there are multiple companies for energy, for telephone, and for cable, yet nowhere i've lived is there actually competition happening... I've got one choice for cable here, one for telephone, and one for my electricity... one choice isn't actually a choice (although I can at least choose to not even have cable or telephone by using a cell phone and satellite TV)... I don't have ANY choice at getting electricity unless I had enough money to afford to get off the grid!
cell phones on the other hand, I could easily get AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint or US Cellular here, although only AT&T and Verizon have good coverage.... but that's Sprint/TMobile's own fault... at least I actually have a real choice in that industry... I choose to pay more for verizon because the places i spend most of my time are covered best by them, but if i wanted to save money, i could jump to sprint
there is no reason to regulate them any more, unless there were price fixing going on.. maybe between ATT and Verizon there might be, but I don't have to use their networks if I don't want to....
FCC is completely useless sometimes... can't they worry about really problems?!
I understand your point but electricity is a whole different story my friend. Electricty companies tend to be awarded "monopoly" status in order to effectively serve customers. I suggest you read up on how NYC looked pre 1940's with electrical wires everywhere. The problem with the wireless industry is 1)collusion, 2)carrier locking, 3) use of different spectrums, 4)not enough enforcement to enforce existing regulations....
@Mike Vick i understand electricity is different, but it's also locked in ways that hinder development, in that electricity cannot be sold by other vendors... why shouldn't I be able to set up solar panels and sell electricity to anyone that wants to plug in their EVs? (as long as it's inspected for safety reasons)
and as far as carrier locking, I am ok with that as since I am getting a $500 phone for $50, that's worth 2 year commitment to me... and if it's not, I can buy the phone for $500 and not sign a contract... if you mean carrier locking like the iPhone, you SHOULD be able to take that to t-mobile, i agree... but since it's not CDMA then no go for verizon/sprint... and that's their right to use a different technology... obviously half the country doesn't care that verizon uses a different tech and can't get the iphone because of it (yet)... if it was really a bad thing, people would have jumped over to tmobile or att a long time ago on their own
@Mike Vick The problem with the awarding a monopoly is you are giving all the benefits of (current) regulation to a corporation and really few of the benefits to the customers. Just because it's maybe an improvement upon the past doesn't mean that policy is correct, this is what happens when government starts with a good idea and then bends to lobbyists before enacting policy/law. I'm just saying there is room for improvement in both, I tend to be an idealist who likes the idea of regulation but think we fail for it for all the wrong reasons (ignorance, FUD, $, elections, etc).
@McHoffa Carrier locking and subsidies are different, in theory you can have a subsidized phone with 0 financial risk to a carrier that you can take to a new carrier the next day or a few months or years down the road, iPhone is the most famous example of carrier locking because many people and journalists assumed after 2 years there'd be some path to openness.
"obviously half the country doesn't care that verizon uses a different tech and can't get the iphone because of it (yet)." I can't really agree with this. First, part of the reason is status quo/ignorance on part of the consumer. Another part, is that some people don't have much of a choice of carriers in their region due to coverage. It's one thing to say that people don't care, and it's another to say they are just making rational, albeit disgruntled decisions.
On your point of buying a phone for $500, the only time on a major US carrier that really makes sense is with T-Mo as you can save $240 since they actually discount these plans. Paying $500 (from your example, which isn't really accurate, but in some cases can be) to avoid a ~$350 ETF isn't exactly rational. (I don't know the ETFs, I know AT&T just raised theirs to match or come close to Verizons.) Even if the ETF is $700 if you have a only a 50% chance at keeping the contract before the end it's still not rational to pay $500 compared to the $50 (again, from your example, but not really a great figure to use, still even with more realistic #s the numbers typically don't make it rational to buy an unsubsidized phone even though it saves the carrier). Furthermore, after your contract is up, do you get a discount? Nah, they just collect a higher (accounting) profit, even though their revenues are the same.
@McHoffa I have no idea about the US situation. (I can understand grid restrictions but is it really true you're not allowed to sell electricity independently without any grid involvement? if so, how do stores sell batteries?)
However, one reason for restricting competition on monopolies which are intended to provide public services is if those monopolies have to face extra requirements in return for their monopoly status.
For example (this is not a real example, just hypothetical and based on some similar examples in other industries) there might be an agreement that the monopoly has to provide electricity at the same price to everyone wherever they live, even though - in practice - it costs more (in terms of repairs, extra hardware, etc) to provide electricity to people living up a hill in the middle of nowhere where the transmission lines keep getting damaged by storms, than it costs to provide electricity in the city. Obviously this would have to be paid for by slightly higher average costs for everyone.
If other companies are then allowed to compete with the monopoly, but they only offer electricity within the city (say) that would be a huge and unfair commercial advantage.
Personally, I think the whole regulated monopoly setup is a bit of a silly way to sort-of avoid public ownership anyway. IMO shared assets such as power lines (water mains, railway tracks, etc) should be managed by a publicly-owned company, leaving private (and non-monopoly) business to retain other tasks which can reasonably be subject to competition such as actually generating power (and other things like working as contractors to build and repair said power network, etc).
Seems to me that with regard to phone companies you guys don't have a particular problem with consumer choice (several large companies to choose from) but you do have a problem with restrictive rules (carrier locking, etc).
@xxxsam Excellent post and you are correct with your logic on the public utility/private competition model, so a good choice on the hypothetical. It's much how health care works as well.
As far as batteries, I'm sure there is regulation, but on the mfg end. As far as selling electricity goes, currently it is dependent on state regulation (I think typically concerning using the power lines as the means of distribution). Some states have enacted laws in order to promote the generation and distribution of power on a more local, green and efficient level. Hope that helps.
"I'm a college student looking for a new laptop, but almost all of my media I receive digitally. I'm looking for a laptop, not a netbook, without an optical drive, and budget sensitive. The optical drive will just be a waste of space, when I can have thinner laptop. What's out there?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
there are multiple companies for energy, for telephone, and for cable, yet nowhere i've lived is there actually competition happening... I've got one choice for cable here, one for telephone, and one for my electricity... one choice isn't actually a choice (although I can at least choose to not even have cable or telephone by using a cell phone and satellite TV)... I don't have ANY choice at getting electricity unless I had enough money to afford to get off the grid!
cell phones on the other hand, I could easily get AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint or US Cellular here, although only AT&T and Verizon have good coverage.... but that's Sprint/TMobile's own fault... at least I actually have a real choice in that industry... I choose to pay more for verizon because the places i spend most of my time are covered best by them, but if i wanted to save money, i could jump to sprint
there is no reason to regulate them any more, unless there were price fixing going on.. maybe between ATT and Verizon there might be, but I don't have to use their networks if I don't want to....
FCC is completely useless sometimes... can't they worry about really problems?!
@McHoffa
I understand your point but electricity is a whole different story my friend. Electricty companies tend to be awarded "monopoly" status in order to effectively serve customers. I suggest you read up on how NYC looked pre 1940's with electrical wires everywhere. The problem with the wireless industry is 1)collusion, 2)carrier locking, 3) use of different spectrums, 4)not enough enforcement to enforce existing regulations....
@Mike Vick i understand electricity is different, but it's also locked in ways that hinder development, in that electricity cannot be sold by other vendors... why shouldn't I be able to set up solar panels and sell electricity to anyone that wants to plug in their EVs? (as long as it's inspected for safety reasons)
and as far as carrier locking, I am ok with that as since I am getting a $500 phone for $50, that's worth 2 year commitment to me... and if it's not, I can buy the phone for $500 and not sign a contract... if you mean carrier locking like the iPhone, you SHOULD be able to take that to t-mobile, i agree... but since it's not CDMA then no go for verizon/sprint... and that's their right to use a different technology... obviously half the country doesn't care that verizon uses a different tech and can't get the iphone because of it (yet)... if it was really a bad thing, people would have jumped over to tmobile or att a long time ago on their own
@Mike Vick The problem with the awarding a monopoly is you are giving all the benefits of (current) regulation to a corporation and really few of the benefits to the customers. Just because it's maybe an improvement upon the past doesn't mean that policy is correct, this is what happens when government starts with a good idea and then bends to lobbyists before enacting policy/law. I'm just saying there is room for improvement in both, I tend to be an idealist who likes the idea of regulation but think we fail for it for all the wrong reasons (ignorance, FUD, $, elections, etc).
@McHoffa Carrier locking and subsidies are different, in theory you can have a subsidized phone with 0 financial risk to a carrier that you can take to a new carrier the next day or a few months or years down the road, iPhone is the most famous example of carrier locking because many people and journalists assumed after 2 years there'd be some path to openness.
"obviously half the country doesn't care that verizon uses a different tech and can't get the iphone because of it (yet)." I can't really agree with this. First, part of the reason is status quo/ignorance on part of the consumer. Another part, is that some people don't have much of a choice of carriers in their region due to coverage. It's one thing to say that people don't care, and it's another to say they are just making rational, albeit disgruntled decisions.
On your point of buying a phone for $500, the only time on a major US carrier that really makes sense is with T-Mo as you can save $240 since they actually discount these plans. Paying $500 (from your example, which isn't really accurate, but in some cases can be) to avoid a ~$350 ETF isn't exactly rational. (I don't know the ETFs, I know AT&T just raised theirs to match or come close to Verizons.) Even if the ETF is $700 if you have a only a 50% chance at keeping the contract before the end it's still not rational to pay $500 compared to the $50 (again, from your example, but not really a great figure to use, still even with more realistic #s the numbers typically don't make it rational to buy an unsubsidized phone even though it saves the carrier). Furthermore, after your contract is up, do you get a discount? Nah, they just collect a higher (accounting) profit, even though their revenues are the same.
@McHoffa I have no idea about the US situation. (I can understand grid restrictions but is it really true you're not allowed to sell electricity independently without any grid involvement? if so, how do stores sell batteries?)
However, one reason for restricting competition on monopolies which are intended to provide public services is if those monopolies have to face extra requirements in return for their monopoly status.
For example (this is not a real example, just hypothetical and based on some similar examples in other industries) there might be an agreement that the monopoly has to provide electricity at the same price to everyone wherever they live, even though - in practice - it costs more (in terms of repairs, extra hardware, etc) to provide electricity to people living up a hill in the middle of nowhere where the transmission lines keep getting damaged by storms, than it costs to provide electricity in the city. Obviously this would have to be paid for by slightly higher average costs for everyone.
If other companies are then allowed to compete with the monopoly, but they only offer electricity within the city (say) that would be a huge and unfair commercial advantage.
Personally, I think the whole regulated monopoly setup is a bit of a silly way to sort-of avoid public ownership anyway. IMO shared assets such as power lines (water mains, railway tracks, etc) should be managed by a publicly-owned company, leaving private (and non-monopoly) business to retain other tasks which can reasonably be subject to competition such as actually generating power (and other things like working as contractors to build and repair said power network, etc).
Seems to me that with regard to phone companies you guys don't have a particular problem with consumer choice (several large companies to choose from) but you do have a problem with restrictive rules (carrier locking, etc).
@xxxsam Excellent post and you are correct with your logic on the public utility/private competition model, so a good choice on the hypothetical. It's much how health care works as well.
As far as batteries, I'm sure there is regulation, but on the mfg end. As far as selling electricity goes, currently it is dependent on state regulation (I think typically concerning using the power lines as the means of distribution). Some states have enacted laws in order to promote the generation and distribution of power on a more local, green and efficient level. Hope that helps.