🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
news:SsKdnSTcb9NhosTXnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com: 

> George wrote:
>> poldy wrote:
>>> In article <h3agad$i2n$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>  George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have been friends for years with a guy who owns two local theater
>>>> complexes. He says he literally makes pennies on a ticket and is 
>>>> totally dependent on concession sales to pay the bills and keep the
>>>> doors open.
>>>
>>> Well it may be justified to charge high prices for concessions in
>>> that case (although the profit margins would probably be very high
>>> even at half the prices they charge).
>>>
>>> But at ball parks, ski resorts, etc. where you have concessions on
>>> an exclusive basis, you get high prices for modest meals (like $10
>>> for a hamburger smaller than what you'd get at a McDonald's for $1).
>>>
>>> They're not struggling to survive just on those concession sales.
>> 
>> Different case there. The reason for high prices at the ball park is 
>> they demand big fees for a space or a very large percentage cut from
>> the concessionaires. Got to pay those $100 Million ball players
>> somehow after the taxpayers build them a free stadium.
> 
> Well the public is unlikely to pay to see players like you and me! 
> Those players spent just about their entire lives getting good at the 
> game.  The best are very good indeed!
> 
> 

Ted Williams was good.  Mickey Mantle was good.  Their inflation-adjusted 
salaries were a minute fraction of the AVERAGE salary today.

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> writes:

> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:04:18 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Touché.  Absolutely hilarious!
>>
>>Absolutely stupid.
>
> You've already introduced yourself.  No need to do it again.

Lame comment from a complete and utter idiot.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <7an6m.7394$cl4.2220@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>,
>  SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, you can buy McKenzie's book, _Why popcorn costs so much at the 
>> movies : and other pricing puzzles_  (copyright 2008) here:
> 
> Or, you can pick it up at your local library.

Yeah, at least some libraries. I looked for it at the library that I can 
see from my back yard, a beautiful new library building with a crappy 
collection, an obnoxious staff, and a 20th century computer system (but 
with a coffee house in the library) and they don't have that book. Four 
miles away is a library in an old sprawling building with various 
additions, but with a great collection and a competent staff, good 
Wi-Fi, and a good on-line catalog.

Sorry about the rant.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:26:06 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Yeah, at least some libraries. I looked for it at the library that I can 
>see from my back yard, a beautiful new library building with a crappy 
>collection, an obnoxious staff, and a 20th century computer system (but 
>with a coffee house in the library) and they don't have that book. Four 
>miles away is a library in an old sprawling building with various 
>additions, but with a great collection and a competent staff, good 
>Wi-Fi, and a good on-line catalog.

Most libraries offer online search and reversation web pages.  For
example, the Santa Cruz public library:
<https://catalog.santacruzpl.org/web2/tramp2.exe/log_in?SETTING_KEY=ENGLISH&guest=guest>
No need to deal with the obnoxious staff or onsite computer museum.
The problem locally is finding a convenient day or time when the local
library is open.  I usually search online what I need in advance. When
I pickup the book, I also like to browse the stacks to see what I've
missed.

For example, the book on popcorn price management is only available at
3 out of 12 libraries in Santa Cruz:
<https://catalog.santacruzpl.org/web2/tramp2.exe/do_authority_search/A0si9h9b.002?servers=1home&index=ti&material_filter=all&language_filter=all&location_filter=&location_group_filter=all&date_filter=all&query=Why+popcorn+costs+so+much+at+the+movies+%3A>

>Sorry about the rant.

Not a problem.  Your rant has content, something lacking in the other
one-line unsubstantiated comments.

I really liked the comment that carriers do no research and just buy
everything off the shelf.  I guess all the research labs and copious
techy papers I constantly read were all done for public relations.

For Verizon:
<http://www22.verizon.com/technologytesting/>
<http://www22.verizon.com/technologytesting/sit_lab_locations.html>
and AT&T:
<http://www.att.com/labs>
<http://www.research.att.com> (search for wireless)
and Sprint:
<http://www.sprintlabs.com>


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

In article <_1n6m.7391$cl4.731@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> They're not struggling to survive just on those concession sales.
> 
> Another way theaters make money is by extorting money from mall owners.
> 
> At the mall near me, an almost dead mall, one national chain opened a 
> very nice theater. They pay no rent to the mall for two years because 
> the construction of the theaters (paid for by the mall owners), was late 
> in getting completed, and the chain threatened to pull out otherwise. 
> The mall owners went broke, and the mall is in bankruptcy, after the 
> owners kept saying that the theater would revitalize the mall.
> 
> It's the only place at the mall that draws any crowds, and it's kind of 
> spooky to have this theater in the middle of an old mall that has almost 
> no stores left. A couple of food places (Cold Stone and frozen yogurt) 
> have opened near the theater. But no one is shopping at Macy's or 
> Victoria's Secrets after a movie.

AMC Theatres at Cupertino Square? Very nice theaters; I've wondered how 
such a lackluster mall ever got such a nice set of theaters. Last time 
we were there (two months ago?) they were upgrading one of the theaters 
to IMAX.

Steve

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

In article <I7o6m.3576$Ad2.1585@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <7an6m.7394$cl4.2220@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> >  SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Thanks, you can buy McKenzie's book, _Why popcorn costs so much at the 
> >> movies : and other pricing puzzles_  (copyright 2008) here:
> > 
> > Or, you can pick it up at your local library.
> 
> Yeah, at least some libraries. I looked for it at the library that I can 
> see from my back yard, a beautiful new library building with a crappy 
> collection, an obnoxious staff, and a 20th century computer system (but 
> with a coffee house in the library) and they don't have that book. Four 
> miles away is a library in an old sprawling building with various 
> additions, but with a great collection and a competent staff, good 
> Wi-Fi, and a good on-line catalog.
> 
> Sorry about the rant.

Which libraries are these? I see that Sunnyvale has it, so I'm guessing 
the former is Cupertino and the latter is Sunnyvale. Mountain View 
doesn't have it, either, but also doesn't have a coffee shop inside.

Steve

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> For example, the book on popcorn price management is only available at
> 3 out of 12 libraries in Santa Cruz:
> <https://catalog.santacruzpl.org/web2/tramp2.exe/do_authority_search/A0si9h9b.002?servers=1home&index=ti&material_filter=all&language_filter=all&location_filter=&location_group_filter=all&date_filter=all&query=Why+popcorn+costs+so+much+at+the+movies+%3A>

None of the eight county library branches in Santa Clara County it.

As far as city-operated libraries:

Sunnyvale's library has it.
Santa Clara's library has it.
Palo Alto's library has it.
None of San Jose's branches have it.

In general I've found that the collections at the libraries in the 
cities that opted out of the dysfunctional county system are much 
better. They also have much better staffs.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:46:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <tp3k551lokbr22u8git4eed9s5pesmm6if@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> Most libraries offer online search and reversation web pages.  For
>> example, the Santa Cruz public library:
>> <https://catalog.santacruzpl.org/web2/tramp2.exe/log_in?SETTING_KEY=ENGLISH&gu
>> est=guest>
>> No need to deal with the obnoxious staff or onsite computer museum.
>> The problem locally is finding a convenient day or time when the local
>> library is open. 
>
>7 days a week isn't convenient?

Nope.  I work roughly from noon to midnight.  Finding a library that's
open after midnight is rather difficult.  I sleep or shuffle paper in
the morning.

Here are the new and severely trimmed SCZ Public Library hours:
<http://www.santacruzpl.org/media/pdf/news/newhours.pdf>
Note the large number of days where the libraries are totally closed.
Also note that all SCZ libraries are closed on Fridays.  25 staff
positions were axed this month.  The survivors got a 10% pay cut in
the form of an unpaid furlough.  

I also live in Ben Lomond, which requires a major expedition to drive
to an open library to pickup books.  The nearest library (Boulder
Creek) is only open for 3 days and a total of 12 hours per week.
Incidentally, Ben Lomond had a library for many years, but couldn't
sustain it with an all volunteer staff.

>> For example, the book on popcorn price management is only available at
>> 3 out of 12 libraries in Santa Cruz:
>
>Um, don't they deliver it to the library of your choice, where it's 
>convenient for YOU to pick up?

Nope.  I can only reserve a book at the library where it's located. In
the distanta past I could can have it delivered to a different branch
for pickup.  I tried the transfer service about 4 times, none of which
worked well.  I'm not sure they even offer it any more as I couldn't
find it on the web pile:
<http://www.santacruzpl.org/services/detail/18/>
There's a $2.50 fee for books *NOT* picked up.  It's easier to keep
things simple and just pickup the book myself, or convince someone to
do it for me.



-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:20:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <7an6m.7394$cl4.2220@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>:

>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Touch�.  Absolutely hilarious!
>
>Thanks, you can buy McKenzie's book, _Why popcorn costs so much at the 
>movies : and other pricing puzzles_  (copyright 2008) here:
>
>"http://www.amazon.com/Why-Popcorn-Costs-Much-Movies/dp/0387769994"

Good advice.

>It's a good book for anyone that mistakenly believes that prices for 
>goods and services are based on the price to produce or provide that 
>good or service.

Total misunderstanding of the content.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:20:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <7an6m.7394$cl4.2220@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>:

>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Touch�.  Absolutely hilarious!
>
>Thanks, you can buy McKenzie's book, _Why popcorn costs so much at the 
>movies : and other pricing puzzles_  (copyright 2008) here:
>
>"http://www.amazon.com/Why-Popcorn-Costs-Much-Movies/dp/0387769994"
>
>It's a good book for anyone that mistakenly believes that prices for 
>goods and services are based on the price to produce or provide that 
>good or service.

"copyright 2008"
In other words, you knowingly violated the copyright, 
and without any attribution.  Why am I not surprised.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:20:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <7an6m.7394$cl4.2220@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>:
> 
>> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
<snip>
> "copyright 2008"
> In other words, you knowingly violated the copyright, 
> and without any attribution.  Why am I not surprised.
> 

Just how did he violate the copyright?  To do so he would have had to 
reproduce a substantial portion of the work and distribute it.  Quoting 
a paragragh or two is considered "fair use" q.v.

Copyright 2009 Richard B. Gilbert
All rights reserved.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:20:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <7an6m.7394$cl4.2220@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>:
>>
>>> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> <snip>
>> "copyright 2008"
>> In other words, you knowingly violated the copyright, and without any 
>> attribution.  Why am I not surprised.
>>
> 
> Just how did he violate the copyright?  To do so he would have had to 
> reproduce a substantial portion of the work and distribute it.  Quoting 
> a paragragh or two is considered "fair use" q.v.
> 
> Copyright 2009 Richard B. Gilbert
> All rights reserved.

I didn't quote _any_ of the book, I was simply stating what the 
copyright date was, so people would know that the book is of recent 
vintage. I've never even seen the book.

What chutzpah. Navas _routinely_ violates copyrights by posting entire 
news stories from other sources, yet he gets his panties in a bunch when 
someone includes the copyright date of a book!

He must sit at his computer all day thinking "what kind of random 
thoughts can I put up on Usenet so readers will continue to understand 
that I'm a moron."

Copyright 2009 Steven Scharf.

  All rights reserved. No part of this message may be reproduced, stored 
in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, 
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without 
prior written permission of the author.

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:20:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <7an6m.7394$cl4.2220@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>:
> 
>> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Touch�.  Absolutely hilarious!
>> Thanks, you can buy McKenzie's book, _Why popcorn costs so much at the 
>> movies : and other pricing puzzles_  (copyright 2008) here:
>>
>> "http://www.amazon.com/Why-Popcorn-Costs-Much-Movies/dp/0387769994"
>>
>> It's a good book for anyone that mistakenly believes that prices for 
>> goods and services are based on the price to produce or provide that 
>> good or service.
> 
> "copyright 2008"
> In other words, you knowingly violated the copyright, 
> and without any attribution.  Why am I not surprised.
> 

How exactly did he violate the copyright? He simply mentioned the title 
and did not include any content.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Touché.  Absolutely hilarious!
>
> Thanks, you can buy McKenzie's book, _Why popcorn costs so much at the
> movies : and other pricing puzzles_  (copyright 2008) here:
>
> "http://www.amazon.com/Why-Popcorn-Costs-Much-Movies/dp/0387769994"
>
> It's a good book for anyone that mistakenly believes that prices for
> goods and services are based on the price to produce or provide that
> good or service.

.... which is irrelevant to what was being discussed since the rules
are different for companies with a sizeable market share.  For
example, read
<http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/20939/compact_disc_antitrust_deal_finalized/>
to get an idea of what happens when very large companies try to
"charge what the market will bear" when there is no effective
competition.

Just because they can charge what the want for popcorn in a small
theater does not mean large telecommunication companies operate
under the same rules.


-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

In article <x9H6m.8962$8r.2710@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> What chutzpah. Navas _routinely_ violates copyrights by posting entire 
> news stories from other sources, yet he gets his panties in a bunch when 
> someone includes the copyright date of a book!

Nah...all he does is post press releases. I've never seen any depth.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <higgy-50990F.09175613072009@news.announcetech.com>,
>  John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
> 
>>> What chutzpah. Navas _routinely_ violates copyrights by posting entire 
>>> news stories from other sources, yet he gets his panties in a bunch when 
>>> someone includes the copyright date of a book!
>> Nah...all he does is post press releases. I've never seen any depth.
> 
> No, it's not true that ALL he does is post press releases.
> 
> He's perhaps most famous for his one-word responses to things he can't 
> actually debate.  "Nonsense" is perhaps his favorite.  He can't NOT say 
> something, but he doesn't actually have anything to say, so out comes 
> "Nonsense."

Good scramble.

Bill Z. wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
> 
>> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Touché.  Absolutely hilarious!
>> Thanks, you can buy McKenzie's book, _Why popcorn costs so much at the
>> movies : and other pricing puzzles_  (copyright 2008) here:
>>
>> "http://www.amazon.com/Why-Popcorn-Costs-Much-Movies/dp/0387769994"
>>
>> It's a good book for anyone that mistakenly believes that prices for
>> goods and services are based on the price to produce or provide that
>> good or service.
> 
> .... which is irrelevant to what was being discussed since the rules
> are different for companies with a sizeable market share.  For
> example, read
> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/20939/compact_disc_antitrust_deal_finalized/>
> to get an idea of what happens when very large companies try to
> "charge what the market will bear" when there is no effective
> competition.
> 
> Just because they can charge what the want for popcorn in a small
> theater does not mean large telecommunication companies operate
> under the same rules.
> 
> 

The telephone companies (wired) are "regulated monopolies".  The state 
government regulates intrastate rates; e.g. NJ to NJ.  The federal 
government regulates interstate rates.

I don't know who regulates cellular phone rates.  For all I know celluar 
phone companies may not be regulated by anyone.

I pay something like $70/month for two cell phones.  I doubt if we use 
ten minutes a month.

It's worth that $70/month to know that my wife and I can reach each 
other almost instantly no matter where we are and that we can summon a 
policeman, an ambulance or a fire company wherever we are and whenever 
we need such a thing.  It's also most helpful to be able to call when we 
are shopping for food in the super market: "Where are you?"  "Aisle 17!"

Our usage may be atypical.  The other extreme is the woman with a 
bluetooth dongle in her ear talking with one person or another from dawn 
till 11PM.

In article <rsmdnXE-TYi_LMbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

> The telephone companies (wired) are "regulated monopolies".  The state 
> government regulates intrastate rates; e.g. NJ to NJ.  The federal 
> government regulates interstate rates.

And we're only talking the charge for basic telephone service. Features 
and add-ons (including some of those mysterious charges that don't make 
any sense) are whatever the traffic will bear.

> I don't know who regulates cellular phone rates.  For all I know celluar 
> phone companies may not be regulated by anyone.

That would be the marketplace.

> It's worth that $70/month to know that my wife and I can reach each 
> other almost instantly no matter where we are and that we can summon a 
> policeman, an ambulance or a fire company wherever we are and whenever 
> we need such a thing.  It's also most helpful to be able to call when we 
> are shopping for food in the super market: "Where are you?"  "Aisle 17!"

And that's how it's priced: if you'll pay it, they'll charge it.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon wrote:
> In article <rsmdnXE-TYi_LMbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> The telephone companies (wired) are "regulated monopolies".  The state 
>> government regulates intrastate rates; e.g. NJ to NJ.  The federal 
>> government regulates interstate rates.
> 
> And we're only talking the charge for basic telephone service. Features 
> and add-ons (including some of those mysterious charges that don't make 
> any sense) are whatever the traffic will bear.
> 
>> I don't know who regulates cellular phone rates.  For all I know celluar 
>> phone companies may not be regulated by anyone.
> 
> That would be the marketplace.
> 
>> It's worth that $70/month to know that my wife and I can reach each 
>> other almost instantly no matter where we are and that we can summon a 
>> policeman, an ambulance or a fire company wherever we are and whenever 
>> we need such a thing.  It's also most helpful to be able to call when we 
>> are shopping for food in the super market: "Where are you?"  "Aisle 17!"
> 
> And that's how it's priced: if you'll pay it, they'll charge it.
> 

Since the alternative is to not have cell phones, I think I will 
continue to pay.

John Higdon wrote:

> And that's how it's priced: if you'll pay it, they'll charge it.

Well it seems like the carriers have followed classic pricing theory and 
made essentially the same product available to different market segments 
for wildly different prices.

If I want to buy popcorn at the movie theater, I'm pretty much screwed, 
all the theaters charge exorbitant prices, and unless there happens to 
be a coupon available, there is no way to lower the price. If I want 
1000 peak minutes and 1000 texts a month on Verizon's network, I could 
pay anywhere from $30 to well over $140.

In article <wkQ6m.13121$j84.5121@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> If I want to buy popcorn at the movie theater, I'm pretty much screwed, 
> all the theaters charge exorbitant prices, and unless there happens to 
> be a coupon available, there is no way to lower the price. If I want 
> 1000 peak minutes and 1000 texts a month on Verizon's network, I could 
> pay anywhere from $30 to well over $140.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a commodity (and cellphone service IS a 
commodity now) that isn't priced that way. It is hard to find any 
provider that offers just what you want, so you make service and pricing 
compromises accordingly. You make up your service requirement list 
(decent audio, minute pricing, text plans, areas served, roaming 
agreements, etc., etc.) and then you shop. Ultimately, you decide what's 
expendable, knock it off the list, and you select your carrier and plan.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon wrote:

> I'd be hard pressed to think of a commodity (and cellphone service IS a 
> commodity now) that isn't priced that way. It is hard to find any 
> provider that offers just what you want, so you make service and pricing 
> compromises accordingly. You make up your service requirement list 
> (decent audio, minute pricing, text plans, areas served, roaming 
> agreements, etc., etc.) and then you shop. Ultimately, you decide what's 
> expendable, knock it off the list, and you select your carrier and plan.

Perhaps we need a cell phone education class in school. I'm sure Bill Z. 
is not alone in not being aware of what's available, he's just the most 
obnoxious about it.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:9uR6m.3635$Ad2.29@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com: 

> John Higdon wrote:
> 
>> I'd be hard pressed to think of a commodity (and cellphone service IS
>> a commodity now) that isn't priced that way. It is hard to find any 
>> provider that offers just what you want, so you make service and
>> pricing compromises accordingly. You make up your service requirement
>> list (decent audio, minute pricing, text plans, areas served, roaming
>> agreements, etc., etc.) and then you shop. Ultimately, you decide
>> what's expendable, knock it off the list, and you select your carrier
>> and plan. 
> 
> Perhaps we need a cell phone education class in school. I'm sure Bill
> Z. is not alone in not being aware of what's available, he's just the
> most obnoxious about it.
> 

I wouldn't stop at cellphones.  The fact is that the great majority of 
today's technology operates at levels that most consumers aren't equipped 
for.

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message news:J62dnTM15LE5UcbXnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4p2d@giganews.com...
> John Higdon wrote:
>> In article <rsmdnXE-TYi_LMbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>  "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> It's worth that $70/month to know that my wife and I can reach each 
>>> other almost instantly no matter where we are and that we can summon a 
>>> policeman, an ambulance or a fire company wherever we are and whenever 
>>> we need such a thing.  It's also most helpful to be able to call when we 
>>> are shopping for food in the super market: "Where are you?"  "Aisle 17!"
>> 
>> And that's how it's priced: if you'll pay it, they'll charge it.
>> 
> 
> Since the alternative is to not have cell phones, I think I will 
> continue to pay.

No, the alternative is to get much cheaper prepaid service.
Mine costs me $10 per year (T-Mobile).

-- 
John Richards

John Richards wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message news:J62dnTM15LE5UcbXnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> John Higdon wrote:
>>> In article <rsmdnXE-TYi_LMbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>  "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's worth that $70/month to know that my wife and I can reach each 
>>>> other almost instantly no matter where we are and that we can summon a 
>>>> policeman, an ambulance or a fire company wherever we are and whenever 
>>>> we need such a thing.  It's also most helpful to be able to call when we 
>>>> are shopping for food in the super market: "Where are you?"  "Aisle 17!"
>>> And that's how it's priced: if you'll pay it, they'll charge it.
>>>
>> Since the alternative is to not have cell phones, I think I will 
>> continue to pay.
> 
> No, the alternative is to get much cheaper prepaid service.
> Mine costs me $10 per year (T-Mobile).

To summon a policeman, an ambulance or a fire company doesn't cost 
anything per year.

John Richards wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message news:J62dnTM15LE5UcbXnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> John Higdon wrote:
>>> In article <rsmdnXE-TYi_LMbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>  "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's worth that $70/month to know that my wife and I can reach each 
>>>> other almost instantly no matter where we are and that we can summon a 
>>>> policeman, an ambulance or a fire company wherever we are and whenever 
>>>> we need such a thing.  It's also most helpful to be able to call when we 
>>>> are shopping for food in the super market: "Where are you?"  "Aisle 17!"
>>> And that's how it's priced: if you'll pay it, they'll charge it.
>>>
>> Since the alternative is to not have cell phones, I think I will 
>> continue to pay.
> 
> No, the alternative is to get much cheaper prepaid service.
> Mine costs me $10 per year (T-Mobile).
> 

Does VZW offer such a thing?  The best reason for using VZW is that they 
have better coverage than their competition almost anywhere in the country.

SMS wrote:
> John Richards wrote:
>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>> news:J62dnTM15LE5UcbXnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> John Higdon wrote:
>>>> In article <rsmdnXE-TYi_LMbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>  "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's worth that $70/month to know that my wife and I can reach each 
>>>>> other almost instantly no matter where we are and that we can 
>>>>> summon a policeman, an ambulance or a fire company wherever we are 
>>>>> and whenever we need such a thing.  It's also most helpful to be 
>>>>> able to call when we are shopping for food in the super market: 
>>>>> "Where are you?"  "Aisle 17!"
>>>> And that's how it's priced: if you'll pay it, they'll charge it.
>>>>
>>> Since the alternative is to not have cell phones, I think I will 
>>> continue to pay.
>>
>> No, the alternative is to get much cheaper prepaid service.
>> Mine costs me $10 per year (T-Mobile).
> 
> To summon a policeman, an ambulance or a fire company doesn't cost 
> anything per year.

How does that work?  You would need a cell phone (not free) and a 
provider (also not free).  Here in NJ, somebody is modifying used cell 
phones to ONLY work for calls to 911.  As I understand it, it's free for 
senior citizens.  I haven't heard that this practice is widespread.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Does VZW offer such a thing?  The best reason for using VZW is that they 
> have better coverage than their competition almost anywhere in the country.

You can't get Verizon network prepaid for $10/year. The minimum cost is 
$30 per year (about $10 refill every 120 days) on PagePlus, a Verizon MVNO.

Well technically you can get outgoing-only coverage on Verizon (and all 
other CDMA & AMPS networks) for $10 a year using the American Roaming 
Network (ARN), but it's not something most people would be interested in 
doing.

As you stated, Verizon has the best coverage of any carrier.  But if you 
can live with T-Mobile coverage than their prepaid is a good deal for 
very light users.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:50:25 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
<G76dnRDAUM2W7MHXnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>SMS wrote:

>> To summon a policeman, an ambulance or a fire company doesn't cost 
>> anything per year.
>
>How does that work?  You would need a cell phone (not free) and a

But nothing "per year".
 
>provider (also not free).  

Free.  All carriers are required to take 911 calls, even from
non-subscribers

>ere in NJ, somebody is modifying used cell 
>phones to ONLY work for calls to 911.  As I understand it, it's free for 
>senior citizens.  I haven't heard that this practice is widespread.

It's unnecessary.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:41:52 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
<VLCdnVOW0vmX8sHXnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>Does VZW offer such a thing?  The best reason for using VZW is that they 
>have better coverage than their competition almost anywhere in the country.

AT&T coverage is at least as good.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:55:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <Xl_6m.7854$Wj7.6652@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>:

>As you stated, Verizon has the best coverage of any carrier.  

AT&T has the best coverage of any carrier.

>ut if you 
>can live with T-Mobile coverage than their prepaid is a good deal for 
>very light users.

T-Mobile prepaid is actually a good deal for users at any usage level,
as anyone knows that's actually looked at the available options.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> How does that work?  You would need a cell phone (not free) and a 
> provider (also not free).  Here in NJ, somebody is modifying used cell 
> phones to ONLY work for calls to 911.  As I understand it, it's free for 
> senior citizens.  I haven't heard that this practice is widespread.

Any phone, even a de-activated phone, will call 911 for free.

A unregistered CDMA phone can be used to make calls via American Roaming 
Network. The minimum cost per year is $10 (10 minutes for $10).

"http://www.americanroaming.com/retail_home.php"

You buy outgoing minutes that are good for one year.

120 minutes for $30.00
$0.25 per minute

60 minutes for $20.00
$0.33 per minute

10 minutes for $10.00
$1.00 per minute

You're right, there is the cost of the phone, so it's not "free" but the 
monthly charges are very low.

SMS wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> 
>> How does that work?  You would need a cell phone (not free) and a 
>> provider (also not free).  Here in NJ, somebody is modifying used cell 
>> phones to ONLY work for calls to 911.  As I understand it, it's free 
>> for senior citizens.  I haven't heard that this practice is widespread.
> 
> Any phone, even a de-activated phone, will call 911 for free.
> 
> A unregistered CDMA phone can be used to make calls via American Roaming 
> Network. The minimum cost per year is $10 (10 minutes for $10).
> 
> "http://www.americanroaming.com/retail_home.php"
> 
> You buy outgoing minutes that are good for one year.
> 
> 120 minutes for $30.00
> $0.25 per minute
> 
> 60 minutes for $20.00
> $0.33 per minute
> 
> 10 minutes for $10.00
> $1.00 per minute
> 
> You're right, there is the cost of the phone, so it's not "free" but the 
> monthly charges are very low.
> 
> 
> 

I suspect that one would have to pay the full list price of the phone or 
something close to it.  They get your money one way or another! 
TANSTAAFL!  (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!)

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:11:38 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
<rsmdnXE-TYi_LMbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>> Just because they can charge what the want for popcorn in a small
>> theater does not mean large telecommunication companies operate
>> under the same rules.
>
>The telephone companies (wired) are "regulated monopolies".  The state 
>government regulates intrastate rates; e.g. NJ to NJ.  The federal 
>government regulates interstate rates.

ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers) are no longer monopolies, and
have been significantly deregulated (e.g., by the Telecommunications Act
of 1996).

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

In article <kOSdnRD50_umPMHXnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

> I suspect that one would have to pay the full list price of the phone or 
> something close to it.  They get your money one way or another! 
> TANSTAAFL!  (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!)

If it is a GSM phone, it also needs a SIM card...which does not come 
with the phone, but is suppled by the carrier. I don't know of any 
carriers that hand out "deactivated" SIM cards that still supply the 
phone with the necessary information to use the system.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> I suspect that one would have to pay the full list price of the phone or 
> something close to it.  They get your money one way or another! 
> TANSTAAFL!  (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!)

No, they don't even sell phones. What you need is to get the carrier to 
unregister an old handset.

In message <G76dnRDAUM2W7MHXnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com> "Richard B.
Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> was claimed to have wrote:

>How does that work?  You would need a cell phone (not free) 

Prepaid phones are close to free, as is finding someone tossing out an
old junker and offering them a few dollars.

>and a provider (also not free).  

No provider needed, per federal law in the US (and Canada) calls to 911
will always succeed.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:34:47 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> How does that work?  You would need a cell phone (not free) and a
>> provider (also not free).  Here in NJ, somebody is modifying used cell
>> phones to ONLY work for calls to 911.  As I understand it, it's free for
>> senior citizens.  I haven't heard that this practice is widespread.
>
> Any phone, even a de-activated phone, will call 911 for free.
>
> A unregistered CDMA phone can be used to make calls via American Roaming
> Network. The minimum cost per year is $10 (10 minutes for $10).
>
> "http://www.americanroaming.com/retail_home.php"
>
> You buy outgoing minutes that are good for one year.
>
> 120 minutes for $30.00
> $0.25 per minute
>
> 60 minutes for $20.00
> $0.33 per minute
>
> 10 minutes for $10.00
> $1.00 per minute
>
> You're right, there is the cost of the phone, so it's not "free" but the
> monthly charges are very low.

So let me see: I've inherited an old Sprint PCS TouchPoint TP2200
from a student who graduated, left the country, and had no use for
the handset in his (GSM-using) home country.

Likewise for an even older AT&T-branded Nokia 2260. Questions:

(a) Is either of these a handset American Roaming can handle?

(b) Do I need to know (I don't) the 10-digit phone number it
has/had with Sprint or AT&T, or do American Roaming just 
assign a new one regardless?

 And

(c) Do these use CDMA technology? TDMA? AMPS? other?
(No SIM carrier, so *not* GSM :-) .)

Thanks for any relevant info! And cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

tlvp wrote:

> (a) Is either of these a handset American Roaming can handle?

Any CDMA/AMPS handset that you can convince the carrier to unregister. 
If the handset is registered to the carrier, even if not active, you 
will get a recording telling you to contact the carrier, rather than the 
ARN prompts, and it won't work.

> (b) Do I need to know (I don't) the 10-digit phone number it
> has/had with Sprint or AT&T, or do American Roaming just 
> assign a new one regardless?

You don't get a phone number. Outgoing only.

> (c) Do these use CDMA technology? TDMA? AMPS? other?
> (No SIM carrier, so *not* GSM :-) .)

CDMA/AMPS.


Seriously, for most users, PagePlus, at less than $30 a year and 12 
cents per minute max is better option than ARN at $10/year and $1 a 
minute max.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:17:20 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> tlvp wrote:
>
>> (a) Is either of these a handset American Roaming can handle?
>
> Any CDMA/AMPS handset that you can convince the carrier to unregister.
> If the handset is registered to the carrier, even if not active, you
> will get a recording telling you to contact the carrier, rather than the
> ARN prompts, and it won't work.
>
>> (b) Do I need to know (I don't) the 10-digit phone number it
>> has/had with Sprint or AT&T, or do American Roaming just
>> assign a new one regardless?
>
> You don't get a phone number. Outgoing only.

And what will Caller-ID (or ANI) show the recipient of any call I make?
Just "Wireless Caller"? with no number?

>> (c) Do these use CDMA technology? TDMA? AMPS? other?
>> (No SIM carrier, so *not* GSM :-) .)
>
> CDMA/AMPS.
>
>
> Seriously, for most users, PagePlus, at less than $30 a year and 12
> cents per minute max is better option than ARN at $10/year and $1 a
> minute max.

Both these handsets can (in principle) send/receive SMS messages, and the
Sprint PCS phone even has some rudimentary WAP browser. I take it such
functionality won't be supported by ARN? Or will it? How about by PagePlus?

Thanks on all fronts, SMS. And cheers, -- tlvp 



-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

tlvp wrote:

> And what will Caller-ID (or ANI) show the recipient of any call I make?
> Just "Wireless Caller"? with no number?

I don't know. Maybe like the caller-ID that shows up with Skype Out, 
some incomprehensible string, or maybe "unknown."

> Both these handsets can (in principle) send/receive SMS messages, and the
> Sprint PCS phone even has some rudimentary WAP browser. I take it such
> functionality won't be supported by ARN? Or will it? How about by PagePlus?

ARN doesn't support it AFAIK.

PagePlus supports data ($1.20/MB) and SMS (8 cents). All backdoor 
Verizon voice-mail numbers work. You can send texts from a computer with 
the Verizon formatted e-mail address, or from the Verizon portal.

In article <4a5ec5b9$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, 
scharf.steven@geemail.com says...

> > (b) Do I need to know (I don't) the 10-digit phone number it
> > has/had with Sprint or AT&T, or do American Roaming just 
> > assign a new one regardless?
> 
> You don't get a phone number. Outgoing only.
> 
> > (c) Do these use CDMA technology? TDMA? AMPS? other?
> > (No SIM carrier, so *not* GSM :-) .)
> 
> CDMA/AMPS.

Correction. The AT&T-branded Nokia 2260 is TDMA. AT&T used to be TDMA, 
and in, Nokia's old model numbering system xx60 = 800MHz TDMA.

The Sprint phone would be CDMA unless it was a really, REALLY old Sprint 
Spectrum phone, in which case it's GSM.

-- 
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjsobol@JustThe.net

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:30:08 -0400, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> tlvp wrote:
>
>> And what will Caller-ID (or ANI) show the recipient of any call I make?
>> Just "Wireless Caller"? with no number?
>
> I don't know. Maybe like the caller-ID that shows up with Skype Out,
> some incomprehensible string, or maybe "unknown."

OK, fair enough, I guess.

>> Both these handsets can (in principle) send/receive SMS messages, and the
>> Sprint PCS phone even has some rudimentary WAP browser. I take it such
>> functionality won't be supported by ARN? Or will it? How about by PagePlus?
>
> ARN doesn't support it AFAIK.
>
> PagePlus supports data ($1.20/MB) and SMS (8 cents). All backdoor
> Verizon voice-mail numbers work. You can send texts from a computer with
> the Verizon formatted e-mail address, or from the Verizon portal.

But your own PagePlus-subscribed phone gets no phone number?
Can the recipient of an 8 cent SMS sent from a PagePlus-subscribed
handset *reply* successfully?

Anyway, thanks for these bits of information -- a lot more than I had before :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:42:45 -0400, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:

> In article <4a5ec5b9$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>
>> > (b) Do I need to know (I don't) the 10-digit phone number it
>> > has/had with Sprint or AT&T, or do American Roaming just
>> > assign a new one regardless?
>>
>> You don't get a phone number. Outgoing only.
>>
>> > (c) Do these use CDMA technology? TDMA? AMPS? other?
>> > (No SIM carrier, so *not* GSM :-) .)
>>
>> CDMA/AMPS.
>
> Correction. The AT&T-branded Nokia 2260 is TDMA. AT&T used to be TDMA,
> and in, Nokia's old model numbering system xx60 = 800MHz TDMA.
>
> The Sprint phone would be CDMA unless it was a really, REALLY old Sprint
> Spectrum phone, in which case it's GSM.

Thanks, Steve, TDMA for the at&t Nokia 2260 sounds more believable.
The Sprint phone isn't apt to be GSM, as it has no SIM or SIM carrier,
hence is, as you say, more likely to be CDMA (or maybe dual CDMA/AMPS).

Always welcome fresh clarification :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Steve Sobol wrote:

> Correction. The AT&T-branded Nokia 2260 is TDMA. AT&T used to be TDMA,
> and in, Nokia's old model numbering system xx60 = 800MHz TDMA.

I had a Nokia phone modelled 3660, but that had GSM 900/1800 (at least).
;-)

I was roaming on VoiceStream in New York in 2001 with a Motorola T260
and GPRS worked, but I didn't use it much because of fright of exorbi-
tant billing (with a German contract), but they never charged for that.

Outgoing was 0,89 EUR, incoming about 3 USD for calls. Incoming SMs
were free as some of the outgoing (in despite of outgoing SMs sent).

Cheers Dirk

poldy wrote:
> In article <h3agad$i2n$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I have been friends for years with a guy who owns two local theater 
>> complexes. He says he literally makes pennies on a ticket and is totally 
>> dependent on concession sales to pay the bills and keep the doors open.
> 
> Well it may be justified to charge high prices for concessions in that 
> case (although the profit margins would probably be very high even at 
> half the prices they charge).

I checked the book _Why Popcorn Costs so Much at the Movies_ out of the 
library and it's pretty interesting. The basic issue with movie theaters 
is that the studios get a percentage of the retail price of each ticket 
sold, from 70-95% depending on the film (blockbuster films are higher). 
So the movie theater owner wants to minimize the ticket price since he 
gets so little of it, and increase attendance so he can sell more 
concessions where the margins are over 95% on popcorn and soda.

For wireless, it's a similar deal. The carrier wants as many subscribers 
as possible, knowing that a certain percentage will be price-insensitive 
and will buy the add-on services which have a huge margin. The way to do 
that is to keep the basic service price relatively low, and charge high 
prices for add-ons like texting, ringtones, extra peak minutes, and data.

 > But at ball parks, ski resorts, etc. where you have concessions on an
 > exclusive basis, you get high prices for modest meals (like $10 for a
 > hamburger smaller than what you'd get at a McDonald's for $1).
 >
 > They're not struggling to survive just on those concession sales.

They still have to generate enough revenue, from all sources combined, 
to pay the staff (including players on a team), and overhead. They're 
not sending a big chunk of the money to a third party, like the movie 
theater owners, but they still have to keep admission tickets at a price 
where they can hopefully fill the park. That's not a problem in NYC, but 
it's a big issue in places with smaller populations.

I wonder about wine prices at restaurants. I'd happily pay $15 for a 
bottle of wine that costs $7.50 at a store, but I won't pay the typical 
$25-30 that a restaurant charges for that bottle. Clearly the restaurant 
has figured that there are making more money marking the wine up 300% 
and selling a lot less of it, that they would by marking it up 100% and 
selling a lot more of it. Now if they could identify the patrons that 
would pay $15 but not $30, and somehow offer only them the lower price, 
they'd make more money, but often there are state laws restricting 
discounts and coupons on alcohol in restaurants.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:47:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>I checked the book _Why Popcorn Costs so Much at the Movies_ out of the 
>library and it's pretty interesting. The basic issue with movie theaters 
>is that the studios get a percentage of the retail price of each ticket 
>sold, from 70-95% depending on the film (blockbuster films are higher). 

Methinks you might want to slightly ammend those numbers.  See:
<http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/>
The studios get about 70-80% during opening week, which drops to about
35% after a month or so.  Actually, that's also wrong.  The studios
don't get everything.  The studios contract with a distribution
company, which rents the film to the theaters.  I have no idea how the
costs are split between the studio and the distributor.

Also see:
<http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution.htm>
The above article is several pages long.  On the 3rd page is a chart
showing that the theaters take a net loss for the first two weeks, and
only make money after the 3rd or 4th week.  It also includes this
comment on popcorn sales:
  The movie itself is considered a loss leader by the theater owner:
  It is meant to get people into the theater. The theater makes its
  money selling refreshments to the movie audience. That's why
  concessions are so expensive -- without the profits generated by
  things like popcorn and soda, most theaters could not afford to stay
  in business. 

Perhaps they should be more honest and change the name from "movie
theater" to "popcorn and soda theater"?


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:47:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I checked the book _Why Popcorn Costs so Much at the Movies_ out of the 
>> library and it's pretty interesting. The basic issue with movie theaters 
>> is that the studios get a percentage of the retail price of each ticket 
>> sold, from 70-95% depending on the film (blockbuster films are higher). 
> 
> Methinks you might want to slightly ammend those numbers.  See:
> <http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/>
> The studios get about 70-80% during opening week, which drops to about
> 35% after a month or so. 

It's rare to see a movie last more than two weeks, let alone a month, at 
any theater near me. Sometimes you'll get a blockbuster staying for more 
than two weeks, but the theaters don't like doing that either because 
they end up having to accept discount passes.

SMS wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:47:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I checked the book _Why Popcorn Costs so Much at the Movies_ out of 
>>> the library and it's pretty interesting. The basic issue with movie 
>>> theaters is that the studios get a percentage of the retail price of 
>>> each ticket sold, from 70-95% depending on the film (blockbuster 
>>> films are higher). 
>>
>> Methinks you might want to slightly ammend those numbers.  See:
>> <http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/>
>> The studios get about 70-80% during opening week, which drops to about
>> 35% after a month or so. 
> 
> It's rare to see a movie last more than two weeks, let alone a month, at 
> any theater near me. Sometimes you'll get a blockbuster staying for more 
> than two weeks, but the theaters don't like doing that either because 
> they end up having to accept discount passes.

According to my theater owning friend it also has to do with gambling if 
a movie will be a flop or not. He said he needs to pay so much per week 
plus the lions share of the ticket sales. He also has to make the 
decision on booking the movie way before the movie is even marketed to 
the public.

George wrote:

> According to my theater owning friend it also has to do with gambling if 
> a movie will be a flop or not. He said he needs to pay so much per week 
> plus the lions share of the ticket sales. He also has to make the 
> decision on booking the movie way before the movie is even marketed to 
> the public.

I guess it's better just to wait for the DVD to be available. I bought 
Bill Maher's movie, Religulous, from one of those machines is a 
supermarket. For some reason, both the new and used price of some DVDs, 
even ones that aren't all that popular, are really high. The RedBox 
machine sold me Religulous (used, not in the original box) for $7, while 
Rasputin wanted $20.