Collusion aside, then, how do you prevent the carving up of parts of nations into spheres of influence like the landline ISPs do now? Is there incentive to build out towers where their competitors already have a presence when the company is multinational like that?
Collusion aside, then, how do you prevent the carving up of parts of nations into spheres of influence like the landline ISPs do now? Is there incentive to build out towers where their competitors already have a presence when the company is multinational like that?
You don't prevent that. What part of free market don't you understand?
The companies will go after the maximum profit. As I showed, it is likely that the consumer would be better served if there are a dozen or so behemoths rather than a few hundred little guys (or, even worse, half a dozen giants and a few hundred little guys). The larger companies would have far more resources and interest in expanding globally than the hundreds of little companies you are proposing.
So why is a multibillion dollar company more likely to ignore parts of the world than a little guy? Obviously, they're not. If you're a $10 B company and have a presence in half the world, you'd be foolish to ignore the rest of the world. The only way for the world to get carved up is collusion - which I've already argued doesn't happen and would be less likely to happen with a few big players than with hundreds of little players.
Comments
Originally Posted by jragosta
Great points
Collusion aside, then, how do you prevent the carving up of parts of nations into spheres of influence like the landline ISPs do now? Is there incentive to build out towers where their competitors already have a presence when the company is multinational like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Everyone says this, but it only serves to show their ignorance.
Care to elaborate?
Hope Sprint is okay with its new Korean owner.
Originally Posted by Galbi
Care to elaborate?
They own a virtually meaningless proportion of our debt. We've borrowed against ourselves far more than we have China or any other country.
But let's not get into this outside of PO. Or at the very least, AO.
You don't prevent that. What part of free market don't you understand?
The companies will go after the maximum profit. As I showed, it is likely that the consumer would be better served if there are a dozen or so behemoths rather than a few hundred little guys (or, even worse, half a dozen giants and a few hundred little guys). The larger companies would have far more resources and interest in expanding globally than the hundreds of little companies you are proposing.
So why is a multibillion dollar company more likely to ignore parts of the world than a little guy? Obviously, they're not. If you're a $10 B company and have a presence in half the world, you'd be foolish to ignore the rest of the world. The only way for the world to get carved up is collusion - which I've already argued doesn't happen and would be less likely to happen with a few big players than with hundreds of little players.