4 ms·

>The authority rewarded the contract to Transit Wireless, which now holds a 27-year license to operate cellular service in the subway system. 27 years ?!?! How

>The authority rewarded the contract to Transit Wireless, which now holds a 27-year license to operate cellular service in the subway system. 27 years ?!?! How is this not monopolistic?

jessriedel 9y ago
Presumably it is intended to be monopolistic, just like a patent (which lasts 20 years).
donarb 9y ago
What company would invest $300M and not expect some period of exclusivity?
- kristofferR 9y ago
  For cell coverage in the Oslo subways the carriers simply cooperated and payed their share of the cost (based on market share). That seems like a much simpler solution than creating a new monopolistic and rent-seeking company.
  - gaadd33 9y ago
    In 5 years when the market share has changed are the carriers okay with subsidizing someone else's access while they haven't recouped their sunk costs? If I start a new cell company in Oslo do I automatically get access for free since I have 0 market share? For NYC, in theory it would have been better if the infrastructure was provided by the MTA and access to it was rented out to each carrier based on usage.
chrisseaton 9y ago
Is it a monopoly when you hire just one person to cut your lawn? Why is this any different?
- bob_theslob646 9y ago
  The difference is you had a choice on hiring who you wanted to cut your lawn...
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    And so did the people running the NYC subway who hired this contractor... I don't really get it. Do you think the government should never award any contracts to anyone? How do you think that will work?
    - bob_theslob646 9y ago
      Most cities around the United States require that the contract be renewed after a certain period of time ( usually 2 to 5 years) to prevent things like massive contracts like this from occurring because of gigantic break up clauses that will eventually cost the city and to also promote competition so that the city knows that they're getting the best price.

>The authority rewarded the contract to Transit Wireless, which now holds a 27-year license to operate cellular service in the subway system. 27 years ?!?! How is this not monopolistic?

jessriedel 9y ago

Presumably it is intended to be monopolistic, just like a patent (which lasts 20 years).

donarb 9y ago

What company would invest $300M and not expect some period of exclusivity?

kristofferR 9y ago
For cell coverage in the Oslo subways the carriers simply cooperated and payed their share of the cost (based on market share). That seems like a much simpler solution than creating a new monopolistic and rent-seeking company.
- gaadd33 9y ago
  In 5 years when the market share has changed are the carriers okay with subsidizing someone else's access while they haven't recouped their sunk costs? If I start a new cell company in Oslo do I automatically get access for free since I have 0 market share? For NYC, in theory it would have been better if the infrastructure was provided by the MTA and access to it was rented out to each carrier based on usage.

chrisseaton 9y ago

Is it a monopoly when you hire just one person to cut your lawn? Why is this any different?

bob_theslob646 9y ago
The difference is you had a choice on hiring who you wanted to cut your lawn...
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  And so did the people running the NYC subway who hired this contractor... I don't really get it. Do you think the government should never award any contracts to anyone? How do you think that will work?
  - bob_theslob646 9y ago
    Most cities around the United States require that the contract be renewed after a certain period of time ( usually 2 to 5 years) to prevent things like massive contracts like this from occurring because of gigantic break up clauses that will eventually cost the city and to also promote competition so that the city knows that they're getting the best price.