HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Seventy one percent? Hopefully internet service providers out there are listening to this and keep their grubby mitts off the internet. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Report: 71% of U.S. Households Would Leave ISP That Violated Neutrality
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Tuthmose
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 182
Oddly that coincides with the 71% of American customers who feel they only have one viable alternative for high speed internet service
This is exactly the first thing that came to my mind.
". . . they would attempt to switch. . ." is the key part of that survey response. How many have any other high speed provider to switch to is a different thing entirely.
"All Your Interwebz Is Belong To Us" - [insert name of local high-speed provider here]
-Tuthmose
Americans these days are too lazy to fight for their rights. I call BS on this survey. America isn't being honest. They are too busy lapping up NFL, American Idol, and whatever non useful BS they can gossip about at work with their equally clueless colleagues.
PS. I am American, so this isn't a case of some Russian starting shit. I sit here watching people who wouldn't know their head from their ass, but they could tell you all about the different contestants on the Voice or some other equally brain dead show. The moment I start talking about Engineering or Astronomy or something actually useful in today's world and half these kids short attention spans cause them to pull out their phones. Ending my frustration rant today. It is going to be hard keeping my kids engaged and I am a fatalist.
PS. I am American, so this isn't a case of some Russian starting shit. I sit here watching people who wouldn't know their head from their ass, but they could tell you all about the different contestants on the Voice or some other equally brain dead show. The moment I start talking about Engineering or Astronomy or something actually useful in today's world and half these kids short attention spans cause them to pull out their phones. Ending my frustration rant today. It is going to be hard keeping my kids engaged and I am a fatalist.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
Ideally this will put the heat on local governments to shed their corrupt lockouts of competing ISPs.
Ideally...
Ideally...
Switch to who??? Either it is the phone company or the cable company. They both want to overcharge and are creating artificial bandwidth shortages to legitimize and thus legalize their actions.
Let me answer this in corporate "fuck you" language:
Pandora isn't as bandwidth heavy, because of this we have created a $5/month plan to allow Pandora users an easy and affordable way to access music online. We also remind you that streaming on ISPNAME_MUSIC_SERVICE is free and unlimited. We thank you for choosing ISPNAME.
Let me answer this in corporate "fuck you" language:
Pandora isn't as bandwidth heavy, because of this we have created a $5/month plan to allow Pandora users an easy and affordable way to access music online. We also remind you that streaming on ISPNAME_MUSIC_SERVICE is free and unlimited. We thank you for choosing ISPNAME.
And yet we see bills in state governments banning the practice: "Government shouldn't be competing with what the private sector can provide" and some other such non-sense.
Man, can you imagine if that principle were applied to the police or fire department? Sorry, you live in a crappy neighborhood and didn't pay our outrageous fees, no police or fire service for you?
PornoSatan
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,493
Oddly that coincides with the 71% of American customers who feel they only have one viable alternative for high speed internet service
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAo5GgaJmsA
jojo69
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 11,267
sure they would
I also call bull shit on this. People will go to Comcast or somebody else if the price is right, even if just for a few months before that prices spike up. They will deal with shit service for that saving.
I am willing to bet that more places are open than are looked down.
In most places it has nothing to do with corruption or any lockout but people just not wanting to spend money. If you have the money to buy the equipment you can go start an ISP in many places. But unless you can get a good number of customers you won't find it worth the money. Hell look at Verizon, they sold off cities as they decided it wasn't worth the return to upgrade the equipment to give them better service.
For something like fiber to the home, you are going to be looking at a good investment just getting fiber into the ground and all the electronics needed. So you would need to get somebody locked in as a customer for years to just break even. 500 customers (ActiveE) just for electronics can run you about $400,000 - $500,000. Then you need to get fiber in the ground. Assuming the cheapest of $400K, you would need to get all 500 customers paying over $66 / month just to break even on that part for just 2 pieces of the puzzle. Add in the fiber and you might as well double that at least. And that is ignoring everything in the office and your connection to the rest of the world.
So if you wanted to just move into an area and start offering FTTH as a new startup, might as well assume you will need several million just to start servicing a few hundred homes, and you won't see any profit for several years. Most people don't want to do that. That is why you don't have more options in some places. Has nothing to do with cities being corrupt or anything of the sorts. I can look at someplace like Chicago and down town you have various options for ISP for businesses from what I can tell. Because they know that they can start small there and hit a few larger places and make back their money quick instead of trying to hit a subdivision where cable company A is at along with the local phone company, every wireless phone company, probably some WISP service and maybe get 4 out of every 50 homes to switch to them. That is also why a lot of times a new ISP does show up they are a WISP offering maybe 10Mbps as that is much cheaper and easier to do than fiber.
I am willing to bet that more places are open than are looked down.
In most places it has nothing to do with corruption or any lockout but people just not wanting to spend money. If you have the money to buy the equipment you can go start an ISP in many places. But unless you can get a good number of customers you won't find it worth the money. Hell look at Verizon, they sold off cities as they decided it wasn't worth the return to upgrade the equipment to give them better service.
For something like fiber to the home, you are going to be looking at a good investment just getting fiber into the ground and all the electronics needed. So you would need to get somebody locked in as a customer for years to just break even. 500 customers (ActiveE) just for electronics can run you about $400,000 - $500,000. Then you need to get fiber in the ground. Assuming the cheapest of $400K, you would need to get all 500 customers paying over $66 / month just to break even on that part for just 2 pieces of the puzzle. Add in the fiber and you might as well double that at least. And that is ignoring everything in the office and your connection to the rest of the world.
So if you wanted to just move into an area and start offering FTTH as a new startup, might as well assume you will need several million just to start servicing a few hundred homes, and you won't see any profit for several years. Most people don't want to do that. That is why you don't have more options in some places. Has nothing to do with cities being corrupt or anything of the sorts. I can look at someplace like Chicago and down town you have various options for ISP for businesses from what I can tell. Because they know that they can start small there and hit a few larger places and make back their money quick instead of trying to hit a subdivision where cable company A is at along with the local phone company, every wireless phone company, probably some WISP service and maybe get 4 out of every 50 homes to switch to them. That is also why a lot of times a new ISP does show up they are a WISP offering maybe 10Mbps as that is much cheaper and easier to do than fiber.
Wrecked Em
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,169
94% of US households have never even heard the phrase net neutrality, and would never be aware if they were throttled.
Economies grind to a halt when too many people have their hand out for a piece of something and contribute nothing in return. In South & Central America, its corrupt government and local crime lords. In the US, its deadbeats to the left and gougers looking for 200% profit to the right. We'll be at the bottom in the not too distant future.
You mean the "deadbeats" that don't have and can't get jobs because Corporate America has sold out Americas citizens in the name of more profits?
Like those rich ladies playing golf in Roger and Me, saying "I think they are just lazy, they should go and get jobs" in reference to the people who just got laid off when GM was closing all the Flint plants they had worked at for years and moving them to Mexico?
There is just as much business and political corruption here in the US as there is in any South or Central American country, they just aren't hiding it here or calling it what it is.
But go ahead, keep wrongly blaming the poor and the victims of corporate maleficence.
Drawmonster
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,300
Net Neutrality is going to become a major issue in the coming years. I think internet access will get classified as utility by the FCC before it get's out of hand. Too many politicians don't want to pay extra on top of their monthly cable bills either.
I'm calling it now, within 12 months internet access will be a utility, regulated, and net neutrality will safe. Don't fuck with peoples interwebz.
I'm calling it now, within 12 months internet access will be a utility, regulated, and net neutrality will safe. Don't fuck with peoples interwebz.
S
shade91
Guest
LOL.
That's more like it. I'm a Verizon wireless subscriber who is giving them the finger and going to T-Mobile when my contract is up. If there's ever a GOOD local alternative to Comcast I'll gladly go with them!
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Ya they would if they could except they only have 1 ISP with broadband to choose from.....Thanks to the faux free market.
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
Going to agree. The idea of a completely segmented net experience would negate what people are willing to spend. Providers who attempt to charge customers more for the same level of experience they've had for over a decade are in for a rude awakening.
mzs_biteme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,595
This is why anybody with half a brain thinks companies like Comcast are the scum of the Earth!!!:
PS,
Yes, I found this in my search for ISP at the new place I'm moving to... And Comcrap is the only option if I want anything over 25Mbps... Murica, fuck yeah....!!!
PS,
Yes, I found this in my search for ISP at the new place I'm moving to... And Comcrap is the only option if I want anything over 25Mbps... Murica, fuck yeah....!!!
140304
NBCs coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games is a case in point, cable providers and TV channels are ensuring that you can only watch their content live, online if you pay for a cable connection.
i.e. the Feb 13 Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal to pay $45 billion for Time Warner Cable (the nations two biggest cable outfits) is expected to close the deal by the end of year; gives Comcast unprecedented gatekeeper powerboth on the content side and the user sidein a variety of communications markets.
i.e. the evolution of video delivery technology a convergence of TV and Internet (streaming content replaces cable television, e.g. aero)
Comcast agreed to share its programming with other providers and to follow the FCCs open internet rules, which require internet service providers to, in most cases, treat all traffic equally but the FCC open internet rules aka net neutrality were recently struck down by a federal court, and it seems a provider like Comcast can now discriminate against traffic as it sees fit.
Comcast agreed to abide by them as a condition of its acquisition of NBC Universal back in 2011.
net neutrality is the principle (it never was a law) that the pipes carrying our information online should be dumb just like our phone lines;
it could lead to more situations where particular content is only available to people who pay for cable television;
broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon FIOS were throttling Netflix performance; Liberty Media could charge Netflix more for using more network capacity;
AT&Ts Sponsored Data program, which would let content providers subsidize customers mobile data usage.
RIAA did not bring litigation to Napster for sharing information, what needs to protected is the free exchange of information; riaa case law defined the difference between information and content.
It was Netflix that withheld high-quality streaming from Time Warner Cable customers last year, not vice versa (Time Warner lost over 300,000 subscribers); it was Apple, not AT&T, that demanded exclusivity on the first iPhone.
Without net neutrality we are in danger of prioritizing high-quality internet access for entertainment over education; By allowing ISPs ("Information" Service Providers) to preferentially charge premiums and tier access, resource-constrained public libraries and especially the communities they serve will be the ones to lose; pay to play only benefits the privileged.
It is reasonable for the public that granted industry access to use public resources (roadways and airwaves) to deliver a service, to maintain conditions governing this access. Advocates of network neutrality are not setting new conditions, just asking that the current, implied ones be codified and then enforced.
Having ISPs decide that certain bits of data are more valuable than others just because someone is willing to give them money is why people are concerned with Net Neutrality; the "last mile" carriers want to charge at both ends. They want you to pay to get on the net, and they want everybody else to pay for them to be able to show you what is on the net.
The FCC can not enforce net neutrality principles that have already been rejected in court multiple times without classifying ISPs as telco carriers instead of as information service providers; the courts have not affirmed their authority to keep the internet free & open, for the FCC to be able to use the totality of its authority for adjudication and enforcement.
The 1923 Telecommunications act which made the transmission of communication (content) a part of the "commons" the only way to keep services from outstripping the network's bandwidth is to keep broadband out of the hands of the masses (poor), which is basically what is happening now.
The monopolist state of the industry that the government currently protects is what allows ISPs to offer low quality service at a high price. If they had to compete, they would start offering higher quality at a lower price vs blocking traffic they view as disadvantageous;
broadband co-ax has been replacing POTS fiber-optic is now also starting to replace the broadband co-ax towards g-bit internet; 77% in the US only have a single option for high speed internet so there is not much competition; (all of the baby bells were part of AT&T cartel.)
Industry incessantly pleads its case to the government for an artificial monopoly on its products and services because its easier than having to compete, and because government somehow has the power to grant these privileges in the first place.
A natural monopoly is one that arises in the market without privilege, it captures such a large share because it offers the best product at the lowest price vs competition (free-market capitalism) coming in and offering a better product for a better price.
As centralized control is inefficient, while decentralized control through market competition can provide a more efficient method of offering high quality products for a lower price, if there is a marketable service to provide, providers will figure out how to do it efficiently...as long as they have to compete.
A "natural monopoly" is an industry where firms experience declining costs to scale and high costs of entry (oligopolies are more common); the casual relationship of regulation and market power goes in both directions. As companies become larger, their increased economic clout can be used to entice politicians to erect market barriers or enact subsidies to protect its position.
Monopoly can be pervasive wherein franchising rules allow politicians to collude in granting a privilege of extended year monopoly so industry executives can establish that monopoly that will gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues;
data caps http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml
ISPs already offer tiered service to further restrict bandwidth available for most users http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...in-america-an-on-again-off-again-relationship
Currently, video streaming accounts for most internet traffic (Netflix alone takes up about 28%), a real issue is getting traffic across the internet;
a two-sided market for consumer service on the front end and capacity on the back end can help.
We need to ensure broadband providers can not do something nefarious to kill off new services. But we also need to ensure content providers don not undermine incentives to invest in the capacity they themselves need.
If end users are going to have to pay for the capacity needed to bring them the video services they use, the more closely that funding matches the services used, the better the market will meet the need for capacity.
Revenue from two major sources: content providers (through sponsorship or ads), and consumers (through subscription fees)... while TV broadcasters traditionally relied almost entirely on the former, cable programmers rely almost entirely on the latter, most technology firms use a combination of both.
This two-sided model develops a balanced revenue stream from both the content side and the customer side to ensure profitability while making the service affordable and encourages people to use online services, dependent on changing consumer preferences.
NBCs coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games is a case in point, cable providers and TV channels are ensuring that you can only watch their content live, online if you pay for a cable connection.
i.e. the Feb 13 Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal to pay $45 billion for Time Warner Cable (the nations two biggest cable outfits) is expected to close the deal by the end of year; gives Comcast unprecedented gatekeeper powerboth on the content side and the user sidein a variety of communications markets.
i.e. the evolution of video delivery technology a convergence of TV and Internet (streaming content replaces cable television, e.g. aero)
Comcast agreed to share its programming with other providers and to follow the FCCs open internet rules, which require internet service providers to, in most cases, treat all traffic equally but the FCC open internet rules aka net neutrality were recently struck down by a federal court, and it seems a provider like Comcast can now discriminate against traffic as it sees fit.
Comcast agreed to abide by them as a condition of its acquisition of NBC Universal back in 2011.
net neutrality is the principle (it never was a law) that the pipes carrying our information online should be dumb just like our phone lines;
it could lead to more situations where particular content is only available to people who pay for cable television;
broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon FIOS were throttling Netflix performance; Liberty Media could charge Netflix more for using more network capacity;
AT&Ts Sponsored Data program, which would let content providers subsidize customers mobile data usage.
RIAA did not bring litigation to Napster for sharing information, what needs to protected is the free exchange of information; riaa case law defined the difference between information and content.
It was Netflix that withheld high-quality streaming from Time Warner Cable customers last year, not vice versa (Time Warner lost over 300,000 subscribers); it was Apple, not AT&T, that demanded exclusivity on the first iPhone.
Without net neutrality we are in danger of prioritizing high-quality internet access for entertainment over education; By allowing ISPs ("Information" Service Providers) to preferentially charge premiums and tier access, resource-constrained public libraries and especially the communities they serve will be the ones to lose; pay to play only benefits the privileged.
It is reasonable for the public that granted industry access to use public resources (roadways and airwaves) to deliver a service, to maintain conditions governing this access. Advocates of network neutrality are not setting new conditions, just asking that the current, implied ones be codified and then enforced.
Having ISPs decide that certain bits of data are more valuable than others just because someone is willing to give them money is why people are concerned with Net Neutrality; the "last mile" carriers want to charge at both ends. They want you to pay to get on the net, and they want everybody else to pay for them to be able to show you what is on the net.
The FCC can not enforce net neutrality principles that have already been rejected in court multiple times without classifying ISPs as telco carriers instead of as information service providers; the courts have not affirmed their authority to keep the internet free & open, for the FCC to be able to use the totality of its authority for adjudication and enforcement.
The 1923 Telecommunications act which made the transmission of communication (content) a part of the "commons" the only way to keep services from outstripping the network's bandwidth is to keep broadband out of the hands of the masses (poor), which is basically what is happening now.
The monopolist state of the industry that the government currently protects is what allows ISPs to offer low quality service at a high price. If they had to compete, they would start offering higher quality at a lower price vs blocking traffic they view as disadvantageous;
broadband co-ax has been replacing POTS fiber-optic is now also starting to replace the broadband co-ax towards g-bit internet; 77% in the US only have a single option for high speed internet so there is not much competition; (all of the baby bells were part of AT&T cartel.)
Industry incessantly pleads its case to the government for an artificial monopoly on its products and services because its easier than having to compete, and because government somehow has the power to grant these privileges in the first place.
A natural monopoly is one that arises in the market without privilege, it captures such a large share because it offers the best product at the lowest price vs competition (free-market capitalism) coming in and offering a better product for a better price.
As centralized control is inefficient, while decentralized control through market competition can provide a more efficient method of offering high quality products for a lower price, if there is a marketable service to provide, providers will figure out how to do it efficiently...as long as they have to compete.
A "natural monopoly" is an industry where firms experience declining costs to scale and high costs of entry (oligopolies are more common); the casual relationship of regulation and market power goes in both directions. As companies become larger, their increased economic clout can be used to entice politicians to erect market barriers or enact subsidies to protect its position.
Monopoly can be pervasive wherein franchising rules allow politicians to collude in granting a privilege of extended year monopoly so industry executives can establish that monopoly that will gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues;
data caps http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml
ISPs already offer tiered service to further restrict bandwidth available for most users http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...in-america-an-on-again-off-again-relationship
Currently, video streaming accounts for most internet traffic (Netflix alone takes up about 28%), a real issue is getting traffic across the internet;
a two-sided market for consumer service on the front end and capacity on the back end can help.
We need to ensure broadband providers can not do something nefarious to kill off new services. But we also need to ensure content providers don not undermine incentives to invest in the capacity they themselves need.
If end users are going to have to pay for the capacity needed to bring them the video services they use, the more closely that funding matches the services used, the better the market will meet the need for capacity.
Revenue from two major sources: content providers (through sponsorship or ads), and consumers (through subscription fees)... while TV broadcasters traditionally relied almost entirely on the former, cable programmers rely almost entirely on the latter, most technology firms use a combination of both.
This two-sided model develops a balanced revenue stream from both the content side and the customer side to ensure profitability while making the service affordable and encourages people to use online services, dependent on changing consumer preferences.
T-Mobile has an unlimited LTE plan that normally doesn't allow any tethering (attempting to tether brings you to a t-mobile error page), but there are work arounds to avoid the tethering block. With android 4.3 or older you simply have to use a browser plugin or local proxy to change your browser user agent to a mobile browser ID, or just random words. With android 4.4 you also have to change a setting in an sql database on the phone itself.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
I wouldn't leave my current ISP over selective traffic speeds mostly because I really don't care and don't watch a lot of videos, but also because I have only one ISP at all if I want to have anything faster than dial up. And really, I'd almost not care if I had to use a phone modem except that Windows Updates and other stuff would take a long time or I'd have to go use some open access point to get updates and a lot of new computers don't have modems in them anymore which means stupid USB dongle things. I hate dongles and pretty much anyone who has one!
Well that's you... some of us don't have an option and do either watch video or in my case create them via live streams.I wouldn't leave my current ISP over selective traffic speeds mostly because I really don't care and don't watch a lot of videos, but also because I have only one ISP at all if I want to have anything faster than dial up. And really, I'd almost not care if I had to use a phone modem except that Windows Updates and other stuff would take a long time or I'd have to go use some open access point to get updates and a lot of new computers don't have modems in them anymore which means stupid USB dongle things. I hate dongles and pretty much anyone who has one!
NeghVar
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,671
ISPs that have regional monopolies could careless what their customers say when they are the only option.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I kinda pointed out that my thoughts were more about me and less about anyone else.
As for your live streams...are they a job or work related necessity? It would stink if that was the case, but if not, then maybe something like that is being given a little too much importance. There's always a good book to read or maybe a family member that could use a hug. Hugs totally beat live streaming stuff for awesomeness and so does spending in person time with other people.
Rahh
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,607
Cable companies make sick!
I guess you don't know that's how it is right now.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.UxYFEc6BOF8
lcpiper responds by cancelling all TV services and watches whatever he finds available that is free, does pay for Netflix because he likes movies, and games his little ass off instead. As for high speed internet service, the cable company wins for now, but if they get too far out of hand my tethered smart phone remains an option though I would have to be more selctive in my gaming habits.
This is why anybody with half a brain thinks companies like Comcast are the scum of the Earth!!!:
PS,
Yes, I found this in my search for ISP at the new place I'm moving to... And Comcrap is the only option if I want anything over 25Mbps... Murica, fuck yeah....!!!
Wanna hear the punchline?????
Performance 'Starter' is the intro for new customers come-on. After 3-6 months they'll move ya to the Blast! $76.95 tier. (ya, i did ask them to downgrade my connection, they refused)
BUT ITS MOAAAR!! DONT YA WANT MOAAR???
SURPRISE!
buttons
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,174
I think 7.1% is more accurate assessment. Sure, if you ask someone if they support this or that is one thing, but getting them to lift the phone to cancle/switch providers would not be 71%...
Xrave
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 7,816
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,993
I think 7.1% is too high, like you said they'll support it all day long, but lets take a power user, lets say you get 50Mbps from Comcast/Time Warner/etc they violate net neutrality what are you going to do? Go to DSL service? You willing to take that hit? Now lets take the average user, what if that DSL service that's run by AT&T also violates net neutrality?
Many large cities have more choices than Comcast & AT&T it's just a matter of people taking some time to find them. Both of them have such large numbers of subscribers simply because they do the most advertising making you think they are are the only options out there
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
I just switched TO FIOS. Ain't I the dumb-ass.
A list of progressively worse services is hardly what I call options. In Minneapolis your choices are cable (expensive), DSL (slower than cable but just as expensive), city-wide wifi (even slower than DSL yet manages to be the MOST expensive option) and fiber optic (only available in the 2 highest-income neighborhoods)
If you happen to live in an area with an abundance of good-value choices, chance are it's because one of those choices is broad-availability fiber optic, which forces the non-fiber ISPs to compete fairly. Everywhere else in the country (where there isn't any fiber optic) the cable company has a defacto monopoly.
The most obvious sign of this is Montecello MN, which installed it's own municipal fiber network a few years ago. After the fiber network went live, comcast was forced to drastically cut prices more than 50% for it's Montecello customers, in order to stay competitive.