3 ms·

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hgSJiYFg_3IJ:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hgSJiYFg_3IJ:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hgSJiY...

tzs 7y ago
There have been some questions raised here before as to the accuracy of that book. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766
- rayiner 7y ago
  The book isn’t inaccurate, in the sense the data is wrong. It’s that the book draws conclusions from that data on questionable premises, and then people take the headline number and misrepresent what it means. The article linked above actually makes the theory behind the book quite clear: > By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. The premise is that pre-1992 regulated rates are the proper baseline that reflect the “correct price” of service. The theory then goes that ISPs conned the government into deregulating rates by promising fiber which they never built, which allowed them to raise prices beyond what the regulated rates should have been. In other words: “an iPhone XR should only cost about $250, reflecting a 10% profit margin, so anything Apple gets beyond that is an overcharge.” The premise is ignorant, but there is no reason to believe the underlying data is wrong. However, whether the conclusion is right or not, the underlying theory is, by its own terms, a theory of overcharge. (Prices being roughly 10% higher than they should have been over a 22 year period.) It’s not a documenting of some money transfer from government to providers.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    Apple wasn't previously a government regulated monopoly and iPhones aren't a vital service in a developed country. Government regulated monopolies are different though. Regulations forcing a specific price, or even a specific "profit" margin aren't unheard of. Thus, the premise isn't entirely unreasonable! There are details to be quibbled over, but the history of AT&T is where that premise comes from in the first place! (In particular, the 1982 DoJ mandated breakup and resulting fallout from that.)

tzs 7y ago

There have been some questions raised here before as to the accuracy of that book. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864766

rayiner 7y ago
The book isn’t inaccurate, in the sense the data is wrong. It’s that the book draws conclusions from that data on questionable premises, and then people take the headline number and misrepresent what it means. The article linked above actually makes the theory behind the book quite clear: > By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. The premise is that pre-1992 regulated rates are the proper baseline that reflect the “correct price” of service. The theory then goes that ISPs conned the government into deregulating rates by promising fiber which they never built, which allowed them to raise prices beyond what the regulated rates should have been. In other words: “an iPhone XR should only cost about $250, reflecting a 10% profit margin, so anything Apple gets beyond that is an overcharge.” The premise is ignorant, but there is no reason to believe the underlying data is wrong. However, whether the conclusion is right or not, the underlying theory is, by its own terms, a theory of overcharge. (Prices being roughly 10% higher than they should have been over a 22 year period.) It’s not a documenting of some money transfer from government to providers.
- fragmede 7y ago
  Apple wasn't previously a government regulated monopoly and iPhones aren't a vital service in a developed country. Government regulated monopolies are different though. Regulations forcing a specific price, or even a specific "profit" margin aren't unheard of. Thus, the premise isn't entirely unreasonable! There are details to be quibbled over, but the history of AT&T is where that premise comes from in the first place! (In particular, the 1982 DoJ mandated breakup and resulting fallout from that.)