Is Broadband deregulation a good or a bad thing?

[AFB]

Text


i tried to create a poll and it would not work so STFU.

 

[FleshLight]

Good for companies and a small amount of people. Bad for the general public.

 

[FleshLight]

Good for companies and a small amount of people. Bad for the general public (Joe Computer User).

 

[FleshLight]

I didn't press enter twice...wtf?

 

[RossMAN]

I would assume that it's good.

Doesn't it encourage competition, better service and lower prices?

 

[wyvrn]

I have no idea in this case specifically. Generally, competition raises service levels and drops prices, though.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
I have no idea in this case specifically. Generally, competition raises service levels and drops prices, though.

That is incorrect when it comes to major changes in governement regulations. In a wide array of industries prices get roughly an instant 20% BOOST for every time the industry was either regulated OR deregulated. Why? Basic reason: companies see that as their best excuse to raise prices and they can blame it on the government. There is a lot more to it, but the result is the same. Price has soared in every case so far.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: wyvrn
I have no idea in this case specifically. Generally, competition raises service levels and drops prices, though.

That is incorrect when it comes to major changes in governement regulations. In a wide array of industries prices get roughly an instant 20% BOOST for every time the industry was either regulated OR deregulated. Why? Basic reason: companies see that as their best excuse to raise prices and they can blame it on the government. There is a lot more to it, but the result is the same. Price has soared in every case so far.

Bullsh!t. I'll give you one major example: Airfare, when adjusted for inflation, is far lower after deregulation than before.

Oh, and I'll add telephone service to that as well. How would you like to pay the inflation adjusted rates and be forced to rent your phone like you did before Ma Bell had to give up her government enforced monopoly?

 

[Yossarian451]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
I would assume that it's good.

Doesn't it encourage competition, better service and lower prices?

Ohh sure deregulations is a "great" thing. Look how well it worked with electric companies in california.

Basically no, deregulation only allows small business to piggy back on big companies. It sounds like a good idea on paper but it doesn't work. And if it works our like it did for the electric business you can expect slower speeds, and big companies folding lots of regions.

 

[Nitemare]

Now if they would just deregulate utilities and the cable companies.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Yossarian451

Originally posted by: RossMAN
I would assume that it's good.

Doesn't it encourage competition, better service and lower prices?

Ohh sure deregulations is a "great" thing. Look how well it worked with electric companies in california.

Basically no, deregulation only allows small business to piggy back on big companies. It sounds like a good idea on paper but it doesn't work. And if it works our like it did for the electric business you can expect slower speeds, and big companies folding lots of regions.

California had half-assed deregulation. It was far from real deregulation. The power companies could not pass price increases they faced on to the customers. That is NOT real deregulation. The producers saw this, and rated the companies a huge credit risk.

 

[SunnyD]

Yes

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
I'll give you one major example: Airfare, when adjusted for inflation, is far lower after deregulation than before.

If you compare apples to apples, airline prices are far higher for the equivalent ticket. Prices were declining steadilly before deregulation, and average price continued to decline at about the same rate after deregulation (it actually was falling a bit faster in the 15 years before deregulation, but lets not argue minor slope differences). That statistic isn't the whole picture. While average prices didn't skyrocket, restrictions on tickets did. If you need a ticket without restrictions, your price got a huge increase after deregulation. Same goes for first class tickets - big price increases. What about taking profits into consideration? Airlines are constantly asking for bailouts now - and many are going bankrupt (indirectly costing us a lot of money).

I'm not arguing for or against regulation. I'm just saying that customers usually lose with any change in regulation levels. (If you want my opinion, I'm generally against regulation and for deregulation - but the process of switching from one to the other usually hurts us).

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: wyvrn
I have no idea in this case specifically. Generally, competition raises service levels and drops prices, though.

That is incorrect when it comes to major changes in governement regulations. In a wide array of industries prices get roughly an instant 20% BOOST for every time the industry was either regulated OR deregulated. Why? Basic reason: companies see that as their best excuse to raise prices and they can blame it on the government. There is a lot more to it, but the result is the same. Price has soared in every case so far.

Prices may go up in the beginning, but come down with competition. This is a basic economic principal that I am suprised you are ignoring. Assuming there are at least 3 viable broadband options (there are more imo), then pricing should stay very reasonable and fall over time. You are just looking at the short run. But the closer you get to a real supply/demand model, the better it will be for the consumer. We looked at a lot of deregulation in my economics class and overwhelmingly it was a good move long term.

 

[F117NightHawk]

No, deregulation isn't a good thing. I hate to say that because I'm a libertarian and believe in the free market. But ever since phone companies were deregulated, prices have sky rocketed and customer service has gone to Hell in a handbasket. Because of deregulation you now have 2 area codes in 1 county and people are being charged LD fees just for calling outside their area code!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
No, deregulation isn't a good thing. I hate to say that because I'm a libertarian and believe in the free market. But ever since phone companies were deregulated, prices have sky rocketed and customer service has gone to Hell in a handbasket. Because of deregulation you now have 2 area codes in 1 county and people are being charged LD fees just for calling outside their area code!

And yet you have one price plans for under $50 for unlimited local, in-state and interstate long distance.

Phone service costs more? Bullsh!t. You obviously have no memory of Ma Bell.

The only difference between then, and now is now you have to use your brain to get a good deal. But they exist. And you can OWN your own phone. You never could before deregulation.

Anyone here remember the rented phones?

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: F117NightHawk
No, deregulation isn't a good thing. I hate to say that because I'm a libertarian and believe in the free market. But ever since phone companies were deregulated, prices have sky rocketed and customer service has gone to Hell in a handbasket. Because of deregulation you now have 2 area codes in 1 county and people are being charged LD fees just for calling outside their area code!

Multiple area codes has more to do with cell phones and business lines than deregulation. I don't see how you are connecting the two. One area code was simply not enough to handle the demand. This is well known fact. I can call 3 area codes in Dallas and pay no LD. The only time I get charged LD is when I call ACROSS counties, say into Collin or Tarrant. But I have never paid LD within the same county. Where do you live?

 

[neutralizer]

as long as my service doesn't go down and my prices don't go up.

 

[tcsenter]

California had half-assed deregulation. It was far from real deregulation. The power companies could not pass price increases they faced on to the customers. That is NOT real deregulation. The producers saw this, and rated the companies a huge credit risk.

One could argue that California's deregulation scheme was essentially sabotaged by opponents of deregulation so there was little chance of it resulting in anything but failure. Sacramento's political climate was so hostile to deregulation, little else could be expected but an unworkable plan.

Deregulation (as privatization) is such a 'failure' that every 'old' socialist country has been forced to implement it to stay solvent and avoid raising their already-high tax burdens. Europe is increasingly using the United States as a model for deregulation and privatization.

But as with anything, there is a way to deregulate and there is most certainly a way not to deregulate.