Dec 12, 2007
Shouldn't the price of services like cable, phone, and internet decrease with time, or at least remain the same? Instead, all three are constantly increasing, and it doesn't make much sense. Pretty much every type of technology decreases in cost over time. The first digital camera I bought in 2002 cost about $225. Nowadays, the cheapest digital camera has better features than that one, and it's about half the price. Two things happened between then and now: (1) Components became cheaper as manufacturing costs leveled out, and (2) supply/demand and competition drove the overall price down as more and more digital cameras flooded the market and more and more people became buyers.
Shouldn't this work with cable? I can't imagine much has changed since the middle of last century, aside from the whole "let's all switch to digital" thing. But that was several years ago. Shouldn't prices have leveled off? It would make sense if prices decreased steadily in the 80s and 90, increased slightly whenever that digital thing happened, and then continued to decrease steadily through today. But that's not what happened. My cable bill just went up again recently, leaving me to think, "Good GOD, what do you bloodsucking leeches want from me?"
In terms of technology, the services I mentioned essentially use the same thing: Wires. I just learned from the History Channel last night that the majority of our nation has been fully wired for the past 50 years. Aside from routine maintenance, what can my money possibly be going towards? The technology to use the services has changed, e.g. we went from analog receivers to digital receivers, rotary handsets to digital handsets, dial-up modems to cable modems. But that's a cost we readily pay for when we get new phones and computers; that's not a cost associated with delivery of the service. I guess we pay more as more channels are introduced (against our will) and the cable company introduces new "features" like Optimum Autos (seriously, who would ever buy a car via TV?).
In terms of supply/demand, it would seem to me that the more people who want to pay for an unlimited supply of something, the less each person's part would be. It would make sense if cable rates went something this: $100/month if we have 1-100 subscribers, $75/month if we have 101-500 subscribers, $50 if we have 501-1000 subscribers. I understand that not everyone has cable cable; some people have satellite. But still, shouldn't the prices be going down to attract more customers?
In the end, I guess I just don't understand how these things work. Or maybe I'm part of the problem: By willingly giving my money to people who overcharge me, I'll continue to be overcharged. Oh well, back to the steadily-price-increasing regularly-scheduled program. #business
Shouldn't this work with cable? I can't imagine much has changed since the middle of last century, aside from the whole "let's all switch to digital" thing. But that was several years ago. Shouldn't prices have leveled off? It would make sense if prices decreased steadily in the 80s and 90, increased slightly whenever that digital thing happened, and then continued to decrease steadily through today. But that's not what happened. My cable bill just went up again recently, leaving me to think, "Good GOD, what do you bloodsucking leeches want from me?"
In terms of technology, the services I mentioned essentially use the same thing: Wires. I just learned from the History Channel last night that the majority of our nation has been fully wired for the past 50 years. Aside from routine maintenance, what can my money possibly be going towards? The technology to use the services has changed, e.g. we went from analog receivers to digital receivers, rotary handsets to digital handsets, dial-up modems to cable modems. But that's a cost we readily pay for when we get new phones and computers; that's not a cost associated with delivery of the service. I guess we pay more as more channels are introduced (against our will) and the cable company introduces new "features" like Optimum Autos (seriously, who would ever buy a car via TV?).
In terms of supply/demand, it would seem to me that the more people who want to pay for an unlimited supply of something, the less each person's part would be. It would make sense if cable rates went something this: $100/month if we have 1-100 subscribers, $75/month if we have 101-500 subscribers, $50 if we have 501-1000 subscribers. I understand that not everyone has cable cable; some people have satellite. But still, shouldn't the prices be going down to attract more customers?
In the end, I guess I just don't understand how these things work. Or maybe I'm part of the problem: By willingly giving my money to people who overcharge me, I'll continue to be overcharged. Oh well, back to the steadily-price-increasing regularly-scheduled program. #business