me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | More proff that we need competiton. Those in a monopoly area pay $44.70 on average, and those with 4+ pay $32.10 on average. Thats over $12 less a month. |
|
1 edit | said by me1212:Those in a monopoly area pay $44.70 on average, and those with 4+ pay $32.10 on average. Thats over $12 less a month. And if that disparity in prices persists that will draw in competitors to the overpriced areas.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| It can't, not with franchise agreements in place. Not to mention the large carriers have economy of scale on their side. |
|
| said by sonicmerlin:It can't, not with franchise agreements in place. Not to mention the large carriers have economy of scale on their side. Your 1st point is invalid. Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal. Nothing prevents a competitor from going in and getting a franchise in an existing area and overbuilding.
Your 2nd point is entirely accurate. It is hard to move in to existing areas and undercut the prices of the national providers like Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Cox, etc. But it can be done.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:And if that disparity in prices persists that will draw in competitors to the overpriced areas. not likely and unsupported by facts. I have been in a monopoly market, paying that extra $12/mo, for several years.
- the barrier to entry to the market is very high because the lack of line sharing means any new entrant must overbuild.
- Having to overbuild means deep pockets and likely little or no profit in the first few years of operation; note the current incumbents didn't have this issue because they were granted govt monopolies initially; also, any new entrant would be susceptible to being forced out of the market in short order by the incumbent underpricing service for just long enough to force the new entrant to go bankrupt or leave the market
- having to overbuild means it is EXTREMELY unlikely a market would get more than one new entrant, leaving a duopoly market, better than a monopoly, but not much.
the U.S. broadband market is not competitive and is unlikely to become competitive in the near future. at the current time the govt has no stomach for taking the steps required to create a competitive market.
the broadband stimulus plan will likely be a colossal failure and a huge waste of money. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Yes, because ever since they have gutted the 1996 reform act the competition has just flourished hasn't it?
Though I won't debate with you because your pro-business view from that pile of sand you have your head in prevents you from even seeing there is a problem to begin with.
Barrier of entry and networks that were built on the backs of the people they serve (or more appropriate, dont). - That is all I need to say about both the telecom and cable companies. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
What do you mean? Municipalities frequently grant franchise agreements to cable companies. There have also been many stories on this site about DSL or cable companies preventing municipalities from building their own networks. |
|
| said by sonicmerlin:What do you mean? Municipalities frequently grant franchise agreements to cable companies. Sure, they grant franchises. But they are no longer EXCLUSIVE, like they used to be 15 years ago. By FCC decision, franchises can NOT be exclusive and shut out competitors.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
