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:
Subject: Re: COX Communications
Sucks (Was: moving e-mail)
On 5/30/07, Bryan
O'Neal <BONeal@cornerstonehome.com>
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
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