3 ms·

If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers - no

If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers - no matter how far removed shareholders are from the communities you mention - a service they want to pay for. Of course, there are cases where certain legislation makes it difficult for competition to arise, in effect giving an existing company monopoly for delivering Internet in a certain way. So I don't exactly disagree with what you are saying, although I don't interpret profits negatively.

Brockenstein 8y ago
>If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers That makes sense... if the company is small enough where any dip in customers is significant. When you have something like Comcast, serving tens of millions of people you're losing and gaining thousands of customers a day just from people moving. Additionally your service is so large that people in Cincinnati who are having problems with the service doesn't equate with the whole rest of the nation, as the quality of service isn't uniform. And then in cases where Comcast is a virtual monopoly people might want to ditch them, but what choice do they have? And they'd rather have (crummy) internet than no internet. Comcast's customer base is so large that you're never going to organize a significant percentage of them to meaningful action. It's too many people. And on top of all that big ISPs/big cable companies are among the most hated companies in the U.S. and have been for 15-20 years... so when are they going to start losing customers and revenue in a meaningful way to be incentivized to clean up their acts? I mean I understand the formula you're using and the cause an effect you're suggesting. But the reality suggests it's a bit more complicated than that.
rectang 8y ago
I don't see the profit motive as negative, either: it's amoral, not evil. Like fire. Where I imagine we part ways is on how much power corporations should exercise within society, relative to individual citizens. I draw straight lines connecting the Citizens United decision giving corporations vastly increased power to buy our politicians, to AT&T actually buying our politicians (consider the headlines today), to the FCC ignoring overwhelming public sentiment and rigging the ISP market in favor of the existing players.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue" Comcast says hi, and thanks for using the same worn-out, disproven trope again.

Brockenstein 8y ago

>If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers That makes sense... if the company is small enough where any dip in customers is significant. When you have something like Comcast, serving tens of millions of people you're losing and gaining thousands of customers a day just from people moving. Additionally your service is so large that people in Cincinnati who are having problems with the service doesn't equate with the whole rest of the nation, as the quality of service isn't uniform. And then in cases where Comcast is a virtual monopoly people might want to ditch them, but what choice do they have? And they'd rather have (crummy) internet than no internet. Comcast's customer base is so large that you're never going to organize a significant percentage of them to meaningful action. It's too many people. And on top of all that big ISPs/big cable companies are among the most hated companies in the U.S. and have been for 15-20 years... so when are they going to start losing customers and revenue in a meaningful way to be incentivized to clean up their acts? I mean I understand the formula you're using and the cause an effect you're suggesting. But the reality suggests it's a bit more complicated than that.

rectang 8y ago

I don't see the profit motive as negative, either: it's amoral, not evil. Like fire. Where I imagine we part ways is on how much power corporations should exercise within society, relative to individual citizens. I draw straight lines connecting the Citizens United decision giving corporations vastly increased power to buy our politicians, to AT&T actually buying our politicians (consider the headlines today), to the FCC ignoring overwhelming public sentiment and rigging the ISP market in favor of the existing players.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue" Comcast says hi, and thanks for using the same worn-out, disproven trope again.