U.S. Mobile Phone Carrier Practices Questioned

[rob@robburns.co]

Right or wrong, you are using a poor analogy. The Interstate highway system is a government owned and maintained system funded by our taxes, the telecommunications network, at least 90% anyway, was built by AT&T and funded by investments and customer revenues.

Its not a poor analogy, you just don't understand the economic concepts being discussed. The natural monopoly and the public good have nothing to do with the structure of the organization or enterprise providing it. It has nothing to do with how it was financed. It has to do with the physical production properties of the product or "good" involved. The analogy is very strong. I'm talking about a network of expressways compared to a network of for data bits. Both products are non-rival in consumption, meaning the use of the network (wireless or of expressways) by one person does not prohibit someone else form using it (except in the extreme case when either network is at its peak capacity). To repeat ownership, financing, publicly traded, whether through bond issue or not, whatever: none of these have any impact on the status as a natural monopoly industry.

Even if it did (and it doesn't), the original expressways inn the US started out as private enterprises. They were later nationalized and then became part of the US interstate system. So even if you do look at the corporate structure and financing (even thought it has nothing to do with the topic of the analogy), you'll still find a very similar beginning.

Had the government not stepped in and broke up AT&T, your argument would not exist. While the telecommunications industry, as it stands today, may be considered a natural monopoly, it is only that way because the government stepped in and created this 'false competition.'

No, you're again misunderstanding what a natural monopoly is. Its got nothing to do with what either the government or the monopoly enterprise does. It doesn't even have to involve a monopoly enterprise. Its merely a situation where the marginal and average cost of adding product diminishes. Economies of scale basically does it.

…
Telecommunications as an industry is not a natural monopoly, but AT&T is.

An enterprise cannot be a natural monopoly. There could be a monopoly firm producing in a natural monopoly industry. However, there's no question from a mainstream economic perspective: telecommunications is a natural monopoly industry with a public good that is non-rival in consumption. You can try to wiggle your way out of that by saying its all the government's fault, but it just shows you don't understand these concepts. This means trying to infuse competition will not add efficiency. Quite the contrary it will vastly more expensive and vastly less reliable. It will not lead to greater choice, because even with a group of several colluding oligopolists, they will tend to coalesce around a single industry leader and follow the leaders practices.

Again, you're trying to misapply economic theories principle's of laissez faire, laissez passe to an area where they were never meant to apply: i.e., the natural monopoly industry.

 

[rob@robburns.co]

But if you're saying that the mobile phone carrier network -- the towers, the voice and data service, etc. -- should be run by a single socialized entity -- essentially, the government -- or an assigned private party that is self-supporting only and makes no profit, rather than by a few or many competing private for-profit corporations, I wholeheartedly agree. Of course in the States we already do this with some public goods, like fire and police departments, the free public education system, etc., but for some reason the concept of telecommunications as a public good doesn't get through to majority of the American public, so we pay through the nose for the warm, cozy feeling of a "free market" with no benefits and often problems for the customer, when we'd pay about the same for the same services under a public-good or natural monopoly plan -- provided we didn't let a largely unmonitored, unregulated for-profit corporation run it. I get you there, too.

Actually, I would go further and say we should expect to pay significantly less for a properly handled wireless network service handled as public good through public policy in a natural monopoly industry. Of course it requires your caveat that we didn't give everything away to an unregulated for-profit corporation to run it.

The interstate highway system is a good example to add to that list: especially when compared to a national wireless cellular network. The Interstate Highways system was nationalized in the US decades ago.

Few would think that we should auction off the interstate system to several private corporations and offer them eminent domain rights to provide competing lanes alongside one another. Of course we'd each then pay monthly fees for use of those lanes. We might be able to switch into the other lanes, but only if our current plan allowed for that. Chrysler might produce a car that could only be used on one providers lanes. etc. etc. The analogy sounds absurd but not because the analogy doesn't work. Its because it is an absurd situation. Its just we can't visually detect the bits flying around us in RF frequencies and so the process goes on behind our backs. (incidentally, I sometimes fear bringing up an analogy like this for free that the free market mantra folks will say: "Hey, wait a minute.... do you mean the government is messing up my freedoms by running the interstate system as a socialized monopoly! What gives!")

And if by asking me to stop repeating the dogma, you're asking me to quit pretending even under a "fairer" system with strict consumer-friendly regulations and proper enforcement of these regulations, services like mobile phone networks belong in the hands of for-profit private corporations because they do not belong in these hands, I agree on that point as well. But I hedged in my previous post. I don't think that I would typically hedge as I'm opposed to lily gilding and quite usually rather boldly state my mind, but I've taken a serious beating over the last ten days for my concerns over the impropriety of the way in which Apple sells the iPhone and AT&T provides service for it -- these particular issues of contracts, no subsidies, termination fees, etc., should be familiar to most people following the issue by now. I've been slighted, maligned, called various names, profane and merely condescending, for even daring to question the iPhone and its service arrangement. So, I hedged because I'm weary of being "yelled at" this week.

I'm sorry about that. I wasn't really directing that at you by that point. I was expressing my frustration about AppleHero and others on this thread who keep repeating that free market mantra. Again, sorry to take it out on you.

As an aside, I pointed to Nash chiefly because, in his signature economic theory, I find delightful beauty in the notion that in a system long believed to greatly favor the highly aggressive, most selfish participant it turned up that the greatest benefit to the system would actually be compromise between human beings.

I can appreciate that too. I just wanted to drive home the point that — for natural monopoly — this ridiculousness about free markets won't even find any justification in the most vanilla economic theories.

Sorry I don't have time at the moment to address all your comments in detail. Thanks for the considered response.

Sure, no problem. I'm glad to see someone else on here that's not taken in by the big con job we're subjected to here in the US.

 

[SeaFox]

Right or wrong, you are using a poor analogy. The Interstate highway system is a government owned and maintained system funded by our taxes, the telecommunications network, at least 90% anyway, was built by AT&T and funded by investments and customer revenues.

Actually, AT&T received large subsidies from the federal government for years to expand their network (ever hear of the Rural Electric Project? There was one for telephone, too). They were also granted a government monopoly over local and long distance phone service for decades. The contribution the U.S. government (in other words: the taxpayers) have made to Ma Bell's business is one of the primary reasons AT&T was forced to lease their lines to competitors as a part of partial deregulation.

To say that AT&T has shouldered almost all of the cost of the network through prudent investments and customer revenue gained on a level market playing field is patently false.

 

[zflauaus]

Besides, WiMax is the future... why switch to GSM-HSDPA?? I'm glad Sprint figured this out and I'm anxiously awaiting them to implement it in my area.

Umm... WiMax is still years away from deployment, and even then, it will be in few, select areas. The best thing to do will be for them to implement EVDO Rev. 0 fully, then Rev. A, Rev. B, and so on. Rev. B and Rev. C have already been discussed. Curious, why do you see WiMax as the future? The CDMA networks will always be that, a CDMA network. The only thing they might use WiMax for is data as of right now, but CDMA is a superb network and does not need to be replaced anytime soon.

As I mentioned earlier, I think WiMax is a better path to go down than HSDPA and I'm hoping the cell carriers here all adopt it. As I understand, it should be able to handle both the data and voice services and I would think would eventually lead to a VoIP-style cell service. I'm just speculating here on the limited information I know about WiMax.

I ask again, why WiMax? It is extremely expensive to roll out right now, so it will be a few uears before it is even put up.

Unless I'm mistaken, AT&T is the only company building HSDPA is the US. I'm assuming T-Mobile will have the ability as well since they use AT&T's network (even though they have their own towers, still AT&T's network.) The US may have more money and more people per square mile, the geographical differences are way beyond Australia and Bulgaria. More land to cover, longer waits for technology upgrades.

As of this moment, yes. T-Mobile is going to use their newly purchased 1700MHz spectrum for their 3G network, totally inoperable with other countries' 3G networks (everybody else uses 2100MHz). T-Mobile does not use AT&T's network. They have their own array of towers but only use AT&T's network for roaming. T-Mobile is not an MVNO.

 

[rob@robburns.co]

T-Mobile does not use AT&T's network. They have their own array of towers but only use AT&T's network for roaming. T-Mobile is not an MVNO.

I think AppleHero meant that T-Moblile is ultimately using AT&T's wired network (though I could be wrong).

 

[Stella]

So... you buy the iPhone outright, and you can't go to any other carrier, *even* after paying a termination fee.

Doesn't anyone find this strange? Unlike any other phone.

You *own* the phone but your told what carrier you can use. Something is very wrong.

 

[rob@robburns.co]

So... you buy the iPhone outright, and you can't go to any other carrier, *even* after paying a termination fee.

Doesn't anyone find this strange? Unlike any other phone.

You *own* the phone but your told what carrier you can use. Something is very wrong.

My understanding is that this is much like many cell phones in the US. Reportedly, though, even these locked phones can be unlocked upon request of your service provider. I have not heard any reports either way of someone requesting an unlock code. That is to say, I haven't heard of anyone requesting one, and I haven't heard whether upon request anyone has been given nor denied an unlock code. I'm interested to here what happens with this.

 

[applehero]

I think AppleHero meant that T-Moblile is ultimately using AT&T's wired network (though I could be wrong).

Correct.

 

[applehero]

Actually, AT&T received large subsidies from the federal government for years to expand their network (ever hear of the Rural Electric Project? There was one for telephone, too). They were also granted a government monopoly over local and long distance phone service for decades. The contribution the U.S. government (in other words: the taxpayers) have made to Ma Bell's business is one of the primary reasons AT&T was forced to lease their lines to competitors as a part of partial deregulation.

To say that AT&T has shouldered almost all of the cost of the network through prudent investments and customer revenue gained on a level market playing field is patently false.

My mistake, I did leave out govt subsidies. It was in my head, just didn't get out.

 

[sanford]

So... you buy the iPhone outright, and you can't go to any other carrier, *even* after paying a termination fee.

Doesn't anyone find this strange? Unlike any other phone.

You *own* the phone but your told what carrier you can use. Something is very wrong.

Of course. It's outrageous. Horribly wrong. Several us have made general and specific comments against this market system in this thread. SeaFox has. And rob@ has a great analogy comparing the mobile phone industry to the national highway system -- it really is a great analogy, even though, as he himself says, it sounds absurd; but it only sounds absurd because a lot of people can see the absurdity of redundant, competitive highway systems, but for some reason can't see the exact same brand of absurdity of redundant, competitive mobile phone networks.

The worst thing is that you indeed buy the iPhone outright, no carrier subsidy, but it's still exclusively tied to AT&T service and requires initiation -- or restarting a full contract if you are already in an AT&T contract -- of a two-year contract just to unlock any feature of the iPhone, not just use the phone. It should be noted that carrier subsidies are an illusion. I can go out today, sign a two-year contract with a mobile service, and pay $50, or even nothing, for an MSRP $400 Nokia phone. But of course the carrier will make up the discount on the phone, that and probably more, and I for one certainly believe that subsidy reimbursement is directly built into the monthly service fees, and not merely shaved off profit on those fees. If you pay $50 for the phone today, you pay the $350 balance over two years time; so you pay the total MSRP, perhaps more, by the end of the contract. But carrier subsidies have in the past at least given the phone buyer the illusion of consideration in the contract. Which is important on two points: the buyer think it's reasonable to enter into the contract; and, contracts without reasonable consideration for all parties bound by the contract are by law void in the States. (The old business law class saw regarding contract consideration goes something like: If I have you sign a contract that if I make you a ham sandwich you will give me your car, that contract is void, because my making you a ham sandwich is not reasonably worth the value of your car -- there's no reasonable consideration for you in that contract. The contract is void and even if I make you a quite delicious ham sandwich, you're not legally bound by this void contract.)

These mobile phone carrier contracts were questionable tactics in the first place. Without even the subsidy illusion they are a farce, and, I fear, a potential gateway for lining up consumers to obligate them to contracts for all manner of good and services without consideration for them. I can't imagine how this AT&T contract would be upheld in court if it were challenged, although you can be sure AT&T's attorneys have gone over it again and again to find hooks upon which to hang its validity.

This is where the free market mantra, as rob@ calls it, steps in to chant, But in a free market, like the one we have in the States, anyone can make any exclusive arrangement they wish, and require contracts if they wish, and it's your choice to sign them no matter how onerous the contract, and if you willingly sign it, you're bound by it, because this a free country -- or something like that. This a bad deal for Americans, but worse, it's not even true. We have laws controlling the substance of contracts. You *can't* legally get anyone to sign any kind of contract for any reason. There are general laws covering all contracts and specific laws covering certain types of contracts. The problem is government agencies who can act on their own aren't going after these contracts and consumers aren't challenging these contracts in court, so we don't know specifically how they would hold up. American consumers are buying into this free market mantra and I would say a fair share of us, probably a stunning majority of us, really believe any business interest can request a contract obligation of us for anything, and if we want that thing we have to sign it.

But speaking out against either the iPhone or the mobile carriers -- or any of these so-called free market issues -- is an ugly game for Americans. First, the iPhone is precious and beloved by its owners and people who want one; they don't want to hear criticism of, well, it's a *phone*, folks. Next, as far as market tactics are concerned, claiming the Apple/AT&T arrangement is unfair, unethical and if not illegal should be, why that's anti-capitalist, which is of course anti-American. I'm none of those things, but I still declare the Apple/AT&T arrangement is of great concern and has profound ramifications for the American consumer.

 

[sanford]

My understanding is that this is much like many cell phones in the US. Reportedly, though, even these locked phones can be unlocked upon request of your service provider. I have not heard any reports either way of someone requesting an unlock code. That is to say, I haven't heard of anyone requesting one, and I haven't heard whether upon request anyone has been given nor denied an unlock code. I'm interested to here what happens with this.

A lot of phones can be unlocked, and the codes are available, but I don't know that the carriers are bound to give them to you. At any rate, in the case of the iPhone, the best this would get you is a wide-screen iPod nano with Wi-Fi Internet features. The iPhone is designed so that not only will it not work with SIM cards from other carriers, there are even interoperability problems -- partial or total -- with SIM cards from other AT&T phones. (It's essentially not a SIM card phone per specification, but a proprietary iteration thereof.) I would assume the latter use is restricted so you can't already be an AT&T customer who has served out the original contract period, paying for service on a monthly basis, then take your contract-less AT&T SIM card and account and use it with a new iPhone.

 

[applehero]

Its not a poor analogy, you just don't understand the economic concepts being discussed....

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. Whether it be my lack of knowledge of economic concepts or your lack of knowledge of the industry (which I don't know your level of exposure to telecommunications.) I can tell you that the service a telecommunications company provides is virtually zero is cost, the network and switching components that are used are exactly the opposite, outrageously expensive. Maintaining and monitoring those elements is also quite expensive. The overhead on a telecommunications company is ridiculous. This is why we have seen so many CLEC's come and go over the years, they cannot maintain a large enough customer base to recover costs and become profitable.

The worst thing we could do is allow our government to take over telecommunications. To go with your Interstate analogy, the system is terrible. We pay taxes for maintenance and expansion, yet it takes 5 years, at best, for a 20 mile segment of interstate to get resurfaced. To try and get a lane added to accommodate increased traffic, you're over a decade of waiting, if we're lucky. A lot of larger cities have started looking towards private companies to build toll lanes to relieve congestion as they're being told by the government there isn't enough money for their highway project or it will take years before they can even get to it.

Do you honestly think this would be any different for telecom??? It wouldn't. Every piece of information transmitted would be monitored, recorded, and analyzed. We would see drastic decreased in quality of service and customer service (you think it's bad now, just wait). Technology upgrades would roll out slower, if at all, because the government hates spending money that is not necessary, plus it has to be approved by 10 different bodies before they can even think about spending anything.

Okay...I have to get off this topic. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions and I have expressed mine enough. Things will either work out or they won't. Whatever the case, I hope we, as a country, can figure a way to improve things for everyone and start looking towards globalization standards and not the US vs. everyone else.

 

[sanford]

Every piece of information transmitted would be monitored, recorded, and analyzed.

I won't address each point of your post since it's either directed to rob@ or it's otherwise clear from my previous posts that you and I disagree on how our economy should run, but on that one point I've quoted above: If the federal government or any agency thereof wishes to do that, they already are doing it, or can start doing it at any time. They don't need ownership of the network to do that.

 

[rob@robburns.co]

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. Whether it be my lack of knowledge of economic concepts or your lack of knowledge of the industry (which I don't know your level of exposure to telecommunications.) I can tell you that the service a telecommunications company provides is [not] virtually zero is cost, the network and switching components that are used are exactly the opposite, outrageously expensive. Maintaining and monitoring those elements is also quite expensive. The overhead on a telecommunications company is ridiculous.

It is not the overall or total costs that are relevant to the issue of natural monopoly. It is the marginal cost. In other words how much does it cost to facilitate the last minute of a voice-call; the last SMS text message or the last bit of data. These are all basically $0.

To use the interstate highway system analogy again, what does it cost to let the marginal car drive a mile? $0. Does that mean that the Interstate Highways system is cheap? No not at all. Its a very expensive endeavor: much more so than the wireless cellular network.

As for the slowness and political difficulties in expanding and making various enhancements the interstate highway system: these are all rightly handled as public policy issues. Communities and the Federal Highway Administration need to take into account the environmental impacts of what they do. For a wireless network, those issues are much smaller. Obviously the issue of how much a society wants to spend on its wireless infrastructure is important. Also the placement of cell phone towers is an important public policy issue even the private enterprises have to deal with (e.g., because they're unsightly and concerns about their public health impacts). Even if the cellular network was run by a Federal agency it wouldn't mean that we wouldn't have private enterprises contracted to build the infrastructure (just as private construction companies build our expressways).

As for privacy concerns, handling this as a government monopoly would improve that too. Since the network would be provided by the government, we'd all be free to use any VOIP service provider for our voice service over that network. We could even setup our own private VOIP servers to ensure our own RSA encryption keys were safe from others and keep the prying ears out of our conversations. Today, the conversation is encrypted, but its encrypted by AT&T or Sprint or Verizon who are all in bed with the the most disgusting parts of our government. Reportedly today, all of the big phone companies gladly turn over our private records and decrypted conversations to the Federal authorities upon request without any warrant and without any court intervention.

However, you look at it we're being screwed by these corporations and their government collaborators.

 

[jarbake]

However, you look at it we're being screwed by these corporations and their government collaborators.

I'm a little confused; you would rather only be screwed by the government? You seem to contradict yourself.

Let's take a step back and look at how a socialized telecommunications industry would work. You KNOW taxes would have to rise. Do you want your little old granny to have to spend more of her fixed income just so you can THINK you are getting better telecommunications service?

What would motivate this socialized telecommunications industry to come out with new, innovative things? You are hooked and they know it.

As far as the highway system argument, I agree with applehero. Have you ever sat in line on a highway behind some guy holding up a red stop sign? Next time you get stopped by road construction, take a look around. How many people do you see just sitting inside the cab of a piece of equipment or leaning against a truck? Are these the same people you want servicing the entire countries telecommunications industry?

 

[rob@robburns.co]

I'm a little confused; you would rather only be screwed by the government? You seem to contradict yourself.

You're confused (and you think I'm contradicting myself) because you believe in the swindle: private enterprise gets in bed with government; takes it over for their own interest and then convinces you that it was government was the source of the whole swindle in the first place. What I'm saying is that if we make government responsible to us the citizenry (and in this case the customers of a natural monopoly), the swindlers will be neutralized.

Let's take a step back and look at how a socialized telecommunications industry would work. You KNOW taxes would have to rise. Do you want your little old granny to have to spend more of her fixed income just so you can THINK you are getting better telecommunications service?

No, you're confused again. The financing of a natural monopoly is always an issue of public policy. The entire industry could be funded through user-fees. Mainstream economic theory would suggest customers paying the average cost of production (much less than we pay now) would be the most efficient approach.

What would motivate this socialized telecommunications industry to come out with new, innovative things? You are hooked and they know it.

What motivates the seemingly endless expansion of the Federal Highway System: public lobbying by motorists, the automobile industry and the highway construction industry. The same thing would likely happen with a Federal cellular network: network users, companies like Apple, and network installation companies (among others) would lobby for improvements (e.g., a leap to 10G network).

As far as the highway system argument, I agree with applehero. Have you ever sat in line on a highway behind some guy holding up a red stop sign? Next time you get stopped by road construction, take a look around. How many people do you see just sitting inside the cab of a piece of equipment or leaning against a truck? Are these the same people you want servicing the entire countries telecommunications industry?

Those construction workers are typically private enterprise construction workers. I have no idea if they're any lazier than any other workers. Have you ever surprised a telecommunications company executive in his office and found him playing minesweeper?

So does this mean you're actually thinking the Federal Highway system should be turned over to a major corporation like AT&T: to avoid private highway construction workers taking a break too often? Or do you think that your granny will pay less in taxes if we provide another opportunity for swindle in the federal highway system. I wouldn't be surprised if taxes went up when turning over the federal highway system monopoly over to a private enterprise. That's the nature of a swindle.

 

[CptnJustc]

Just to comment on the Japanese-style 3G phones here. Those are driven by the market, not by innovation or by how cell phone companies here work. With the large amount of area that US companies have to cover, all the geographical problems they encounter, and all the people who don't want cell phone towers on their land I'm really not at all surprised that 3G isn't in a lot of places. Europe and Japan are case studies in and of their own. You can't even remotely compare them to the US. For one look at population density as a whole - while the US maybe have some huge cities that are massive huge chunks of land where it's 1 or 2 inhabitants per square mile.

Also, the whole swiping you phone to pay ticket fares, yeah, that's great and all but you think people stealing cell phones is bad now - try doing that in America - it'd instantly be the #1 crime. US companies don't bother with features like that because 1, they'd have to get the city to install something that would read the phone and 2 the extremely small demographic that would use it. It's just not worth the investment at this point. Maybe in 20 - 30 years but not now. I mean, heck, I live in the DFW area and there is no subway at all and this is a rather large metroplex. Even huge cities don't have subways - look at Houston, over 2 million people in the city - no subway...

My point is there are literally hundreds of reasons why we don't have japanese style cell phones and only a couple of them have anything to do with the cell phone companies...

Hmmm, I don't know about 'literally hundreds'. I agree that Japan is an ideal cell phone market -- dense populations (though you might note that they are crowded into about 20% of the country, and the rest is still well-covered), tech-savvy and with a lot of network effects that promote the use of, say, auto-payment devices at turnstyles.

On the other hand, given the notes of some of the other posters, it seems absurd that a country as rich, technically adept, and not-exactly-unpopulated should have such poor networks, particularly on the coasts. Your reasons don't seem to add up to the United States being the last industrialized country to get decent high-speed coverage.

But let's refocus on handset technology -- you're right, there are multiple reasons why other countries have more-advanced, far less-crippled handsets than we do. And only a couple of those reasons do have to do with carriers' power over the handset companies (not necessarily, as you said, with the cell phone companies themselves). Probably best eliminate those reasons. It would almost certainly make some difference, unless you believe that consumers are demanding crippled Bluetooth, walled-in, expensive, non-transferable media downloads, etc.

And if that is indeed what consumers want, then unbundling the products would still be beneficial in providing clearer price signals to handset makers and the carriers. I'm not sure what the exact mechanism is by which tightly bundling handsets with carriers is supposed to benefit consumers.

 

[rob@robburns.co]

Natural monopoly and the iPhone

Bringing this discussion back to the issue of the iPhone, just imagine if countries all over the world simply provided a standard 3G network as a nationalized cellular network. Apple could sell a product World-wide from day one and it would be usable on all of those networks. Apple could provide the voicemail service, ichat would be there (no reason to lock the phone down for SMS fees) and so on. By handling natural monopolies in the proper way it creates so many more opportunities and choices for consumers. Its better for private enterprises like Apple too (in other words those private enterprises that aren't in on the swindle).

 

[jarbake]

You're confused (and you think I'm contradicting myself) because you believe in the swindle: private enterprise gets in bed with government; takes it over for their own interest and then convinces you that it was government was the source of the whole swindle in the first place. What I'm saying is that if we make government responsible to us the citizenry (and in this case the customers of a natural monopoly), the swindlers will be neutralized.

Oh, so we just take away half of the problem and the whole problem goes away? If anything, these 'people in government in bed with private enterprise' as you so elegantly put it, cut out the middle man and receive a bigger piece of the pie.

Nothing is perfect. The federal highway system is far from perfect as is the telecommunications industry. Some states in fact HAVE sold pieces of there interstate highway to fund other projects. Now, is selling the whole national highway system to privet industry a good ideal, probably not. But on the other hand, is turning the whole telecommunications industry over to the government a good idea, I highly doubt.

Socializing ANYTHING is totally against everything in the Constitution. Many people, probably including members of your own family, have went into battle to make sure this country doesn't fall into the hands of socialist/communist hands.

It’s a funny thing. The people I hear screaming for socialized medicine and I guess now telecommunications are those that are also those quickest to point to flaws in our government. Why then are they so adamant about putting more power into the hands of the government?

Also, don't take this the wrong way, but if you have as much knowledge about economic system as you say you do, why do you spend so much time here?

 

[rob@robburns.co]

Also, don't take this the wrong way, but if you have as much knowledge about economic system as you say you do, why do you spend so much time here?

How should I take that. Is this forum only for losers and idiots? I didn't see the sign. (just in case, I wasn't suggesting anyone here is a loser or idiot, just I thought that jarbake was implying I wasn't welcome here unless I was)

In any event, I would just like those who are so into free enterprise to learn a little about economics. If they did they would find out it doesn't support the conclusions they draw about free enterprise when it comes to natural monopoly industries. Is that so wrong?

 

[jarbake]

No, Why must you insist on putting words into everyone’s mouth in all of your replies?

I just figured someone as knowledgeable and qualified to teach economics to others would have something a little better to do during the day.

 

[rob@robburns.co]

No, Why must you insist on putting words into everyone’s mouth in all of your replies?

I just figured someone as knowledgeable and qualified to teach economics to others would have something a little better to do during the day.

Well right now, I'm disabled. So I'm trying to find ways to occupy my time.

I'm not trying to put words in people's mouths. If you're referring to my use of the interstate system analogy, its just a very apt analogy because it is an example of a natural monopoly that is still nationalized / socialized in the US.

 

[CptnJustc]

Socializing ANYTHING is totally against everything in the Constitution.

Huh? Which parts? OK, 'everything', but could you point to some specific thing?

 

[rob@robburns.co]

Oh, so we just take away half of the problem and the whole problem goes away? If anything, these 'people in government in bed with private enterprise' as you so elegantly put it, cut out the middle man and receive a bigger piece of the pie.

Theses swindling corporations need the government to legitimize what they do. We need government too (us non-swindlers) for example to handle natural monopoly industries such as our roadways. The problem is when the government responds to the swindlers and ignores the rest of us and our needs. So the US military goes to war for Haliburton or the United Fruit Company. But when we're attacked domestically it's unprepared and responds very very slowly.

Nothing is perfect. The federal highway system is far from perfect as is the telecommunications industry. Some states in fact HAVE sold pieces of there interstate highway to fund other projects. Now, is selling the whole national highway system to privet industry a good ideal, probably not. But on the other hand, is turning the whole telecommunications industry over to the government a good idea, I highly doubt.

Even selling of parts of it is a very bad idea, because its a public good: a public asset. Putting it in the hands of one organization means it won't be handled efficiently or appropriately for public needs.

Socializing ANYTHING is totally against everything in the Constitution.

Why do you think that? What specific passages of the constitution do you have in mind? The federal interstate system is socialized: is that unconstitutional? Or are you thinking that its charging user fees for socialized industries that's unconstitutional? In that case its only the publicly run tollways that would be unconstitutional.

Many people, probably including members of your own family, have went into battle to make sure this country doesn't fall into the hands of socialist/communist hands.

No, that's not correct. What battle's or wars are you thinking of here?

It’s a funny thing. The people I hear screaming for socialized medicine and I guess now telecommunications are those that are also those quickest to point to flaws in our government. Why then are they so adamant about putting more power into the hands of the government?

I think you're getting it backwards. We're trying to make government responsive to the needs of the citizenry, rather than to the needs of AT&T, Haliburton, etc. Take the secure communication example above. Right now, with the swindle arrangement, we have no privacy because the swindling corporations cooperate with the swindling parts of the US government to pry into our communications. With a properly accountable, nationalized natural monopoly cellular network, the voice service would be provided privately. There would be no easy way to round-end the encryption of communications. As it stands today, the government and your network provider can freely examine everything you do on their network. That's transferring a lot of power from yourself to the government and the network provider. There's no choice there at all.

 

[jarbake]

Yes, by everything, I ment everything. The whole point of the United States Constitution was to limited government. I'm aware he had nothing to do with the writting of the Constitution, but Abe Lincoln himself declaried "In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."