-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Les Hughes Sent: Monday, 15 April 2013 2:55 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Office365 ? Nope, now an argument on the NBN.
>> Most distribution networks are natural monopolies - especially the "last >> mile" - fixed line telephony, electricity distribution, water and sewerage >> pipes, local roads, railway lines etc. The market is a fixed size, and a new >> entrant entering the market simply divides the market in half, yet still >> has to expend a huge amount of capital duplicating an existing distribution >> network. > > The internet isn't the same as sewage pipes. Why isn't running a fixed line network outside everyone's house just like running sewerage pipes outside everyone's house? > Even with your examples, local roads are local councils, No, I'm saying that local roads are a natural monopoly. If they were provided by private enterprise, you wouldn't have two, or three, or four local roads running outside your house, and you choose who to pay each day when you use it. You'd have just one option. > so even if fixed-line internet was a monopoly, > stating that the solution is a national level network owned by the government > is is really an arbitrary decision unless you are trying to claim that scales > of > economy will work better the national level You are completely missing the point - I'm saying that the cost of providing a parallel infrastructure will stop additional competitors entering the market. It's the same as other utility services I've mentioned. >> It doesn't really matter that Telstra/Telecom was a government monopoly when >> it built the fixed line network. >Except that it does. Why? >> Show me one other modern economy that has multiple fixed line phone >> companies competing side-by-side for the same broad customer base. They >> don’t exist for a good economic reasons. >> >"Modern Economy": Can you explain what this is for me? It just seems >like other empty term. I'm sure you can find a country somewhere with 10 phone lines, and 5 are provided by one company, and 5 by another. So, I'm just asking for a 1st world economy that has two (or more) sets of water, electricity, sewerage, roads, railway lines, fixed line telephony etc. running in parallel servicing a broad customer base (e.g. more than a million customers) > Let's say government owned the pits, and allowed 10 providers to run > their own cable at a cost of say $10 per residence per year and then got > out of the way, Ah, so all the tunnels/conduits, and access holes are owned by the government? I assume that buying up all the land and digging the trenches is the expensive part (not so much putting the cables into an existing hole). So, how is this substantively different to the government also putting in some fibre and letting anyone buy some bandwidth? Cheers Ken
