That’s great and all, but we live in a real world where there’s multiple possible outcomes, like actual anti monopoly/ oligopoly / pro competitive practices, regulations. A CRTC with teeth etc
Sorry, yes, there are lots of ways it could shake down. But this is the way that is ideal for the disrupting party. They have the same objectives that the incumbents do: make money. Show me a consumer telecom network anywhere in the world that is squeezing more out of each customer than ours does. There are very friggin’ few!! So anyone who comes along to disrupt the market is ultimately going to want to restore it to just the way it is now, except with their ownership instead of someone else’s. Any other outcome would be even more pointless than that. My argument is you can achieve that much cheaper by simply buying into the existing companies rather than competing with them.
anti monopoly/ oligopoly / pro competitive practices, regulations. A CRTC with teeth etc
I mean none of those things have anything to do with the question: why doesn’t a new player come along and offer a consumer-friendly product?
Because it’s simply too expensive to build out 4 different fibre optic networks to all the same neighbourhoods, which is the absolute bare minimum number needed to get some semblance of competition.
We’ll never have true competiton in wired, to the home, infrastructure, and wired will fundamentally always out perform wireless. Wired networks should be built out by utilities or municipalities and then virtual network operators (with comparatively low barrier to entry) can compete on top of the same base infrastructure.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
That’s great and all, but we live in a real world where there’s multiple possible outcomes, like actual anti monopoly/ oligopoly / pro competitive practices, regulations. A CRTC with teeth etc
Sorry, yes, there are lots of ways it could shake down. But this is the way that is ideal for the disrupting party. They have the same objectives that the incumbents do: make money. Show me a consumer telecom network anywhere in the world that is squeezing more out of each customer than ours does. There are very friggin’ few!! So anyone who comes along to disrupt the market is ultimately going to want to restore it to just the way it is now, except with their ownership instead of someone else’s. Any other outcome would be even more pointless than that. My argument is you can achieve that much cheaper by simply buying into the existing companies rather than competing with them.
I mean none of those things have anything to do with the question: why doesn’t a new player come along and offer a consumer-friendly product?
Because it’s simply too expensive to build out 4 different fibre optic networks to all the same neighbourhoods, which is the absolute bare minimum number needed to get some semblance of competition.
We’ll never have true competiton in wired, to the home, infrastructure, and wired will fundamentally always out perform wireless. Wired networks should be built out by utilities or municipalities and then virtual network operators (with comparatively low barrier to entry) can compete on top of the same base infrastructure.