No: If the comparison is inappropriate, present the appropriate comparison.
For comparable expenses.
And when people die due to inadequate cable, then it may be a suitable comparison.
Again, just because it supports your contention doesn't make that an appropriate benchmark. Apples-to-apples... discretionary expenses to discretionary income.
Nope. I'm just someone who see things as they are in total, rather than solely through a consumer's eye.
The per capita rate of change of disposable income for '04 - '04 was 0.9% (BLS, here). IIRC This is much more consistent with the median real wage increase over that same period. Makes the cable price increase look even worse.
What makes CPI the appropriate benchmark is that what is being compared - the change in cable prices vs prices of all goods and services - are all using the same methodology and all have the same numerator, denominator, and formula for rate of change. When you compare a change in prices with a change in something that is not price, that is apples-to-someting-that-is-not-apples - and not even a fruit.
Yet it was 5.1% based on my calculations. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, and everyone can do their own computations using both my source and yours, making their own decision.
No, it is the proper way to compare price increases in consumer marketplaces. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that, as well.
Except I'm not, and your attempt to disparage me and my comments by the insinuations associated with saying so are troubling. I've already made very clear that from a consumerist perspective things won't look the same way. Things practically never are the way they seem from only one side of the issue. So please let us respectfully agree to disagree rather than throwing insulting words like "shill" at each other.
Nah. They wouldn't be as open, honest and upfront about these realities as I am, because doing so doesn't reflect well on them in the minds of consumers. The perspective I've shared is more akin to how a journalist reporting the issue in a balanced way would characterize things.
And satellite subscription television service goes flaky in strong rainstorms. Again, regulators and agencies aren't looking at quality or price advantages or disadvantages. Those are respective competitive advantages that one provider or another provider may have to garner more market share than another provider. What courts and agencies are looking at is whether the service is provided, yes or no.
Essentials of life = very low usage scenario.
You mean like they were pilloried for all the determinations of effective competition they made with regard to cable television service? (They were.) ... like they were when the details of their "net neutrality" rules implementation became clear? (They were.) And so on? Even with the current, more consumerist makeup of the FCC (as compared to ten years ago), consumers only "win" half the time. So, yes, they may very well consider cellular Internet as effective competition to cable Internet.
Please let me try to understand what you're saying: You feel that discretionary income has no impact on discretionary purchased. Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
An early retirement forum is rife with people who have so much financial security that they are able to think that way. To be honest, I suppose I'm in the same situation as you. My step-sister, by contrast, is not, and so she cares very much how much disposable income she has with regard to her cable bill (which, incidentally, she doesn't have, because of a lack of discretionary income).
Yet they have recently raised rates here, so I think you're not considering the entire reality. You don't lower your rates on everyone because a portion of your target market is price sensitive. You make very careful choices, including, sometimes, sacrificing a portion of the market to keep the value of your offering higher with regard to the rest of the market.
