Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Stuart they would have a monopoly but the funny thing is he is right, the consumer would gain. Competition isnt the be all and end all like ofcom thinks it is. Competition certianly is a driver for pushing prices down and hindering investment, all those complaining about STM you can thank competition for that.
|
Prices tend to go up when competition dies. Innovation (in terms of new products and services) goes down, because to a large extent, that innovation is created by the need to win customers.
Want proof? How much did BT innovate (in terms of new services) and how much did they lower prices between the time they were privatised and the time competition established itself?
You really think Sky would have lowered prices if they *hadn't* had competition from both Cable and OnDigital?
While conditions for Consumers would probably not get any worse, they would not get better either.
I am not saying that competition is the be all and end all. It isn't. It has resulted in artificially low broadband prices (it actually costs more for the ISPs to provide their faster tarrifs than they charge). This has caused ISPs to cut investment in their networks to the minimum, introduce measures like STM, and look at alternate revenue streams, such as music/video downloads and Phorm.
What I am saying is that without competition, you do not generally get innovation. Say Sky did become the only pay TV provider in the country. Everyone who wanted Pay TV would have to go to them anyway, so why would they spend money developing new facilities on their boxes (such as the Press Green to record on ads, and remote recording from mobiles)?