3 ms·

An argument could be made here for removing all vertical integration in communication services. Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the servi

by Osiris 3y ago

An argument could be made here for removing all vertical integration in communication services. Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the service. They can wholesale out the infrastructure to service providers who then have a lower barrier to entry and increases competition. T-Mobile already has many wholesale providers like Mint Mobile that offer much lower rates than Tmobile directly.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Tmobile owns Mint. >Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the service. How does it benefit people to have another entity with all of its costs in the chain literally just collecting rent? Tmobile/Verizon/ATT all use different brands like Mint for price segmentation, selling the spectrum at different prices to different populations. And they prioritize traffic based on how important the client is (typically related to how much they pay): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_level_explained_2022_march_lower_qci_is_better/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_leve...
- vel0city 3y ago
  T-Mo only recently bought Mint. They were separate for quite a while. There are still Mobile Virtual Network Operators out there that aren't owned by the big three, but a lot of the more popular ones were gobbled up by the companies operating the networks of those MVNOs.
mixdup 3y ago
>An argument could be made here for removing all vertical integration in communication services. Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the service. This doesn't make sense as a universal maxim. It does make sense in certain contexts such as government-funded monopolies (the former Bell System) or government-funded expansion efforts (RDOF and BEAD expansion being funded by the United States and separately by the several states) And it also doesn't make sense at certain technological levels. Old telephone lines were a point-to-point set of wires from your house to some central point. Allowing competitors into that central point and using the single set of wires that were dedicated to you, the consumer was very clean and easy to do Unbundling shared media like coaxial lines or radio networks where all of the traffic is intermingled--at what point do you differentiate between the different providers? What are the different providers actually....providing? It's like the deregulated natural gas market in Georgia. The monopoly no longer serves customers directly, but they still own all the pipes in the ground. The 'marketers' buy gas and sell it to us, the consumers, but it's all put into the pipelines at the same place by the old monopoly. It's all just a financial shell game with provider A essentially redeeming so many cubic feet of gas into the system. It's fungible and there's effectively no differentiation between the providers, who all have exactly the same pricing, exactly the same contracts, exactly the same policies. Except now you have half a dozen CEOs, and HR departments, and IT departments, and billing systems all adding costs--costs that are now unregulated since it's "competitive"
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> An argument could be made here for removing all vertical integration in communication services. Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the service. What market forces would then incentivize infrastructure upgrades? To do this and still incentivize upgrades you'd need political mandates.
chmod775 3y ago
> They can wholesale out the infrastructure to service providers who then have a lower barrier to entry and increases competition. This is what was forced* on T-Mobile/Telekom back at home in Germany. They own a lot of basic infrastructure that is a natural monopoly and where having multiple companies built that out redundantly would be utter nonsense. The government makes Telekom rent it out at prices decided on by the Federal Network Agency. They still get to be a normal service provider as well though. * Technically it started out as a government company and is still owned to 32% by the country.

by Osiris 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Tmobile owns Mint. >Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the service. How does it benefit people to have another entity with all of its costs in the chain literally just collecting rent? Tmobile/Verizon/ATT all use different brands like Mint for price segmentation, selling the spectrum at different prices to different populations. And they prioritize traffic based on how important the client is (typically related to how much they pay): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_level_explained_2022_march_lower_qci_is_better/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_leve...

vel0city 3y ago
T-Mo only recently bought Mint. They were separate for quite a while. There are still Mobile Virtual Network Operators out there that aren't owned by the big three, but a lot of the more popular ones were gobbled up by the companies operating the networks of those MVNOs.

mixdup 3y ago

>An argument could be made here for removing all vertical integration in communication services. Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the service. This doesn't make sense as a universal maxim. It does make sense in certain contexts such as government-funded monopolies (the former Bell System) or government-funded expansion efforts (RDOF and BEAD expansion being funded by the United States and separately by the several states) And it also doesn't make sense at certain technological levels. Old telephone lines were a point-to-point set of wires from your house to some central point. Allowing competitors into that central point and using the single set of wires that were dedicated to you, the consumer was very clean and easy to do Unbundling shared media like coaxial lines or radio networks where all of the traffic is intermingled--at what point do you differentiate between the different providers? What are the different providers actually....providing? It's like the deregulated natural gas market in Georgia. The monopoly no longer serves customers directly, but they still own all the pipes in the ground. The 'marketers' buy gas and sell it to us, the consumers, but it's all put into the pipelines at the same place by the old monopoly. It's all just a financial shell game with provider A essentially redeeming so many cubic feet of gas into the system. It's fungible and there's effectively no differentiation between the providers, who all have exactly the same pricing, exactly the same contracts, exactly the same policies. Except now you have half a dozen CEOs, and HR departments, and IT departments, and billing systems all adding costs--costs that are now unregulated since it's "competitive"

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> An argument could be made here for removing all vertical integration in communication services. Whoever owns the infrastructure shouldn’t also provide the service. What market forces would then incentivize infrastructure upgrades? To do this and still incentivize upgrades you'd need political mandates.

chmod775 3y ago

> They can wholesale out the infrastructure to service providers who then have a lower barrier to entry and increases competition. This is what was forced* on T-Mobile/Telekom back at home in Germany. They own a lot of basic infrastructure that is a natural monopoly and where having multiple companies built that out redundantly would be utter nonsense. The government makes Telekom rent it out at prices decided on by the Federal Network Agency. They still get to be a normal service provider as well though. * Technically it started out as a government company and is still owned to 32% by the country.