🚀 go-pugleaf

At 09 Jul 2009 00:20:52 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:

> >>>>It is simply not a free market.
> >>>
> >>> Is simply is a free market.  Evidence abounds.
> >>
> >> Not true - the high price of text messages being a prime example.
> >
> >
> > The only significant difference between the wireless market and a
> > truly "free" market is that spectrum is finite, so new national
> > competitors are barred from entry.  
> 
> 
> .... which means anyone who wants to provide a better service at
> a lower cost is prevented from doing that.  Hence no free market.

As I said in the portion of my post you snipped, even if there was
spectrum available to support more competitors, the cost of a national
build-out is too great a barrier of entry.

There was an auction for new spectrum just last year- it was bought by
the incumbents.  No new national providers bought it.
 
Besides, what makes you think a fifth, sixth, or seventh competitor would
undercut the current big four's texting rates, when the big four
themselves won't?  Sprint is still hemmoraging customers, T-Mo hasn't
seen any signficant growth in th last six months- why aren't they
slashing texting prices to drum up business?  Perhaps they already know
there's nothing to gain.

 
> > Someone who texts 500-1000 times a month isn't going to find $0.05 a
> > bargain either, when bundles can be had for $5-20.
> 
> I.e., you admit they are charging a price that is outrageously high
> compared to the cost of the service.



Of course.  When did I say they weren't?

We're going around in circles- you haven't demonstrated that the
"outrageously high" a la carte rates are evidence of monopolisic
practices (other than declaring that it's "obvious"), particularly when
cheaper texting rates exist with MVNOs.