4 ms·

I'm appalled by all the anti free market comments here. Governments have no business dictating simple contractual agreements such as this. So long as government

I'm appalled by all the anti free market comments here. Governments have no business dictating simple contractual agreements such as this. So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands.

njs12345 13y ago
I'll bite. Can the telecoms market support 'adequate competition'? Is the telecoms market in the US a 'free market'?
DanBC 13y ago
> So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands. This is demonstrably not the case with cell phone service providers. Mobile telephony providers use deliberately confusing pricing to prevent price comparison. They use contract lock in to prevent customers switching contracts. They exploit the apathy and inertia of customers. What would work in an ideal situation is not what would work with the situation we have. Tightly regulated, often government owned, communication networks are being deregulated, split off from those government owned companies, while expanding into new markets. We need regulation to prevent incumbents from exploiting their government-subsidized position, and to protect naive users from themselves.
- driverdan 13y ago
  > Mobile telephony providers use deliberately confusing pricing to prevent price comparison. They use contract lock in to prevent customers switching contracts. They exploit the apathy and inertia of customers. There are many providers now who don't require contracts. Every provider in the US has some sort of prepaid / no contract plan. The prices are much better than contract plans too, at least in the US. > We need regulation to prevent incumbents from exploiting their government-subsidized position, and to protect naive users from themselves. No, you highlighted one of the problems. The government needs to stop backing monopolies / oligopolies and allow competition to flourish. Government involvement always compounds itself. Subsidization and promotion requires regulation later to compensate for the lack of a free market.
RivieraKid 13y ago
Governemnt intervention is wrong only if we're talking about perfectly efficient markets. But regulation is a good thing when: 1) It's not a market – there are not enough competing companies. (Which is the case of network operators.) 2) Customers don't make optimal market decisions.
- driverdan 13y ago
  > 1) It's not a market – there are not enough competing companies. (Which is the case of network operators.) Due to other unnecessary government regulation. Regulations always have a snowball effect. > 2) Customers don't make optimal market decisions. That's the customer's problem, not the government's. It benefits customers who do make optimal decisions.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    > Due to other unnecessary government regulation. Regulations always have a snowball effect. This is simply not true. If it was not regulated at all, the situation would be worse. This is an industry that has a natural tendency to become mono/oligo-polic. (Similarly to water supply inustry.) > That's the customer's problem, not the government's. It benefits customers who do make optimal decisions. That deserves a longer discussion but I'll try to sum it up. One example of a regulation that helps customers make better decisions is that misleading advertisment is banned. When I say regulation, I mean that the customers collectively decided that it would be better for everyone if misleading ads were banned. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this.
marvin 13y ago
A completely free market is a market where you'll get collusion, monopolies, price fixing, corruption and a hundred other vices which are considered universally bad. Roaming charges are another good example that a completely free market is not an efficient market. In fact, a completely free market is an anarchy. So not only will you get monopolies and price fixing, you'll also get armed gangs that run around and steal your stuff.
tiatia 13y ago
"So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands." Yeah, especially in the "market for lemons"....
SEMW 13y ago
> So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands. Did you even read the article? The whole point of the new regulations is to allow competition between providers of different countries in a common EU telecoms market (as opposed to the current situation where individual countries are effectively silo'd off). I'd love an explanation as to how exactly that's "anti free market".
aestra 13y ago
YAWN Governments have always regulated phone service.
drchaos 13y ago
I agree in principle, but since mobile spectrum is in itself a government-granted monopoly (oligopoly), some regulation might be acceptable or even necessary, to prevent against exploitative business practises (I consider the absurdly high roaming charges before they were regulated as a prime example for this - there is no way 2 Euros per minute reflect the real cost for the provider). That having said, regulation should be as minimal as possible, to avoid unwanted side effects, therefore I'm not convinced that regulating away roaming charges completely is the best approach - IMHO it would be better to just allow everyone to get local rates without having to change the SIM card (see my other post for details).
edoloughlin 13y ago
I'm appalled by all the anti free market comments here Most of the comments are from customers who feel overcharged by their providers, who have had a pretty free market in which to operate over the last number of decades. Governments have no business dictating simple contractual agreements such as this But they do have a business dictating that monopolies/oligopolies can't screw their customers, which is what is happening with roaming charges in Europe. So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands See above, the operators have had many years to sort this out and have not. Your ideology seems to have run up against an edge case.

njs12345 13y ago

I'll bite. Can the telecoms market support 'adequate competition'? Is the telecoms market in the US a 'free market'?

DanBC 13y ago

> So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands. This is demonstrably not the case with cell phone service providers. Mobile telephony providers use deliberately confusing pricing to prevent price comparison. They use contract lock in to prevent customers switching contracts. They exploit the apathy and inertia of customers. What would work in an ideal situation is not what would work with the situation we have. Tightly regulated, often government owned, communication networks are being deregulated, split off from those government owned companies, while expanding into new markets. We need regulation to prevent incumbents from exploiting their government-subsidized position, and to protect naive users from themselves.

driverdan 13y ago
> Mobile telephony providers use deliberately confusing pricing to prevent price comparison. They use contract lock in to prevent customers switching contracts. They exploit the apathy and inertia of customers. There are many providers now who don't require contracts. Every provider in the US has some sort of prepaid / no contract plan. The prices are much better than contract plans too, at least in the US. > We need regulation to prevent incumbents from exploiting their government-subsidized position, and to protect naive users from themselves. No, you highlighted one of the problems. The government needs to stop backing monopolies / oligopolies and allow competition to flourish. Government involvement always compounds itself. Subsidization and promotion requires regulation later to compensate for the lack of a free market.

RivieraKid 13y ago

Governemnt intervention is wrong only if we're talking about perfectly efficient markets. But regulation is a good thing when: 1) It's not a market – there are not enough competing companies. (Which is the case of network operators.) 2) Customers don't make optimal market decisions.

driverdan 13y ago
> 1) It's not a market – there are not enough competing companies. (Which is the case of network operators.) Due to other unnecessary government regulation. Regulations always have a snowball effect. > 2) Customers don't make optimal market decisions. That's the customer's problem, not the government's. It benefits customers who do make optimal decisions.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  > Due to other unnecessary government regulation. Regulations always have a snowball effect. This is simply not true. If it was not regulated at all, the situation would be worse. This is an industry that has a natural tendency to become mono/oligo-polic. (Similarly to water supply inustry.) > That's the customer's problem, not the government's. It benefits customers who do make optimal decisions. That deserves a longer discussion but I'll try to sum it up. One example of a regulation that helps customers make better decisions is that misleading advertisment is banned. When I say regulation, I mean that the customers collectively decided that it would be better for everyone if misleading ads were banned. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this.

marvin 13y ago

A completely free market is a market where you'll get collusion, monopolies, price fixing, corruption and a hundred other vices which are considered universally bad. Roaming charges are another good example that a completely free market is not an efficient market. In fact, a completely free market is an anarchy. So not only will you get monopolies and price fixing, you'll also get armed gangs that run around and steal your stuff.

tiatia 13y ago

"So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands." Yeah, especially in the "market for lemons"....

SEMW 13y ago

> So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands. Did you even read the article? The whole point of the new regulations is to allow competition between providers of different countries in a common EU telecoms market (as opposed to the current situation where individual countries are effectively silo'd off). I'd love an explanation as to how exactly that's "anti free market".

aestra 13y ago

YAWN Governments have always regulated phone service.

drchaos 13y ago

I agree in principle, but since mobile spectrum is in itself a government-granted monopoly (oligopoly), some regulation might be acceptable or even necessary, to prevent against exploitative business practises (I consider the absurdly high roaming charges before they were regulated as a prime example for this - there is no way 2 Euros per minute reflect the real cost for the provider). That having said, regulation should be as minimal as possible, to avoid unwanted side effects, therefore I'm not convinced that regulating away roaming charges completely is the best approach - IMHO it would be better to just allow everyone to get local rates without having to change the SIM card (see my other post for details).

edoloughlin 13y ago

I'm appalled by all the anti free market comments here Most of the comments are from customers who feel overcharged by their providers, who have had a pretty free market in which to operate over the last number of decades. Governments have no business dictating simple contractual agreements such as this But they do have a business dictating that monopolies/oligopolies can't screw their customers, which is what is happening with roaming charges in Europe. So long as governments allow adequate competition the markets will meet customer demands See above, the operators have had many years to sort this out and have not. Your ideology seems to have run up against an edge case.