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