Seeking Alpha

Ron Reed

View as an RSS Feed
View Ron Reed's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    And if that happens then you don't subscribe to NFLX and it solves the issue. Enough folks feel that 25.00 is too high and they will lower the price. It looks like everyone's argument is that they want low prices even if the Gov't has to step in to make them low. Guess what, that is socialist.
    Jan 15 11:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regulators back down over Volcker CDO provision [View news story]
    FWIW, if you are investing in CDO's you are given the rating up front, providing that the bank acts IAW its own charter and not with customer funds that are FDIC insured, they can do what they please. Less gov't interference is what is needed. The Volker rule is so complex that most small banks will never have the assets to even try to fully understand it, much less comply with it. So, they will be fined and folded into larger banks and that is not good for anyone. It reduces competition and just adds to the 'much too big to fail' banks that the gov't is creating. This is just a farce of so called public interest.
    Jan 15 08:04 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Oooh good one, I think I may have to steal that line.
    Jan 14 04:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Oh boy! Yeah, lets get the Government involved that will make the prices lower, speed service, and make it all more streamlined (all in jest). No, the Gov't has never streamlined or lowered the cost on anything. Spread the bill around for sure, but heck if you want that, just go into a poor neighborhood and pay to connect a block on your dime. The cost would likely be lower and you would help more people per dollar than the Gov't could. In fact, dollar for dollar, direct philanthropy and involvement is the most efficient way to do so. Because when it is your money you make sure it goes for good reason.

    I hit that note because that is the only reason I can see why you would make the argument, as folks with money will simply buy what they want/need and it only leaves the poor at a disadvantage. If I'm totally off base correct me please.
    Jan 14 02:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Chances are in fact you have several other options, you may or may not realize they exist. Even in the SE part of the state here where you may or may not have electricity, you always have two satellite companies for coverage. They are more expensive than the cell towers, but in fact there are options. They also offer much faster download speeds, although upload is about the same as DSL. Hand pump for water, generator for electricity, propane for fuel, and 15M download for entertainment. Odd priorities but everyone to his/her own.
    Jan 14 02:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    You are bringing a different subject into the matter, but, when you buy property you are given free use of extra property called easements, if/when that area is needed for use by public utilities they pay the local government and gain use. So you are not at a loss there, in fact you are at a gain since you were given free use of the area the whole time. As far as eminent domain, I think it is a crock for most applications, it is in effect a last ditch strong arm by the government.
    Jan 14 02:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    I don't think so. In fact I bet not, IF that happens I will switch providers or drop it entirely. I can assure you that more regulation only increases prices. Remember the regulations that were lifted off long distance and all of a sudden you had companies come in and compete and the prices dropped due to it.
    Jan 14 02:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    That is a rather silly reaction I think. You want lower prices, go to another service provider. I do not find that the prices are too high, I think there is plenty of competition to keep prices low. In fact you can get unlimited still on a plan for about 75.00 a month, that is very low in my book.

    in fact, getting an FCC rule dropped is exactly what any judge should do, get the Gov't out of the free market and stop over regulation. I'd much rather a company spend money on services rather than compliance with Gov't regulations. I don't think a lot of folks realize just how expensive it is to keep up with all the changes much less all the compliance cost.

    Guess you think we should just let the Gov't run it all and make it free huh?
    Jan 14 12:17 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Wait a minute, this sounds like the same debate that was listed for online music, is everyone trying to say that regardless of what amount of bandwidth you use you should pay the same? Why should I get to pay X and you pay X but I download gigs of data and slow you down? If you want or need more bandwidth then pay for it, it is a simple solution in my book.

    While I see the possibility for abuse by the corporations there is also abuse by the customers on the other side of the debate. I see more potential for abuse by customers than by the corporations. I do not see this as a big business debate, I see this as a good overall fair way to put the cost on those who use it most.
    Jan 14 11:41 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Trading halt on Frontier Communications [View news story]
    seems mr. market disagrees, +13.5% premarket
    Dec 17 07:55 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Devon to put Canadian gas assets up for sale as low prices bite [View news story]
    Because that has worked so well where? No argument, mgt' stinks, but an activist investor simply taking over or forcing a board change has not worked in any recent play that I recall. In fact, generally speaking, it causes such an upheaval that it tends to cause a certain short term drop and long road back to the same general valuation prior to the act.
    Dec 6 07:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Minus sector giants, mREITs head higher [View news story]
    Be careful there and ensure you include the dividend in the pricing of options for NLY, holding only the contract you will miss out on the div, so it is calculated as a loss as opposed to holding the stock.
    Dec 6 01:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Devon to put Canadian gas assets up for sale as low prices bite [View news story]
    Take a look at CHK, same situation there and the shakeup has done noting much, SD is the same way. I work closely with most of them here in OK. There needs to be a large investigation into how they spend and holder value.
    Dec 6 10:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Proof That Pandora's Growth Is Over [View article]
    Time to short another 1000 shares...
    Dec 4 10:46 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Banks about to get clarity on prop trading [View news story]
    As someone once commented to me about banking/investing regulation (sic) "...son, those guys are a hell of a lot smarter than we are, we can make any rule we want and they will make money on it..."
    Dec 3 04:44 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
273 Comments
195 Likes