<<Maybe things will be different in the long run, but as a user I don't appreciate the "market model" for cell phone service in the US. Australia and Europe are a pleasure with much cheaper rates and a single compatible system. In the US, competition has provided us with high rates, incompatible systems, exorbinant roaming charges and less advanced equipment.>>
I don't know about the less advanced equipment, but the cheaper service costs in Europe (and I'll believe Australia) are certainly a fact. Many other places as well. Israel, from what I read, e.g.
I've always been puzzled about this. Hard to believe too much competition is the reason. (Though that may have something to do with the incompatible systems.)
My impression is that it has to do with the auctioning of spectrum (as well as the subsequent reselling of spectrum rights in localities to high bidders, etc. In effect a big tax. But I suppose its also a market allocation of the spectrum.
The trouble is, it results in cell service being sold at something likes the price of its utility to the user, instead of at a price only a little above the cost of providing the service (ex the spectrum tax cost). With the difference going to the government as a type of capitalized tax, or to savvy buyers of spectrum in the early days (e.g. Craig McCall.)
Bit of a connundrum to me, at least. Theory is one thing, but price and service are the bottom line.
Doug |
