I firmly agree with number 2, though this is far from how it really is. As for 1 & 3 I believe you have the right to get the service you pay for and contractual obligations are binding. ________________________________ From: plug-discuss-bounces@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us [mailto:plug-discuss-bounces@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Joshua Zeidner Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:02 PM To: Main PLUG discussion list Subject: Re: COX Communications Sucks (Was: moving e-mail) On 5/30/07, Bryan O'Neal wrote: Yes, basic market rules say if there is money to be made people move in to make money. No one will enter a market if there is no demand for the product or service, or the demand is not high enough to make a profit. Arbitrage rules say that if the product or service can be given with a lower cost (thus higher profit) by a competitor or a competitor has greater tolerance to a thinner margin then the competitor will enter the market. If there is competition in the market place and excess demand is not met, then the supply goes up and the price goes down. If the price goes down a new supply/demand intersection is reached with a greater demand and supply. The longer this goes on with excess demand (thus a larger initial price and no steep price point steps) then the lower the final price will be. In other words the first person in the filed has a high barrier to entry, and unless there is a payback they will not enter. The larger the payback and the greater the demand the more people who are willing to cross that barrier for a piece of the action. As more people enter the field two things happen, the barriers become lower and the competition (supply) becomes greater, thus if you follow the demand curve the price drops. There are endless examples, but since we are on the subject, let us look at cell phones. The original cell phones weighed a few pounds and were the size of bricks, only a few carriers (AT&T) had them and fewer people (Motorola) created them. If only a few very few people were interested in them we would not be as far as we are in cell phone tech. However many people wanted them and were willing to pay outrageous prices for them, infrastructure was built to handle them and to build them. People poured money into R&D to make them cheaper so their profit would be greater (Since competition was driving down the price) this allowed them to drop the price more and offer better product thus capturing more market at the same or better margins and creating greater profit, and others followed, thus the game cycles it's self through until you arrive at were we are now. The reason people in Japan have more features is because they demand it and are willing to pay for it. We (as an economic collective) are not. As far as regulation, there are two reasons for it. To provide protectionist incentives to the first entries into market (thus ensuring they can pay back their initial investment) and two protect the public at large (need I remind people of thalidomide). Then you have incentives, and no one can dispute the effects of projects like the Tennessee Valley Rive Authority. However the political question becomes when you can eliminate the protectionist aspects of an industry. For the most part the Telecom industry has had their protectionist incentives removed (save the most basic nature of the regional Telco structure) and what has not been removed is being phased out. However, we are now in the midst of the imposition of additional protectionist schemes (Ted Stevens fight agents net neutrality). And yes, your argument was better then the typical winning I hear, but I hear so much of it I sometimes lump it all together when I should not. But I stand firm that all things cost, there is no such thing a free lunch, there are unlimited desires and limited resources to fill those desires, and that a free market driven economy is the best way to distribute those resources. the situation is quite complex and is wrought with much sketchy behavior on the part of the major telecoms. I will try and be as concise as possible here. The issue is the normalization (because the world 'regulation' is unacceptable in some circles) of the 'communication product'. I should be gauranteed certain things as a consumer, and these things are implicitly expected by the public. Amongst them are, 1) fast delivery, 2) no peeking or adulteration, 3) accessibility. I believe these basic 'telecom rights' will inevitably give people a lot more value in their service. We have been through these issues before with standard phone lines, but it seems we are currently suffering from a bout of amnesia. Republicans seem to be terrible at managing telecom. Remember, when you hear the telecoms complain : http://finance.google.com/finance?q=T they are not struggling. Also of note is the infamous Ed Whitacre is set to retire in June: http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?Feed=ACBJ &Date=20070427&ID=6810011 -jmz ________________________________ From: plug-discuss-bounces@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us [mailto:plug-discuss-bounces@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Joshua Zeidner Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:41 AM To: Main PLUG discussion list Subject: Re: COX Communications Sucks (Was: moving e-mail) On 5/30/07, Bryan O'Neal wrote: Ok, but different things are important to us. If you worked 12 hours a day six days a week to purchase a new car every two years, a new cell phone every six months, and spent the equivalent of $400 / Mo on internet, and $7/ltr on gas and didn't mind cramming your entire family into a 600sqft apartment and every one you knew and everyone they knew did the same then in just 15 -20 years we would have the same standard of living they do with cheep high speed internet and great mass transit. Im not really sure if I understand your argument here... if we spend $400/month on internet for long enough were going to get 'cheep high speed internet'? It's a package deal people, you can't look at only the things you want and blame the government that you don't have it and look at the things you don't want and blame the government you have to suffer with it. The basic issue is we are capitalists, if you want it buy it and if you don't want to pay for it I bet I can find some one in Japan that does. First off, I like to think what I am presenting here is a bit more sophisticated than whining about prices and lack of public services. Although statements like 'this is the Free Market(tm)!' ala Barry Goldwater seem to garner much applause out here in AZ, a close look at the situation reveals that our current market situation is as much due to the introduction of regulation policy as the absence of it. There are a lot of experts who have illustrated these problems far more lucidly than I. -jmz ________________________________ From: plug-discuss-bounces@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us [mailto:plug-discuss-bounces@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Joshua Zeidner Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:45 PM To: Main PLUG discussion list Subject: Re: COX Communications Sucks (Was: moving e-mail) On 5/29/07, Kevin Brown wrote: > It may surprise many that the U.S. is considered to be relatively > behind in terms of broadband penetration and market maturity( aka. > affordability ). In my view, this situation is due entirely to our > current regulation policy. > > http://www.freepress.net/docs/bbrc2-final.pdf > > "In Japan, symmetrical 100Mbps connections are available for less > than $35 per month" > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060913-7731.html They also have half the population of the US crammed onto islands the size of California and a huge chunk of that land is unusable (mt. Fuji). With such a high density it is much easier to build the infrastructure and their culture supports the idea of the upgrades (workers can work longer hours via telecommuting). Look at the difference in cell phone technologies. Most people I know here in the states prefer to replace a damaged phone with a similar model and tend to keep a phone till it dies before replacing it. In Japan it is normal to replace a perfectly working phone with a new model with new features every 6 months. true, but remember: the technology was developed here, we are the supposedly the wealthiest and most advanced nation on earth, and we have pumped billions in tax money into communications infrastructure development( the infrastructure is there, its the 'legendary last mile' that is the problem ). Remember the 'Information Superhighway'? There is no doubt that there are political dimensions to this seemingly technological problem. There is the 'digital divide' scenario, and there is the general issues of the telco monopoly holding residential areas hostage. Its true that the Japanese are quite crazy when it comes to electronics... and keep in mind the US is not trailing right behind Japan, it rates below a number of European and Asian countries in broadband deployment. In my view there is no excuse for this. There is something wrong when these mega-telco companies simultaneously plead to the public for policy concessions while their stock valuation goes through the roof. -jmz -- .0000. communication. .0001. development. .0010. strategy. .0100. appeal. JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER IT Consultant ( 602 ) 490 8006 jjzeidner@gmail.com