3 ms·

Your model of how the world works seems contradictory to the parent's model. In order to decide which model works better in the real world, we can see which mo

by pmb 16y ago

Your model of how the world works seems contradictory to the parent's model. In order to decide which model works better in the real world, we can see which more accurately reflects things today. Netherlands: cheapest rates, entrenched incumbents, good service, unlocked phones, number portability US: more expensive, entrenched incumbents, middling service, locked phones, number portability Parent's model more closely matches reality! We have a winner! This particular market has never been free in the way you seem to think, and the "disruption" you are hypothesizing has some extremely high barriers to entry (first rollout a national infrastructure, second ...), which have prevented it from occurring at all.

mseebach 16y ago
The reason local rates in Europe are so low is not regulation of the rates, it's regulation of the carriers, forcing them to open up the networks they build subsidized to competitors basically at cost, in part through mobile virtual network operator agreements. This removes the barrier to entry, I think in Denmark starting a MVNO takes a deposit on the scale of $8-10.000. This is also reflected in the outrageous prices for roaming - this market is not opened up. I suspect the case in the US is that the carriers aren't forced to open up in the same way. But, the essence of my disagreement with the GPs post is the idea that entering a two-year contract to get a subsidized phone is "customer-slavery", "clearly" in need of regulation. Just get an unlocked phone and a monthly/pay-go plan. (Putting an APR on the contract I could get behind, though). I've done that, and with my actual usage pattern it's significantly cheaper over two years (actually, I've been upgrading more like every year for a while), because I also don't need the big plan I'm forced into when buying subsidized. I haven't done the math counting in interest on buying the phone, but I'd be surprised if it didn't still come out cheaper.

by pmb 16y ago

mseebach 16y ago

The reason local rates in Europe are so low is not regulation of the rates, it's regulation of the carriers, forcing them to open up the networks they build subsidized to competitors basically at cost, in part through mobile virtual network operator agreements. This removes the barrier to entry, I think in Denmark starting a MVNO takes a deposit on the scale of $8-10.000. This is also reflected in the outrageous prices for roaming - this market is not opened up. I suspect the case in the US is that the carriers aren't forced to open up in the same way. But, the essence of my disagreement with the GPs post is the idea that entering a two-year contract to get a subsidized phone is "customer-slavery", "clearly" in need of regulation. Just get an unlocked phone and a monthly/pay-go plan. (Putting an APR on the contract I could get behind, though). I've done that, and with my actual usage pattern it's significantly cheaper over two years (actually, I've been upgrading more like every year for a while), because I also don't need the big plan I'm forced into when buying subsidized. I haven't done the math counting in interest on buying the phone, but I'd be surprised if it didn't still come out cheaper.