatever they are, I have no doubt they will be absolutely brilliant!

The Daily Show’s “Moment of Zen” last night was a clip from Fox News, where the host, Greg Gutfeld, explained the number of calories in Michelle Obama’s now-infamous fast-food meal as “over 1500 calories, roughly compared to eating a live raccoon.”

So that’s in contrast to a *dead* raccoon? I suppose if it’s dead, it probably depends on whether it was grilled or deep fried, so maybe it does matter that it’s alive?! But seriously, WTF?! Where do you get ‘a live raccoon’ from?! But anyway, he wasn’t done there.

I found the full clip, and left it on in the background while I was brushing my teeth, and I ended up spitting my toothpaste all over the mirror when I heard this gem from the same guy: “We’re demonizing a great industry. The fast food industry does more to feed people than any government. If McDonalds was in charge of ending starvation in Africa, it would have been done in a year.”

Oh, Fox News! When will you ever quit?! No, seriously, when will you quit. This shit is getting old. The full clip is below.

Another writeup here:
AngryBlackLady.com (yeah, really)

I recently contacted my state Senators, urging them to fight for net neutrality laws that would keep the internet open, and limit how much control ISP’s are allowed have over what data comes over MY internet connection, and what they’re allowed to charge me extra for. In the past, when I contacted my senators on these kinds of issues, I’ve always received a letter back, describing how they’re trying to do exactly what I asked them to. Of course, in the past, all my Senators were Democrats. Recently, that changed, as with it, the kind of letter I was sent back.

For the uninitiated, net neutrality is the idea that internet lines consumers subscribe to should be free and open, with no restrictions on either certain websites, or certain kinds of data. For example, without net neutrality restrictions in place, your ISP may in the future offer packages, similar to cable, where the ‘entry level’ package would allow you to use your email and small / unknown websites at full speed, but all other websites, such as Facebook, Yahoo, Google and ESPN, would be throttled back to download at much slower speeds; or, you would be charged an additional fee every time you used them, similar to the per-text texting plans on cel phones. At this level, you may not even be able to access video sites like YouTube, Hulu or Netflix for free, but you could be charged a fee per minute of video you watch, again, similar to voice ‘minutes’ on your cel phone. Only a premium-priced plan would allow you to access any site on the internet without a speed penalty or extra charge. This may at first sound great, if most of what you do is check email and use small unknown websites; but what happens your cable company gives you full-speed access to all of their own offerings for ‘free’ but charges you more for a similar competing service? For instance, if you use Time Warner Cable for your broadband, and they have an online video service that directly competes with Netflix & Hulu, they could give you access to their own service for no additional fees, while charging you more for access to the others. If this had been the case when Netflix was first getting started with online streaming, there’s a good chance they never would have become a major player, and without strong competition, Time Warner would eventually be able to leverage their position and remove their own video offering from the low-end package, making you pay more for access. With no major competing offerings, your only choice is to pay up, or go without.

Of course, the media empires that connect us to the internet say they would never do something like that, so no regulation is needed. They have their lobbyists ‘convince’ government officials through ‘various means’ to argue that making net neutrality laws amounts to the government taking control of the internet, and that it will stifle economic growth. The truth is, net neutrality would in no way be a government takeover of the internet, any more than regulating media mergers is a government takeover of the airwaves; and to the argument about stifling economic growth argument, it has been shown many times over in other countries that when there is healthy competition in the broadband market, consumers have much faster internet connections, and pay a fraction of the price that Americans pay.

In any case, here’s the letter from my Senator. If you think it sounds more like a doctrine written by the media corporations themselves, you’re not alone.

Dear Chris,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the issue of net neutrality.

On December 21, 2011, the FCC voted to adopt net neutrality rules regulating broadband Internet providers. The issue is whether the Internet will be controlled by government regulators or by private enterprise and consumers in a competitive marketplace.

The term “net neutrality” might sound good, but it is just a clever name for government control of the internet. If the government were to control the internet through FCC regulations, the overall result would be bad news not just for consumers but also for the economy as a whole. Investment in broadband today is one of the few bright spots of the economy, with providers expected to invest some $30 billion per year in private capital into their networks annually for the next five years, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. I will resist efforts by the government to control the internet.

I believe one of my most important duties as your Senator is to listen to the views of the citizens of Wisconsin and, in turn, communicate my views. I hope I have accomplished that with you.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with me on this issue. I apologize for any delay you have experienced in receiving this reply. Since taking office in January, my office has received over 180,000 pieces of correspondence. We are working hard to respond to your concerns in a timely manner.

Please feel free to contact me in the future with anything important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the good people of Wisconsin.

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson
United States Senator

And my response is below:

Senator Johnson,

I recently received correspondance from your office informing me why you are against net neutrality laws. You claim that it is a government takeover of the internet. This is no more true than government regulation of media mergers is a takeover of the airwaves, and you know it. Without net neutrality, there’s nothing stopping the media companies from slowing or blocking access to websites of their own choosing, making it easier to push their own offerings, and put other companies out of business. If Comcast decided to charge more for access to Netflix, while offering their own video service for no extra cost, it would be a major blow to Netflix. But without net neutrality, there’s nothing stopping Comcast from doing just that. The same could be said for Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Twitter, Amazon, and millions of other websites that started from nothing, and relied on free and open access to the internet to establish their business, and continue to rely on it to survive and flourish. You claim net neutrality is a job-killer, but how many jobs would be lost at the expense of a few top dogs at the major media corporations, if all the major ISPs implemented a tiered system of internet access that blocks or slows access to select websites or services? Innovation would plummet because small start-ups wouldn’t have a chance against the established conglomerates. Millions, perhaps billions of jobs would be lost or never created, in the name of higher profits for already established media conglomerates.

It has been shown many times over in other countries that when there is healthy competition in the broadband market, consumers have much faster internet connections, and pay a fraction of the price that Americans pay. It’s only because we allow these giant companies to be the only options consumers have, that we’re stuck overpaying for mediocre services. Without government regulation, it would only get worse for consumers, not better.

If you continue to fight against net neutrality, then you, Mr. Johnson, are not MY Senator, and I don’t need you to lecture me on how helping huge corporations put more money into the pockets of their richest few is good for me and my country.

Sincerely,
Chris J Mischler
Milwaukee, WI

I just saw this article on PCmag.com and it nudged me to send my own letter to the FCC. Here’s how mine went:

Wireless communication is incredibly important to the wellbeing of our economy. That not only includes voice, but text and internet access as well. Already, consumers are being gouged by minimum fees for ‘voice’ plans – regardless of whether they use any voice ‘minutes,’ astronomically high fees for texting, when it costs the carriers virtually nothing to support, and now data caps and overage charges on wireless data. While we all are left with the burden of paying these higher fees, the wireless corporations are posting record profits, all the while buying out their competitors – competitors, mind you, that have LOWER PRICES than they do! We’re already down to a 4 player game, and Sprint & T-Mobile may be the only reason that AT&T and Verizon’s plans aren’t even more expensive. Take even one of them out of the game, such as allowing AT&T to buy T-Mobile, and it’s down to a 3 player game, and the 3rd player will probably have to drop out soon as the other 2 pump up their muscles even more. It will be a duopoly, and AT&T and Verizon will be free to keep hiking up prices on texts and wireless internet access. In an economy as hard hit as ours, if every consumer is forced to pay an extra $5, $10 or $20 a month (which we already are – just look at text prices) to be able to effectively communicate, that’s another $5, $10 or $20 we can’t spend on groceries or gas or even taxes to keep our government functioning. And instead, it just goes into an already huge money bin of just a few powerful CEOs.

Their next plan, if left unchecked, will be to charge for ‘services’ or ‘channels’ much like cable TV – where it will cost you more if you want to access Facebook or YouTube or even your email. These are arbitrarily placed pay-walls meant only to increase profits even more – and if there are only 2 major carriers, and they both impose the same kind of system, consumers will have no choice but to pay up.

Please don’t let the AT&T / T-Mobile merger go though; and if you do, regulate the hell out of it. Make them show how much it costs them to send a text through, or what it costs them when a customer goes over one of their arbitrarily set ‘limits’ – and compare it to what they charge consumers for those features. I think you’ll see they’ve already inflated their markup well over the reasonable amount that would be possible if they were competing in a truly competitive marketplace. Communication should be a right – so why are we being charged like it’s a luxury only meant for the rich? If we don’t do something soon to get these corporation in check, we may find that in the future, it will be only for the wealthy.