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 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* <BONeal@cornerstonehome.com> 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* <kevin_brown@qwest.net> 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
>
> <http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss>
>
--
.0000. communication.
.0001. development.
.0010. strategy.
.0100. appeal.
JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
IT Consultant
( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)