| I dont agree that a duopoly is uncompetative.. honestly, my feelings here; 2 competitors present the best competition because there is an enormous amount of funds to be made and when all services can be lost to the competition, its make or break. This makes it a hotbed for cutting edge technology and the cheapest price.
I cant say enough that more competition throws all this out the window. We see this now, look at rural, the claim, if I understand correctly, is that there may not be enough of a profit to be made to justify building the network there. The candy bar just isnt all that great when it is broken up into 15 pieces and we get one taste. |
| No, two competitors may be better than a pure monopoly, but the market dynamics are very poor. They prevent each other from the most egregious overpricing, but otherwise try not to "play chicken" and lessen mutual profits. It takes about four vendors to create a voluntary wholesale market, which genuinely opens up service competition.
Since it's not realistic or sensible for four vendors to pull wire to the home (it is a natural monopoly), the wire should be regulated and available at wholesale to service providers (ISPs and LECs). BPL was an attempt to pretend that there were three providers, to give the FCC an excuse to close off the ILEC wire from wholesale ISP access. It was a fraud, plain and simple. It also wiped out the 3-30 MHz radio spectrum. If anybody else used radio spectrum, outside of narrow Part 15 bands, they'd need to get a license, probably via auction. BPL was a massive giveaway of irreplaceable spectrum to the energy industry. Hmmm, what regime is in bed with the energy industry? |
