2 ms·
Ideally, it's meant to be a recognition of and response to high barriers to entry: we can't have an arbitrarily large number of competing companies all rolling
by argv_empty 16y ago
Ideally, it's meant to be a recognition of and response to high barriers to entry: we can't have an arbitrarily large number of competing companies all rolling out their own overlapping* infrastructures, and the few we allow must put up a lot of capital up front. The applicability of this description depends on the particular service in question (e.g. it describes running water far better than it does cell phone service).
*If they don't overlap, they don't compete.
- digitalfour 16y agoSo the solution to the problem of high barriers of entry is to make the barriers even higher? The issue I see with the idea of barriers to entry is that a monopoly (or oligopoly) rarely if ever actually increases the quality of the service provided. Many rail against various companies for monopolistic practices, but it suddenly makes sense to have a monopoly water or cell phone service? Perhaps this is a solution in search of a problem.