Economics Questions

Re: Cellular Service in the US.

DanielMuff — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:06:02 GMT

From the Wiki:

Also, potential competitors were forbidden from installing new lines to compete, with state governments wishing to avoid "duplication." The claim was that telephone service was a "natural monopoly," meaning that one firm could better serve the public than two or more. Eventually, AT&T's market share amounted to what most would regard as a monopolistic share.

Re: Cellular Service in the US.

Siyang — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 06:42:43 GMT

Wait, are you saying that there is a regulation against companies from installing cables if there are already some cables?

Re: Cellular Service in the US.

DanielMuff — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 05:35:49 GMT

John James:

"Geeks Need to Know Economics"

"For any geek still concerned about a possible reemergence of the old Ma Bell monopoly, it is important to remember that it was government that created the monopoly in the first place."

What gets me are the statists calling for national (government funded) broadband; after all, the government prohibited competitors from installing "redundant" cables.

Re: Cellular Service in the US.

Wheylous — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:11:12 GMT

No one is naturally entitled to any technology.

Re: Cellular Service in the US.

John James — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:03:48 GMT

"Geeks Need to Know Economics"

Cellular Service in the US.

Siyang — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:57:00 GMT

Recently, people have been calling for more regulations for cellular service. They say that AT&T and Verizon have both raised prices, which are already high by European standards (e.g. texting costs 25cents per text for very little data) and there is very little competition (and more companies like T-Mobile are dropping out instead of entering). How should I respond to that?