Many broadband providers argue that it's a great idea, as the demand for rich services on both the wired and wireless networks are immense, and requires billions of dollars to keep up with the demands. The 1-800 business models could help offset the expense of building the networks to support the growing traffic.
Rank Company Revenue(mil) Profit (mil)
12 AT&T 124,629.0 19,864.0
AT&T acts as if they are strapped for cash. They are not. As much as they screw over their customers you'd think that they would stop being cheap. It's bad enough they already recieve government handouts now they want to charge everyone for access though their lines, not only the government and the end user but now the host? I am so sick and tired of AT&T. They are one of the most greedy companies to hit the face of the earth. So glad that T-Mobile deal was blocked. AT&T is pure evil and needs to be stopped.
[citation][nom]punahou1[/nom]Verizon's mobile service is already too expensive for its customers. That's why I left them this year after being with them for 10+ years...[/citation]
However, you pay a little more for far superior quality and service. AT&T's quality and service sucks, as do all other major carriers. Sprint has better quality, but the coverage is worse, not that AT&T's coverage is much better.
This is bunk. Profit margins for wired broadband internet service are huge. All of the estimates that I've seen put the margins at 40-80% profit. The industry doesn't produce that kind of financial data for public consumption, but then why would they want to publicize their profiteering. Bandwidth is cheap. And infrastructure costs, while not cheap, aren't exactly expensive either and are amortized and depreciated over 7-10 years or more.
This is really about regulatory capture on the part of cable providers trying to sure up their video delivery services. They're smart people and they see the writing on the wall. The ISPs know that Broadband Internet coupled with net neutrality will deliver fantastic profit margins - however at the expense of losing their much larger revenue from their video delivery services.
[citation][nom]Skippy27[/nom]Yes, the title is quite misleading. It is not toll free, it is tolled access. However, we the customer are not the ones playing the toll. It is the companies that are trying to reach the consumer.I suspect with a move like this even wireless will be forced to be "neutral" and then as these boneheads sit there wondering why we can refer them to this.[/citation]Isn't that exactly how toll free numbers work? You don't pay, your phone company doesn't pay. The company that you are calling pays. So if Facebook becomes "toll-free", Facebook is paying for the bandwidth, not you or your provider. Same thing, yeah?
Also isn't it a case of the consumer trying to reach the company, not the other way around? For example if you dial a toll free number, you're reaching out for them. If you visit their website, they didn't open your browser and direct you there against your will.