Bzzzt, wrong. All my friends have cell phones and have had them for years. And yet we do not text message each other. We aren't living in the dark ages unless you think that not being able to stream pr0n to your cell phone is the dark ages.
...
The last big monopoly was AT&T and they were broken up.
...
Despite how MS gets treated, the US really does not like monopolies very much and breaks them up when they harm consumers.
...
Regional monopolies like water and gas are very heavily regulated and have a difficult time getting their rates increased (because they must go before a governmental review process to obtain the rate increase).
...
Yes, it is chaotic but you can switch between companies and keep your number ... so it isn't that bad because you can jump ship and not be locked in to a particular standard. You get choice.
...
As for your thought that there are locally granted phone monopolies, I don't know what you are talking about. I have four different networks that I can choose from where I live. How exactly is this a locally granted monopoly when there are three other competitors? Do you even know what a monopoly is?
...
How long have you been able to reliably text between networks? A year, a year and a half? And before that did common phones even support the texting abilities that were basically unusable? And has US cellphone take-up caught up with Europe yet?
As I said: network effects.
...
I notice you qualify that with 'big' as the AT&T monopoly was broken up into... a bunch of local monopolies, which are currently holding up broadband rollout, despite allegedly being regulated. Hooray!, another success for free markets.
...
So is MSFT not a monopoly or not harming consumers?
...
You appear to be advocating the commie-european government regulation approach here, except doing it in a half-assed way at arms length.
...
How long have you had this 'choice'? Six months? I'll check ... since November 24th 2003 according to a website I just visited, and only in major urban areas. That's a whole month of 'choice', if you happen to live in the right locality.
And what's this I read about a class action suit against the networks because they are nobbling their phones to only work on one network so you get to take the number but have to leave the phone. Neat.
...
I didn't say anything about local monopolies. I was contrasting your view of Europe = regulation and US = free markets with reality.
Is it a free market for cellphones in the states? Or is the FCC involved in regulation? What about for other natural monopolies? No, so why claim it is?
How long have you been able to reliably text between networks? A year, a year and a half? And before that did common phones even support the texting abilities that were basically unusable? And has US cellphone take-up caught up with Europe yet?
As I said: network effects.
And why would I want to text when I can talk? The primary motivation for texting in Europe is the fact that talking is so damn expensive. You are pushed into a particular way to communicate by your teleco's.
I spend alot of time around college students who have had cell phones longer than they have had cars. They aren't text shy but they don't use it because a phone call is much more immediate and you can dialog MUCH faster than over text. Having a conversation over the phone is much faster than trying to text the conversation.
Ok, so if the cellphone uptake of Europe is so much higher and your per minute rate is 3.5 times higher than the US, then you really have some profound problems because you are not experiencing any benefits due to economy of scale. In other words, you are being ripped off when you should have cheaper service.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I notice you qualify that with 'big' as the AT&T monopoly was broken up into... a bunch of local monopolies, which are currently holding up broadband rollout, despite allegedly being regulated. Hooray!, another success for free markets.
Again, your lack of knowledge is amazing. Did you read what I wrote? Yes, AT&T was broken up into a bunch of regional monopolies but AT&T's breakup made it possible for other phone companies to come into the marketplace to compete against the "baby bells" (the broken up AT&T's). For example, Sprint, my cell phone company has nothing to do with AT&T. They are one of many competitors to AT&T. For example, Deutche Telecom is a competitor in America (under the brand TMobile). The baby bells were simply divided by region and they have both regional competitors and national competitors (Sprint is national). You seem to think that there are monopolies in the phone market where there are none. Sprint has a completely different cell network than any of their competitors. The presence of multiple competitors and multiple networks makes sure that the standard that wins will be the one that consumers like most, not necessarialy the one that reguilators like most.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So is MSFT not a monopoly or not harming consumers?
Actually, MSFT is great for consumers and terrible for the competition. MSFT was in legal trouble because they were illegally trying to kill off competition through product tying. For consumers, they are great because they are a single unified OS that (in theory) runs on any x86 box and provides a common interface. Mind you I think that OS X is better, but for the vast majority of consumers who aren't computer savvy, having a common OS is quite useful.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You appear to be advocating the commie-european government regulation approach here, except doing it in a half-assed way at arms length.
No, actually, America is advocating an approach where the best standard will win in the marketplace. It is called "the invisible hand of capitalism". Being English, you should have heard about a man called Adam Smith . Maybe the technology uptake is slower (maybe not! 3G is a real pain to implement!), but at least consumers aren't being robbed by having to pay 3.5 times more per minute.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
How long have you had this 'choice'? Six months? I'll check ... since November 24th 2003 according to a website I just visited, and only in major urban areas. That's a whole month of 'choice', if you happen to live in the right locality.
Yes, we now have that choice. It is recent, but what are you complaining about? It is there now. We have the choice and now we can freely switch between networks if there is another network to switch to.
Something that Europeans tend to forget is that America is one really big country. In urban areas there are multiple providers while in rural areas there is only one provider (and in some rural areas there are no providers). So the reason why you can't switch in some areas is duh, there is nobody to swithc to. I am sure that in such areas, just like in Europe, the telecos milk consumers for all that they can. In urban areas (I live in LA) there is competition and so you can choose.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Oh, and what's this I read about a class action suit against the network because they are nobbling their phones to only work on one network so you get to take the number but have to leave the phone. Neat.
Welcome to America. There are lawsuits every day here. I know people that have switched cell providers with no problem. Probably there are just some kinks to work out of the system (a quick web browse makes it look like only AT&T is having problems- fancy that). I guess I could live in a regulated system and pay almost four times as much a month and not have the option of switching.
All in all, you really haven't justified what you get that makes it worth paying 3.5 times more per minute, and you haven't explained why your neatly regulated cell system costs more when you have the economy of scale in your favor. The presence of REAL competition in America means that consumers aren't stuck with a one size fits all plan and that they can save a considerable ammount of money- which they do.
..edit..
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I didn't say anything about local monopolies. I was contrasting your view of Europe = regulation and US = free markets with reality.
Is it a free market for cellphones in the states? Or is the FCC involved in regulation? What about for other natural monopolies? No, so why claim it is?
Well, the FCC tells people what they can and can not do. For example, the FCC tells phone companies that they must have number portability. The FCC tells telemarketers that they can not call certain numbers. In this sense the phone market is regualted (in that there are common required service standards like number portability and emergency 911). However when it comes to setting up a given cell standard, the FCC does not do this which is why we have several standards. Several standards means that there are several cell networks (it is common to see one provider's cell tower next to another provider's cell tower). Having multiple different cell networks means that you do not have monopolies because no one provider controls how a cell signal gets to a cell phone. This is very different than regional monopolies (e.g. water) where there is only one way to get water to a house. Such regional monopolies are very heavily regulated in the US to make sure that they do not abuse the monopoly they do have.
You are really confusing cell networks with what are known as regional monopolies (e.g. water). Cellular phones are not monopolies in that there is no single standard whose access points are controlled by a single company. Regulation does not mean monopoly, because the FCC simply sets guidelines for cell providers. Please don't confuse regulation with a monopoly because I am going to be embarrased if I have to explain the difference any more.
[i]...And what's this I read about a class action suit against the networks because they are nobbling their phones to only work on one network so you get to take the number but have to leave the phone. Neat.... [/B]
As far as I know it has always been like this, you have to have a phone that works with the network that your carrier has. The new law lets you take the new number to a new phone on a comptetators network.
And why would I want to text when I can talk? ... Having a conversation over the phone is much faster than trying to text the conversation.
...
Again, your lack of knowledge is amazing. Did you read what I wrote?
...
Actually, MSFT is great for consumers and terrible for the competition.
...
No, actually, America is advocating an approach where the best standard will win in the marketplace. It is called "the invisible hand of capitalism". Being English, you should have heard about a man called Adam Smith .
...
I am sure that in such areas, just like in Europe, the telecos milk consumers for all that they can. In urban areas (I live in LA) there is competition and so you can choose.
...
The presence of REAL competition in America means that consumers aren't stuck with a one size fits all plan and that they can save a considerable ammount of money- which they do. [/B]
You haven't grasped that texting isn't just a cut price alternative to talking. It's like email, you send when you have free time without whoever you're texting needing to be free. They can be working, driving, on a hot date or in the tub, it doesn't matter because they'll answer when they have time. That's why people use it, in fact most American reporters talk about europeans being addicted to it. You won't hear us grumbling about having to text because of the price of voice calls. We don't want to talk, we want to text.
...
Almost everything you write here is the exact same as in Europe. Incumbent monopolies being forced to resell access to smaller competitors by regulators. So why do you think that the US is so free market? At least that explains why you have so much faith in the market, you don't realise that it's not free.
...
That's a contradiction.
...
Now you're annoying me. Adam Smith was not English! He is also a minor hero of mine and would have no time for the free market bullshit that is spouted in his name. Also, it's the free hand of markets with price signals, not of capitalism.
...
No, they don't get milked as one of the main points of the regulation is to provide common levels of service standard at common prices. They obviously do in the US as they won't even let me look at the tariffs without a zipcode, and the only zipcode I know doesn't seem to have any service.
...
No the presence or REAL competition appears to involve service levels so poor that despite the amazingly low prices there is much lower uptake. The Europeans are obviously receiving value for their money.
As far as I know it has always been like this, you have to have a phone that works with the network that your carrier has. The new law lets you take the new number to a new phone on a comptetators network.
And to be honest, all that matters is the phone number. Cell phones are cheap, but telling everyone about your new number is an immense pain in the rear.
You haven't grasped that texting isn't just a cut price alternative to talking. It's like email, you send when you have free time without whoever you're texting needing to be free. They can be working, driving, on a hot date or in the tub, it doesn't matter because they'll answer when they have time. That's why people use it, in fact most American reporters talk about europeans being addicted to it. You won't hear us grumbling about having to text because of the price of voice calls. We don't want to talk, we want to text.
This is the crux of the argument. You are charged 3.5 times more for voice than I am so you switch to text not because it is easier or faster but because it is cheaper. You are forced to use text messaging because you have plans that won't give you a decent voice rate. I can't wait to see how much you are milked for 3G services!
I don't know about you, but when I am at work I email people. I don't need to text message at work because I am in front of a computer. If you are text messaging in the tub then you have some issues that you need to work on You want to text because you have been acculturated to do it because of high voice rates. Americans leave voice mail messages. There is no way that text is better for conversation than talking.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Almost everything you write here is the exact same as in Europe. Incumbent monopolies being forced to resell access to smaller competitors by regulators. So why do you think that the US is so free market? At least that explains why you have so much faith in the market, you don't realise that it's not free.
That's a contradiction.
I here refer you to the previously given definitions for monopoly. You do not understand that a monopoly only exists when a single provider exists for a given resource. America has multiple providers and as such has no possible monopoly for cell service.
The US is a free market for cell service because I can say to myself "I am sick of Sprint and their lousy CDMA! I am switching to TMobile so I can get me a GSM phone!". Because as a consumer I have choices to make regarding cell type, and cell provider this is a free market. If you do not have these choices then you do not have a free market. America has a free market for cell service. European nations with a single teleco that controls the standard and distribution of cell services are by definition a monopoly, and because they are monopolies, you are likely to wind up paying through the nose.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Now you're annoying me. Adam Smith was not English! He is also a minor hero of mine and would have no time for the free market bullshit that is spouted in his name. Also, it's the free hand of markets with price signals, not of capitalism.
Ok, so Adam Smith was born Scottish. I cheerfully concede that this is the first and only thing that I have gotten wrong so far To us Yanks, all you english speakers on the other side of the pond are all the same- people we rebelled against
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No, they don't get milked as one of the main points of the regulation is to provide common levels of service standard at common prices. They obviously do in the US as they won't even let me look at the tariffs without a zipcode, and the only zipcode I know doesn't seem to have any service.
Common high prices. You are getting milked when you pay 3.5 times more when you have the bonus of economy of scale. You must be getting a massage once a week for all the extra money you are paying. You have to provide a zip code (postal code) because some zip codes have 1000 times as many cows as people and won't have cell coverage. We can debate the need to equip farmers with 3G cell phones if you want (my relatives live on the farm in South Dakota). Trust me- they don't want cell phones (and they aren't dumb when it comes to computers- their tractors have GPS units and they use satellite imagery to run their farm, but cell phones are worthless to them).
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No the presence or REAL competition appears to involve service levels so poor that despite the amazingly low prices there is much lower uptake. The Europeans are obviously receiving value for their money.
LOL! Everyone I know my age and younger has a cell phone (ok I actually know two guys who don't, but they just hate the idea of cell phones in general). I don't know what lack of service you are talking about. I get coverage (not out in the desert if I drive many miles away from the highway, but why would I need cell coverage out amongst the scrub brush where nobody lives?). I can change my cell provider and cell plan over the web. Sprint's service is pretty good.
Could you please find a recent article about the "much lower" uptake of cell phones in America? I want to know how much lower the uptake is. I can't find one.
...
So in conclusion, the integration of an iPod mini with a phone would probably do much better in the US than in Europe.
Both cell phone networks and water supply are what economists call natural monopolies.
Natural monopolies are often regulated as they are otherwise inefficient.
edit: and I guess that's my last word on the matter.
.
.
.
I like the pink one.
Wikipedia does not say that the American cell market is a natural monopoly. Wikipedia states "In economics, a natural monopoly refers to a situation where a single company tends to become the only supplier of a product or service over time because the nature of that product or service makes a single supplier more efficient than multiple, competing ones."
And there are multiple providers. I can think of four providers off of the top of my head. You could argue the over time thing, but then everyone is a natural monopoly bcause over time anyone could become the sole provider. In the here and now, There aren't natural monopolies in the cell market and a minute of cell time costs me 3.5 times less than those folks we Yanks rebelled against.
...
I'm all for silver. It goes with more things. Otherwise I would go for green because it is... well... green.
Is there any possible way we could get this thread back to the iPod mini?
Thanks.
Sorry about that. I think that we have pretty well established that an iPod mini/phone combo would have some marketing issues in Europe because of the increased difficulty with text messaging through a scroll wheel.
Comments
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Bzzzt, wrong. All my friends have cell phones and have had them for years. And yet we do not text message each other. We aren't living in the dark ages unless you think that not being able to stream pr0n to your cell phone is the dark ages.
...
The last big monopoly was AT&T and they were broken up.
...
Despite how MS gets treated, the US really does not like monopolies very much and breaks them up when they harm consumers.
...
Regional monopolies like water and gas are very heavily regulated and have a difficult time getting their rates increased (because they must go before a governmental review process to obtain the rate increase).
...
Yes, it is chaotic but you can switch between companies and keep your number ... so it isn't that bad because you can jump ship and not be locked in to a particular standard. You get choice.
...
As for your thought that there are locally granted phone monopolies, I don't know what you are talking about. I have four different networks that I can choose from where I live. How exactly is this a locally granted monopoly when there are three other competitors? Do you even know what a monopoly is?
...
How long have you been able to reliably text between networks? A year, a year and a half? And before that did common phones even support the texting abilities that were basically unusable? And has US cellphone take-up caught up with Europe yet?
As I said: network effects.
...
I notice you qualify that with 'big' as the AT&T monopoly was broken up into... a bunch of local monopolies, which are currently holding up broadband rollout, despite allegedly being regulated. Hooray!, another success for free markets.
...
So is MSFT not a monopoly or not harming consumers?
...
You appear to be advocating the commie-european government regulation approach here, except doing it in a half-assed way at arms length.
...
How long have you had this 'choice'? Six months? I'll check ... since November 24th 2003 according to a website I just visited, and only in major urban areas. That's a whole month of 'choice', if you happen to live in the right locality.
And what's this I read about a class action suit against the networks because they are nobbling their phones to only work on one network so you get to take the number but have to leave the phone. Neat.
...
I didn't say anything about local monopolies. I was contrasting your view of Europe = regulation and US = free markets with reality.
Is it a free market for cellphones in the states? Or is the FCC involved in regulation? What about for other natural monopolies? No, so why claim it is?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
How long have you been able to reliably text between networks? A year, a year and a half? And before that did common phones even support the texting abilities that were basically unusable? And has US cellphone take-up caught up with Europe yet?
As I said: network effects.
And why would I want to text when I can talk? The primary motivation for texting in Europe is the fact that talking is so damn expensive. You are pushed into a particular way to communicate by your teleco's.
I spend alot of time around college students who have had cell phones longer than they have had cars. They aren't text shy but they don't use it because a phone call is much more immediate and you can dialog MUCH faster than over text. Having a conversation over the phone is much faster than trying to text the conversation.
Ok, so if the cellphone uptake of Europe is so much higher and your per minute rate is 3.5 times higher than the US, then you really have some profound problems because you are not experiencing any benefits due to economy of scale. In other words, you are being ripped off when you should have cheaper service.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I notice you qualify that with 'big' as the AT&T monopoly was broken up into... a bunch of local monopolies, which are currently holding up broadband rollout, despite allegedly being regulated. Hooray!, another success for free markets.
Again, your lack of knowledge is amazing. Did you read what I wrote? Yes, AT&T was broken up into a bunch of regional monopolies but AT&T's breakup made it possible for other phone companies to come into the marketplace to compete against the "baby bells" (the broken up AT&T's). For example, Sprint, my cell phone company has nothing to do with AT&T. They are one of many competitors to AT&T. For example, Deutche Telecom is a competitor in America (under the brand TMobile). The baby bells were simply divided by region and they have both regional competitors and national competitors (Sprint is national). You seem to think that there are monopolies in the phone market where there are none. Sprint has a completely different cell network than any of their competitors. The presence of multiple competitors and multiple networks makes sure that the standard that wins will be the one that consumers like most, not necessarialy the one that reguilators like most.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So is MSFT not a monopoly or not harming consumers?
Actually, MSFT is great for consumers and terrible for the competition. MSFT was in legal trouble because they were illegally trying to kill off competition through product tying. For consumers, they are great because they are a single unified OS that (in theory) runs on any x86 box and provides a common interface. Mind you I think that OS X is better, but for the vast majority of consumers who aren't computer savvy, having a common OS is quite useful.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You appear to be advocating the commie-european government regulation approach here, except doing it in a half-assed way at arms length.
No, actually, America is advocating an approach where the best standard will win in the marketplace. It is called "the invisible hand of capitalism". Being English, you should have heard about a man called Adam Smith
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
How long have you had this 'choice'? Six months? I'll check ... since November 24th 2003 according to a website I just visited, and only in major urban areas. That's a whole month of 'choice', if you happen to live in the right locality.
Yes, we now have that choice. It is recent, but what are you complaining about? It is there now. We have the choice and now we can freely switch between networks if there is another network to switch to.
Something that Europeans tend to forget is that America is one really big country. In urban areas there are multiple providers while in rural areas there is only one provider (and in some rural areas there are no providers). So the reason why you can't switch in some areas is duh, there is nobody to swithc to. I am sure that in such areas, just like in Europe, the telecos milk consumers for all that they can. In urban areas (I live in LA) there is competition and so you can choose.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Oh, and what's this I read about a class action suit against the network because they are nobbling their phones to only work on one network so you get to take the number but have to leave the phone. Neat.
Welcome to America. There are lawsuits every day here. I know people that have switched cell providers with no problem. Probably there are just some kinks to work out of the system (a quick web browse makes it look like only AT&T is having problems- fancy that). I guess I could live in a regulated system and pay almost four times as much a month and not have the option of switching.
All in all, you really haven't justified what you get that makes it worth paying 3.5 times more per minute, and you haven't explained why your neatly regulated cell system costs more when you have the economy of scale in your favor. The presence of REAL competition in America means that consumers aren't stuck with a one size fits all plan and that they can save a considerable ammount of money- which they do.
..edit..
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I didn't say anything about local monopolies. I was contrasting your view of Europe = regulation and US = free markets with reality.
Is it a free market for cellphones in the states? Or is the FCC involved in regulation? What about for other natural monopolies? No, so why claim it is?
Well, the FCC tells people what they can and can not do. For example, the FCC tells phone companies that they must have number portability. The FCC tells telemarketers that they can not call certain numbers. In this sense the phone market is regualted (in that there are common required service standards like number portability and emergency 911). However when it comes to setting up a given cell standard, the FCC does not do this which is why we have several standards. Several standards means that there are several cell networks (it is common to see one provider's cell tower next to another provider's cell tower). Having multiple different cell networks means that you do not have monopolies because no one provider controls how a cell signal gets to a cell phone. This is very different than regional monopolies (e.g. water) where there is only one way to get water to a house. Such regional monopolies are very heavily regulated in the US to make sure that they do not abuse the monopoly they do have.
You are really confusing cell networks with what are known as regional monopolies (e.g. water). Cellular phones are not monopolies in that there is no single standard whose access points are controlled by a single company. Regulation does not mean monopoly, because the FCC simply sets guidelines for cell providers. Please don't confuse regulation with a monopoly because I am going to be embarrased if I have to explain the difference any more.
Here's some useful definitions:
Monopoly
Regulate
[i]...And what's this I read about a class action suit against the networks because they are nobbling their phones to only work on one network so you get to take the number but have to leave the phone. Neat.... [/B]
As far as I know it has always been like this, you have to have a phone that works with the network that your carrier has. The new law lets you take the new number to a new phone on a comptetators network.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
And why would I want to text when I can talk? ... Having a conversation over the phone is much faster than trying to text the conversation.
...
Again, your lack of knowledge is amazing. Did you read what I wrote?
...
Actually, MSFT is great for consumers and terrible for the competition.
...
No, actually, America is advocating an approach where the best standard will win in the marketplace. It is called "the invisible hand of capitalism". Being English, you should have heard about a man called Adam Smith
...
I am sure that in such areas, just like in Europe, the telecos milk consumers for all that they can. In urban areas (I live in LA) there is competition and so you can choose.
...
The presence of REAL competition in America means that consumers aren't stuck with a one size fits all plan and that they can save a considerable ammount of money- which they do. [/B]
You haven't grasped that texting isn't just a cut price alternative to talking. It's like email, you send when you have free time without whoever you're texting needing to be free. They can be working, driving, on a hot date or in the tub, it doesn't matter because they'll answer when they have time. That's why people use it, in fact most American reporters talk about europeans being addicted to it. You won't hear us grumbling about having to text because of the price of voice calls. We don't want to talk, we want to text.
...
Almost everything you write here is the exact same as in Europe. Incumbent monopolies being forced to resell access to smaller competitors by regulators. So why do you think that the US is so free market? At least that explains why you have so much faith in the market, you don't realise that it's not free.
...
That's a contradiction.
...
Now you're annoying me. Adam Smith was not English!
...
No, they don't get milked as one of the main points of the regulation is to provide common levels of service standard at common prices. They obviously do in the US as they won't even let me look at the tariffs without a zipcode, and the only zipcode I know doesn't seem to have any service.
...
No the presence or REAL competition appears to involve service levels so poor that despite the amazingly low prices there is much lower uptake. The Europeans are obviously receiving value for their money.
Originally posted by JCG
As far as I know it has always been like this, you have to have a phone that works with the network that your carrier has. The new law lets you take the new number to a new phone on a comptetators network.
And to be honest, all that matters is the phone number. Cell phones are cheap, but telling everyone about your new number is an immense pain in the rear.
Thanks.
Natural monopolies are often regulated as they are otherwise inefficient.
edit: and I guess that's my last word on the matter.
.
.
.
I like the pink one.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
You haven't grasped that texting isn't just a cut price alternative to talking. It's like email, you send when you have free time without whoever you're texting needing to be free. They can be working, driving, on a hot date or in the tub, it doesn't matter because they'll answer when they have time. That's why people use it, in fact most American reporters talk about europeans being addicted to it. You won't hear us grumbling about having to text because of the price of voice calls. We don't want to talk, we want to text.
This is the crux of the argument. You are charged 3.5 times more for voice than I am so you switch to text not because it is easier or faster but because it is cheaper. You are forced to use text messaging because you have plans that won't give you a decent voice rate. I can't wait to see how much you are milked for 3G services!
I don't know about you, but when I am at work I email people. I don't need to text message at work because I am in front of a computer. If you are text messaging in the tub then you have some issues that you need to work on
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Almost everything you write here is the exact same as in Europe. Incumbent monopolies being forced to resell access to smaller competitors by regulators. So why do you think that the US is so free market? At least that explains why you have so much faith in the market, you don't realise that it's not free.
That's a contradiction.
I here refer you to the previously given definitions for monopoly. You do not understand that a monopoly only exists when a single provider exists for a given resource. America has multiple providers and as such has no possible monopoly for cell service.
The US is a free market for cell service because I can say to myself "I am sick of Sprint and their lousy CDMA! I am switching to TMobile so I can get me a GSM phone!". Because as a consumer I have choices to make regarding cell type, and cell provider this is a free market. If you do not have these choices then you do not have a free market. America has a free market for cell service. European nations with a single teleco that controls the standard and distribution of cell services are by definition a monopoly, and because they are monopolies, you are likely to wind up paying through the nose.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Now you're annoying me. Adam Smith was not English!
Ok, so Adam Smith was born Scottish. I cheerfully concede that this is the first and only thing that I have gotten wrong so far
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No, they don't get milked as one of the main points of the regulation is to provide common levels of service standard at common prices. They obviously do in the US as they won't even let me look at the tariffs without a zipcode, and the only zipcode I know doesn't seem to have any service.
Common high prices. You are getting milked when you pay 3.5 times more when you have the bonus of economy of scale. You must be getting a massage once a week for all the extra money you are paying. You have to provide a zip code (postal code) because some zip codes have 1000 times as many cows as people and won't have cell coverage. We can debate the need to equip farmers with 3G cell phones if you want (my relatives live on the farm in South Dakota). Trust me- they don't want cell phones (and they aren't dumb when it comes to computers- their tractors have GPS units and they use satellite imagery to run their farm, but cell phones are worthless to them).
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No the presence or REAL competition appears to involve service levels so poor that despite the amazingly low prices there is much lower uptake. The Europeans are obviously receiving value for their money.
LOL! Everyone I know my age and younger has a cell phone (ok I actually know two guys who don't, but they just hate the idea of cell phones in general). I don't know what lack of service you are talking about. I get coverage (not out in the desert if I drive many miles away from the highway, but why would I need cell coverage out amongst the scrub brush where nobody lives?). I can change my cell provider and cell plan over the web. Sprint's service is pretty good.
Could you please find a recent article about the "much lower" uptake of cell phones in America? I want to know how much lower the uptake is. I can't find one.
...
So in conclusion, the integration of an iPod mini with a phone would probably do much better in the US than in Europe.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Both cell phone networks and water supply are what economists call natural monopolies.
Natural monopolies are often regulated as they are otherwise inefficient.
edit: and I guess that's my last word on the matter.
.
.
.
I like the pink one.
Wikipedia does not say that the American cell market is a natural monopoly. Wikipedia states "In economics, a natural monopoly refers to a situation where a single company tends to become the only supplier of a product or service over time because the nature of that product or service makes a single supplier more efficient than multiple, competing ones."
And there are multiple providers. I can think of four providers off of the top of my head. You could argue the over time thing, but then everyone is a natural monopoly bcause over time anyone could become the sole provider. In the here and now, There aren't natural monopolies in the cell market and a minute of cell time costs me 3.5 times less than those folks we Yanks rebelled against.
...
I'm all for silver. It goes with more things. Otherwise I would go for green because it is... well... green.
Originally posted by Amorph
Is there any possible way we could get this thread back to the iPod mini?
Thanks.
Sorry about that. I think that we have pretty well established that an iPod mini/phone combo would have some marketing issues in Europe because of the increased difficulty with text messaging through a scroll wheel.