the two companies know much better than you, I, or the FCC does what is most profitable. And don't go crying 'monopoly'...monopoly power, while often screamed about, is markedly less possible than you'd think: sowell's 'Basic Economics' would be a good place to start, should you want to learn about that.
That the FCC and DoJ should even be *allowed* to have a say in this is deplorable. This is a luxury good, a completely optional thing. If these two companies get together, and start charging 'too much', people are free to drop the service. If they *really* start charging too much, the barriers to entry are obviously not infinite (as we got two satellite radio companies *somehow* by now), and smart capital could find a way to launch a competing service. Competition (between the two companies), or even the threat of competition (from a new satellite company post-merger), is what keeps prices down.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
OnlyShawn @ Mar 6th 2008 10:20AM
the two companies know much better than you, I, or the FCC does what is most profitable. And don't go crying 'monopoly'...monopoly power, while often screamed about, is markedly less possible than you'd think: sowell's 'Basic Economics' would be a good place to start, should you want to learn about that.
That the FCC and DoJ should even be *allowed* to have a say in this is deplorable. This is a luxury good, a completely optional thing. If these two companies get together, and start charging 'too much', people are free to drop the service. If they *really* start charging too much, the barriers to entry are obviously not infinite (as we got two satellite radio companies *somehow* by now), and smart capital could find a way to launch a competing service. Competition (between the two companies), or even the threat of competition (from a new satellite company post-merger), is what keeps prices down.