Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker
The reason there is that profit is because there is no competition. They choose not to compete with one another for this very reason.
It's more profitable to cover 50% of the map with no competition than 100% with competition. That is why Charter isn't coming to Chicago.
|
Cable vs cable was a losing proposition in the late 90s and early 2000s when telcos began rolling out competitive services as most markets can't support 3 providers all with the same cost structures and overhead roughly. Telcos also did not compete against other telcos for similar reasons (e.g. cable is already there and 3 is a crowd), though they compete like hell on mobile. Not unlike the tech companies compete & cooperate and occasionally have spats.
So you are saying AT&T chooses not to compete with Comcast in a major city? I'd seriously question the local government bullshit there to get a franchise agreement because they compete all over the place and I can tell you they are not cooperative with each other as businesses, outside of opposing the AllVid nonsense pushed by Google. They absolutely compete with each other on every front & see each other as their biggest threat outside of Google & Amazon. Its the reason Comcast is joining with Verizon on mobile.
Hey I'd love for more competition man. I'm absolutely all for it. Its better for consumers, better for workers, and personally I prefer working for smaller companies. But thats just not the business & economic climate. Its unfortunate, and we'll probably disagree on why that is, but I would argue thats for very large factors outside the scope of telecommunications.