Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[mozamcrew]

The point is that Ma Bell wouldn't have HAD that monopoly without the regulations to begin with. It could be argued that Telco competition would have emerged earlier had it not been for that regulation. Yes the government did eventually get around to splitting up the company, but I don't think that's clear evidence that the regulation resulted in a more competitive market than a less regulated market would.

[utiz4321]

Well, the same regulation that broke them up led to the emergence of companies such as Sprint. So if you ask me, its one hell of a convincing argument.

Go back and read. Standard Oil wasn't split to reduce prices. I stated that clearly. The price increase was going to happen eventually, break up or not. Standard Oil was undercutting competitors in order to make them bleed and fold. Once all competitors were gone, prices were going to go back up. It was inevitable.

 

What the government did was stop one single company from controlling the entire oil industry. Had they left them intact, Standard Oil would have had the ability of establishing prices at their own discretion, reduce production to inflate market prices, and even sell poorly refined oil since there would be no competition to compete with better quality.

First, you miss the point. If you argue that a regulation that fixed a mess up of a prior regulation is proof that regulation is good (with is what you did) then you are engaged in circular reasoning and I am right to point out that the problem could have been avoided in first place by not regulating.

 

On standard oil, you are simply wrong about the history. First, they where broken up after the market share had begun to slip. If things had continued with out interference they would have continued to loose market share. Second, antitrust regulation is absolutely about consumer protection and consumer welfare, that is its entire justification for it existing.

If an industry faces a declining average cost curve then a monopoly is the best outcome for society as returns to scale are so high that having only one company produces the most consumer welfare. That is the idea behind public utilities and their government issued monopolies or duopolies. However, there is no example of this in a market setting.

Outside of government issued monopolies you would be hard pressed to find a natural monopoly that lasts for any amount of time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mozamcrew]

Look you can argue whether or not consumers are better off with regulated monopolies (like many states still have with electricity and landline phones), or with a less heavily regulated system (anti-collusion and other general laws only) where you avoid total monopoly in most markets but still have probably have a handful of competitors at best. But I think either way, providers with that kind of power shouldn't be legally allowed use that power in one market to disadvantage competitors in another area.

[utiz4321]

The point is that Ma Bell wouldn't have HAD that monopoly without the regulations to begin with. It could be argued that Telco competition would have emerged earlier had it not been for that regulation. Yes the government did eventually get around to splitting up the company, but I don't think that's clear evidence that the regulation resulted in a more competitive market than a less regulated market would.

That is simply not true. Find an example in the history of the world in which a company achieves and Maintains a monopoly for nearly sixty years without the force of government regulation? There is no evidence Ma bell would have achieved a monopoly on its own. None.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mozamcrew]

That is simply not true. Find an example in the history of the world in which a company achieves and Maintains a monopoly for nearly sixty years without the force of government regulation? There is no evidence Ma bell would have achieved a monopoly on its own. None.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You might want to reread my post. We seem to be in agreement, even though you begin by saying my post is simply not true...

[utiz4321]

You might want to reread my post. We seem to be in agreement, even though you begin by saying my post is simply not true...

Yup. You are right I did. Sorry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheCUJuan]

That is simply not true. Find an example in the history of the world in which a company achieves and Maintains a monopoly for nearly sixty years without the force of government regulation? There is no evidence Ma bell would have achieved a monopoly on its own. None.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The railroads?

[utiz4321]

The railroads?

Nope. Railroads have had heavy government regulations and subsidies. The two current monopolies is a direct result of the government.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[derrph]

Sprint did well! http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/austin-tx/2015/2H

 

Sprint should tout more that they are the fastest in data download in key cities

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EvanA]

Sprint did well! http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/austin-tx/2015/2H

 

Sprint should tout more that they are the fastest in data download in key cities

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're already doing just that

 

http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-network-1-in-austin.htm

 

Independent mobile analytics firm RootMetrics® has just released a new RootScore® Report showing Sprint now has the fastest median download speed in Austin, and it has received a shared #1 ranking in overall performance, reliability, and call, along with an outright win in text performance.

[DanielB]

It doesn't "screw" customers. It is about how profits are arranged in a two sided market.

 

Look, my basic argument is this. The wireless industry, under what amounts to a pretty much net neutral conditions, seems big enough at the national level for 3 players or maybe even just two. Just look at how many years profits have been dominated by the big two. Why is that? Capex and opex cost are high, this favors scale. What is the driver of these cost, not telephony but ISP driven by the exponential growth in content demand. Given that this is a two sided market (ISP and content together and only together deliver a product which is consumable) there is a open question as to how much of those costs should be distributed where and how consumers would prefer this distribution (i.e. Would consumer prefer more ISP choices or more Netflix imitators). This is better worked out by the market.

 

If consumer prefer more wireless ISP providers the shift in profits means more national wireless carriers will be viable. If you favor net neutrality you are saying you are in favor of using the government to make sure the market supports fewer ISPs choices than consumers want. That to me doesn't makes any kind of sense.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So you make a great point with one idea you've been repeating...natural market forces don't tend to create monopolies. This is true. Whole or partial government intervention inadvertently leads to market dominance...and has done so time and time again. This is seen with the old AT&T (hell, the new AT&T, too), as well as other examples such as Google. Yes, Google....all levels of government can adversely impact markets, including municipalities that offer tax breaks to one company (but not others) in order to locate a facility within their spheres of governance. So fair point, and I agree with you fully on this one....natural market forces do not by themselves breed monopolies.

 

Could we take this further and say government has enabled the dominance of 2 large players in the wireless industry by allowing mega-mergers to take place over the past 10-12 years? I remember SunCom, Cingular, Alltel, Sprint, Verizon Wireless (not wholly owned by Verizon), T-Mobile, Ntelos, etc....just a few years ago. Many of these players were allowed to combine for no reason other than gaining economies of scale. It cannot be said that, on the whole, the industry was suffering from having so many players. Most wireless operators were traditionally profitable.

 

It is also important to consider situations where government (in this case, at the federal level) has bestowed certain assets (spectrum) to certain players with no licensing costs attached - while not doing so for others....at least not with assets of equivalent market value. This, too, plays a role in who wins and who loses. Granted, there are implementation costs for spectrum but I can tell you I'm a hell of a lot further along than you if you pay $10 billion for spectrum licenses equivalent to what I have acquired for free. In such a situation, I can spend $10 billion more than you on implementation and achieve a dominant competitive position that, for you, will be insurmountable.

 

Perhaps you see where I am going. Capex and opex are high because carriers have become lazy and sloppy. Real competition breeds efficiency. Whining about expenses being high is like me whining about a $900 car payment on my Mercedes. BFD....it would be my own damn fault. Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion surrounding the reasons why Verizon can implement network modifications so much more quickly than can Sprint or T-Mobile; it was soundly illustrated that the reasons for this are primarily due to capex levels. Verizon does not have to be concerned about smart deployment of resources in a targeted fashion designed to improve their network where needs dictate...so they don't. Conversely, Sprint and (to a lesser extent) T-Mobile have far more limited capital at their disposal and so must deploy it in a way that its impact is far larger than the impact Verizon receives from its capex one a strict dollar for dollar basis.

 

What am I saying? This: increased competition in wireless would serve to drive down operating expenses and capital expenses as carriers are forced to find more efficient means of accomplishing their goals. Your assumption that less competition would magically reduce expenses is flawed and, frankly, stupid. Please pardon me for saying so. We're talking about wireless here - not wireline. There is absolutely no economic proof throughout history that what you are saying is true. In fact, we would be better off in terms of the wireless competitive environment if we still had many players (granted, some regional), like Alltel, SunCom, Cingular, etc...each spending money ever more efficiently to deploy better networks and win more customers from their competitors. If this were so, I can guarantee you net neutrality violations would not be an issue because no company would try to pull stupid sh!t like this in a real competitive environment.

[cletus]

Sprint did well! http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/austin-tx/2015/2H

 

Sprint should tout more that they are the fastest in data download in key cities

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. I knew that Sprint would win #1 speed in Austin. I actually figured the speed would be even higher than that. I am also not surprised at all by AT&T slower speeds as well as Verizon.

[Ascertion]

So does anyone know if Sprint will focus on network expansion during the NGN project? Or is it just buffing their major markets for now?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

[Paynefanbro]

So does anyone know if Sprint will focus on network expansion during the NGN project? Or is it just buffing their major markets for now?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

In terms of pure square milage I'm doubtful it'll expand much. In market however, coverage should expand in that you should have much stronger coverage everywhere on Band 41, etc.

 

I think for the square milage increase, Sprint is betting on it's roaming partners.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

First, you miss the point. If you argue that a regulation that fixed a mess up of a prior regulation is proof that regulation is good (with is what you did) then you are engaged in circular reasoning and I am right to point out that the problem could have been avoided in first place by not regulating.

 

Government regulation successfully addressed the monster it created after so many years of taking Ma Bell to court. You seem fixated on this idea that government screwed up once so they should butt out entirely. Many companies file for bankruptcy every year. Should we force the private sector out of the auto manufacturing sector because Chrysler and GM screwed up??? No. Just like some companies screw up, expect the government to do so as well from time to time. Nobody is perfect. Get over it. Government regulation, although not perfect at times, is still needed.

On standard oil, you are simply wrong about the history. First, they where broken up after the market share had begun to slip. If things had continued with out interference they would have continued to loose market share.

 

You can't predict that Standard would lose more share with certainty. Even with 64% of market control, the courts determined that Standard still controlled a lot of the market through transportation pipelines, railroad prices, and wholesale marketing of its products. That itself was a good enough reason for the courts to break them up.

 

Outside of government issued monopolies you would be hard pressed to find a natural monopoly that lasts for any amount of time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you won't. The same regulation you argue against has made it illegal for businesses to conduct secret backroom deals and illegal business practices that would cause Monopolies to thrive in.

[greenbastard]

Yep. I knew that Sprint would win #1 speed in Austin. I actually figured the speed would be even higher than that. I am also not surprised at all by AT&T slower speeds as well as Verizon.

I'm actually a bit surprised T-Mobile won the speed category. There are several areas around Austin in which their network just falls flat.

[utiz4321]

Government regulation successfully addressed the monster it created after so many years of taking Ma Bell to court. You seem fixated on this idea that government screwed up once so they should butt out entirely. Many companies file for bankruptcy every year. Should we force the private sector out of the auto manufacturing sector because Chrysler and GM screwed up??? No. Just like some companies screw up, expect the government to do so as well from time to time. Nobody is perfect. Get over it. Government regulation, although not perfect at times, is still needed.

You can't predict that Standard would lose more share with certainty. Even with 64% of market control, the courts determined that Standard still controlled a lot of the market through transportation pipelines, railroad prices, and wholesale marketing of its products. That itself was a good enough reason for the courts to break them up.

 

Of course you won't. The same regulation you argue against has made it illegal for businesses to conduct secret backroom deals and illegal business practices that would cause Monopolies to thrive in.

Sorry but your rational doesn't fly.

 

First, you argue that regulation is good because antitrust broke up ma bell. When I pointed out that ma bell was created by regulation and that arguing regulation is good because of this example of regulation fixing a mistake cause by regulation is circular and can be shown by simply saying we probably would have been better off if regulators just didn't create ma bell in the first place, you just restate your original assertion.

 

Second, why counterfactuals are always hard to prove, the fact that standard oil would have lost market share (outside regulators stepping in) is a safe bet. For no other reason than the vast oil reserves that would be discovered in the Mideast.

 

Third, you miss the point here as well. My claim is that anti-trust doesn't do any good. Because there is no example prior to that legislation of any monopoly, in the history of human kind, existing for any extended period of time (60 years or so) with of the support of government force. It has never been demonstrated that any industry faces a declining marginal cost curve and if it did a monopoly would be good for society.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cletus]

I'm actually a bit surprised T-Mobile won the speed category. There are several areas around Austin in which their network just falls flat.

Yeah. Some areas of South Austin are TERRIBLE for T-Mobile. On the other hand the core downtown area has blazing speeds.

[derrph]

I did some mapping today heading back to Ohio from Nashville, TN. Right I'm confused because I had a Galaxy Edge Plus and my IPhone 6s Plus but the Edge held onto lte on the highway unlike my iPhone that loved to bounce to 3G and sometimes 1x. While I was in Nashville, my iPhone held an lte signal but the galaxy got beyond better speeds(50 plus with one in the 90s) whereas the iPhone didn't go past 20mbps. Could some explain to me what was going on between the two phones?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dkoellerwx]

I did some mapping today heading back to Ohio from Nashville, TN. Right I'm confused because I had a Galaxy Edge Plus and my IPhone 6s Plus but the Edge held onto lte on the highway unlike my iPhone that loved to bounce to 3G and sometimes 1x. While I was in Nashville, my iPhone held an lte signal but the galaxy got beyond better speeds(50 plus with one in the 90s) whereas the iPhone didn't go past 20mbps. Could some explain to me what was going on between the two phones?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Part of that is just reception differences between devices.

 

The speeds may be server differences, or perhaps not connecting to CA properly. Any number of factors could create those differences.

[caspar347]

If I had to guess I'd say server problems. Sensorly's have never reported latency very well and it wouldn't surprise me if their raw speed tests can be similarly inconsistent.

[gusherb]

I'm gonna go with it being a carrier related baseband thing as far as signal, and a server issue as far as speeds.

 

With Sprint users mostly, iPhone has a reputation for not holding onto signal very well and overall poor performance but using the same phone on a different carrier can yield much different results. When I took my iPhone 6 from Sprint to at&t it suddenly started performing much better in the radio department. I recently used a Note 5 and found it to not perform as well as the iPhone on the network.

 

It's starting to become a pet peeve of mine for a phone to get blamed for having a bad radio when the same exact model number may work excellently on a different provider. The Nexus 5 was a prime example, worked great on Sprint but was an abomination on GSM providers.

[WiWavelength]

I'm gonna go with it being a carrier related baseband thing as far as signal, and a server issue as far as speeds.

 

With Sprint users mostly, iPhone has a reputation for not holding onto signal very well and overall poor performance but using the same phone on a different carrier can yield much different results. When I took my iPhone 6 from Sprint to at&t it suddenly started performing much better in the radio department. I recently used a Note 5 and found it to not perform as well as the iPhone on the network.

 

It's starting to become a pet peeve of mine for a phone to get blamed for having a bad radio when the same exact model number may work excellently on a different provider. The Nexus 5 was a prime example, worked great on Sprint but was an abomination on GSM providers.

 

I do not "Like" your posts -- or generally many posts, for that matter.  But I have to "Like" this one -- because you are spot on target.

 

With handsets, we are carrying mini super computers in our hands and pockets.  Firmware makes a world of difference.  I wish that my objective/subjective FCC OET uplink power analysis could tell the whole RF story.  Yet, it does not.

 

In the end, with a multi operator capable handset, it feels like a game of Whac-A-Mole.  Per hardware and/or firmware, it has better RF performance on one operator, lesser another.  Or vice versa.

 

AJ

[derrph]

If I had to guess I'd say server problems. Sensorly's have never reported latency very well and it wouldn't surprise me if their raw speed tests can be similarly inconsistent.

When I did run a speed test I would use the ookla app but even then it would select different servers which could have been the issue. I did do some digging on here and found that the 6s plus reception is not as good as the regular 6s which could also be the issue as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[anthony.spina97]

Oh my, did AJ "like" another post? It must really be a new year!

 

 

-Anthony