Election 2019, Week 1

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

And presumably wholesale Openreach products. That’s not genuine competition when the underlying price is a single product and supplier.

It is a way regulators intervene in a market that doesn’t naturally trend to competition though.

City Fibre

Our wholesale-only products allow providers of all types to tap into our independent full fibre infrastructure to serve the rising bandwidth demands and reliability expectations of today’s homes and businesses.

Gigabit Cities
We are building full fibre networks across the UK to transform cities, and ignite a digital revolution. From homes and businesses to schools and hospitals; Gigabit-speeds will change the way we work, play, and live.

Northampton is being transformed into one of the best digitally connected areas on the planet as CityFibre invests £40m+ in a new full fibre network throughout Northampton. The network will provide lightning-fast digital connections to everyone and everything – from your family at home, to your children at school, your workplace and even traffic lights and CCTV cameras.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s a straw man argument unworthy of reply. My point is that billionaires arise from supernormal profits, which occurs in market failure.

Not necessarily, re, my points regarding tech giants ( which were just an example, other examples o/s tech apply equally)

Your leap that they should be “stripped of wealth” isn’t related to my point.

You don’t believe in wealth distribution then? You’re perfectly fine with Gates and Jobs and their Estates keeping all that wealth?

Also I didn’t say this wasn’t happening, I said BT benefit from the existing state funded infrastructure. That’s a statement of fact, regardless of what investment may (or may not) be taking place.

did they benefit from not starting from zero - yes I will give you that, but they inherited an aged out of date lemon, that they have sweated that they cannot sweat anymore.

Conversely, the Virgin Media Network was built, and is still built, totally on private finance. What should we do with “ billionaire” John malone? The telecoms market isn’t failed. It’s thriving. Is he allowed to keep his billions? He hasn’t raped any state assets. In the.com bubble many millionaires and billionaires lost millions and billions ..... no bail out for them. When you risk all and can lose all, why not take all when you win?

Irrelevant to my point. There’s so many straw men here you could have a rugby team.

So we’re clear, all these “billionaires” profiting off the back of previous nationalised sectors...and you can come up with zero.

No. Perfect competition works in principle. Where a large number of suppliers offer directly comparable products

I know you’re an expert in “economic theory”

But let’s look at directly comparable products. Let’s look at apples.

Apples are apples. But I breed apple trees that produce more apples, and bigger apples than my competitors. I also devise a way to harvest the apples quicker and cheaper.

Now I can sell my apples cheaper than my competitors, for the same profit, perhaps more. I make so much money I buy my competitors orchards but they’re not as efficient as mine so I shut them down. Now i’m The biggest, if not the only , apple producer in the region. Now I can set my price etc etc etc.

It’s all about innovation, doing it quicker, larger and cheaper than your competitor.

If the barrier to entry is building a £30bn fibre network, I don’t think my mates and I can just go down to the bank in the morning and set up our own broadband company.

You lack vision. There are at least a dozen or more regional alt-nets that have secured government and private finance and are building FTTP networks right now. Real speculators and entrepreneurs, the wealth creators socialists hate.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s all about innovation, doing it quicker, larger and cheaper than your competitor.

What do you think about companies using large venture capital to squeeze out the market, running at a loss, to achieve dominance?

[jfman]

The fact you can name a single supplier (on a small scale) doesn’t mean the telecoms market trends to perfect competition.

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not necessarily, re, my points regarding tech giants ( which were just an example, other examples o/s tech apply equally)

You don’t believe in wealth distribution then? You’re perfectly fine with Gates and Jobs and their Estates keeping all that wealth?

Putting more words in my mouth. It’s possible to think the system can be fairer without “stripping billionaires of wealth” as you put it.

did they benefit from not starting from zero - yes I will give you that, but they inherited an aged out of date lemon, that they have sweated that they cannot sweat anymore.

Conversely, the Virgin Media Network was built, and is still built, totally on private finance. What should we do with “ billionaire” John malone? The telecoms market isn’t failed. It’s thriving. Is he allowed to keep his billions? He hasn’t raped any state assets. In the.com bubble many millionaires and billionaires lost millions and billions ..... no bail out for them. When you risk all and can lose all, why not take all when you win?

I’m not sure the cable network is the best example of it being viable when NTL entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the process.


[QUOTE]So we’re clear, all these “billionaires” profiting off the back of previous nationalised sectors...and you can come up with zero.

I know you’re an expert in “economic theory”

But let’s look at directly comparable products. Let’s look at apples.

Apples are apples. But I breed apple trees that produce more apples, and bigger apples than my competitors. I also devise a way to harvest the apples quicker and cheaper.

No I can sell my apples cheaper than my competitors, for the same profit, perhaps more. I make so much money I buy my competitors orchards but they’re not as efficient as mine so I shut them down. Now i’m The biggest, if not the only , apple producer in the region. Now I can set my price etc etc etc.

It’s all about innovation, doing it quicker, larger and cheaper than your competitor.

A laughable proposition.

You lack vision. There are at least a dozen or more regional alt-nets that have secured government and private finance and are building FTTP networks right now. Real speculators and entrepreneurs, the wealth creators socialists hate.

Government finance! Long live the private sector.

[Aye Up]

Originally Posted by jfman

The fact you can name a single supplier (on a small scale) doesn’t mean the telecoms market trends to perfect competition.

LLU and the subsquent VULA with FTTC has created the most competitive Telecoms market in Europe. Granted it is now reliant on dated technology, but most of that was achieved through solid regulation and private finance.

In most areas there is a choice, be they Openreach delivered propositions or private network like Virgin Media or Cityfibre. The market has worked incredibly well in this country, although price doesn't always reflect quality.

Its very rare for innovation to come from publically owned industries, those run as a state enterprise are an exception to that rule. But nationalised assets have a nasty habit of needing subsidy from the taxpayer, which is why the mines, steel works, shipbuilding died out in many areas.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The fact you can name a single supplier (on a small scale) doesn’t mean the telecoms market trends to perfect competition.

This is a list of companies building FTTH networks right now.

To be clear these are building their own networks and not using BT ( although I have included Openreach as they too are building)

It is not exhaustive, just the ones I know about.

You can try and test me on the telecoms sector but I have been in the industry for 25 years so knock yourself out.

Virgin Media - National
OpenReach - National.
City Fibre - National.
B4RN - North of England.
Jurassic Fibre - Devon, Somerset, Dorset.
Gigaclear.
Hyperoptic.
Axione.
community Fibre - London.
Swish Fibre - South of England.
Grain Connect.
Fibre Nation (Talk Talk).
G.Network - London.
Full Fibre - Exeter.
Lightning Fibre - Eastbourne.
FIBRUS - Northern Ireland
Toob - Southampton.
County Broadband - East of England.
Giganet - Salisbury.
TrueSpeed - South West of England
VXFibre - Stoke LFFN
FARN
Liberty Fibre - National TBA.
NYnet - Selby, Malton LFFN.

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Putting more words in my mouth. It’s possible to think the system can be fairer without “stripping billionaires of wealth” as you put it.

What do you suggest?

I’m not sure the cable network is the best example of it being viable when NTL entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the process.

Glad you brought that up. Yes as part of the .com bubble. Many millionaires and billionaires financed the buildings of global fibre networks and lost the lot.

Massive infrastructure was built with private money, it didn’t stack up, it cost billions. But it got done and it’s legacy remains today. In a govt managed scenario two things would have happened:

1. It wouldn’t have been built to begin with
2. Tax payer would have payed for it.

a laughable proposition

Only laughable thing about that proposition is your inability to a.understand it, or b. Provide an intelligent answer to it.

long live the private sector

Your ignorance is amazing, well done. Public financing with private professionalism and delivery - a perfect partnership.

[jfman]

The third on your list City Fibre - 70 000 homes passed.

You are having an absolute laugh if you think BT and Virgin price their products to millions of customers in order to compete with this. Given the high cost of deployment prices will remain high anyway in the first instance.

The pricing trend isn’t downward.

I’m not here to challenge you on your exhaustive knowledge of tiny broadband companies that have a negligible effect on the UK market of 27 million premises. I’ll concede that you could google them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

What do you think about companies using large venture capital to squeeze out the market, running at a loss, to achieve dominance?

The product and the market will see it out in the end.

If it’s no good it’s no good, no matter how much money you throw at it. The consumer is not an idiot.

I don’t disagree that some people will be bullied or pushed aside along the way and nothing makes that right. But ultimately the consumer decides.

Unless they don’t get to decide.

Like if the government decides for you.

---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The third on your list City Fibre - 70 000 homes passed.
You are having an absolute laugh if you think BT and Virgin price their products to millions of customers in order to compete with this. Given the high cost of deployment prices will remain high anyway in the first instance.

You would have to combine all the other altnets numbers against VM & BT for a true reflection.

Also what do you think is driving VM to offer 1G, services? It’s not BT.

It is all the other companies listed. Are driving down prices? No you’re right they probably aren’t. Are they driving up service and innovation - absolutely. Again nothing a state monopoly would be inclined to do

I’m not here to challenge you on your exhaustive knowledge of tiny broadband companies that have a negligible effect on the UK market of 27 million premises.

Good, because you can’t

I’ll concede that you could google them.

i didn’t need to.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The product and the market will see it out in the end.

If it’s no good it’s no good, no matter how much money you throw at it. The consumer is not an idiot.

Companies can already have dominated the market by then. Uber is a classic example who rolled out aggressively and made huge losses. As have Amazon until only recently. The plan is to run at a loss - backed by investors - to see out local competitors and once they've cornered the market then they can raise prices and make a profit.

I don’t disagree that some people will be bullied or pushed aside along the way and nothing makes that right. But ultimately the consumer decides.

Unless they don’t get to decide.

Like if the government decides for you.

But they always have on some issues. We have anti-monopoly laws, we can block mergers if it makes one company too big and we try to stop cartels too. The market is not an all-powerful force and can only work to consumers advantage if it's a level-playing field. That's where Government has to step in. Equally, they need to step in if their citizens are being exploited by corruption (i.e the aforementioned cartels) or as workers.

My argument (and haven't followed the other one) is not that capitalism is bad - it's done quite well - but that it needs intervention too and one area that we need to examine is people leveraging their wealth to dominate new areas of wealth production (such as automation) before 'the market' can challenge that and at the expensive of workforce.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Companies can already have dominated the market by then. Uber is a classic example who rolled out aggressively and made huge losses. As have Amazon until only recently. The plan is to run at a loss - backed by investors - to see out local competitors and once they've cornered the market then they can raise prices and make a profit.

I take your point, but Uber is very London centric. Up here in gods own country at least and other northern outposts, Uber are not very popular.

But they always have on some issues. We have anti-monopoly laws, we can block mergers if it makes one company too big and we try to stop cartels too.

That’s fine. Usually due to one company buying another and making a monopoly rather than a company that grows organically into a market dominant position, but I take your point.

The market is not an all-powerful force and can only work to consumers advantage if it's a level-playing field. That's where Government has to step in. Equally, they need to step in if their citizens are being exploited by corruption (i.e the aforementioned cartels) or as workers.

Again a valid point and workers rights, wages, etc ....no argument from me.

But if you are employing slave Labour, in poor conditions and paying then 20p an hour. But still manufacturing a product no one wants..........you’re still going out of business.

My argument (and haven't followed the other one) is not that capitalism is bad - it's done quite well - but that it needs intervention too and one area that we need to examine is people leveraging their wealth to dominate new areas of wealth production (such as automation) before 'the market' can challenge that and at the expensive of workforce.

It’s a fair , balanced and rational point. That won’t be challenged by me.

I agree.

I’ve tried the Uber app a few times. Regardless of time or location it always says “swarm pricing” is in operation and the price is bumped right up. I’ve long suspected that it only works effectively in London.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

And presumably wholesale Openreach products. That’s not genuine competition when the underlying price is a single product and supplier.

It is a way regulators intervene in a market that doesn’t naturally trend to competition though.

Except they don't use a single product or supplier.

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is a list of companies building FTTH networks right now.

To be clear these are building their own networks and not using BT ( although I have included Openreach as they too are building)

It is not exhaustive, just the ones I know about.

You can try and test me on the telecoms sector but I have been in the industry for 25 years so knock yourself out.




---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------



What do you suggest?



Glad you brought that up. Yes as part of the .com bubble. Many millionaires and billionaires financed the buildings of global fibre networks and lost the lot.

Massive infrastructure was built with private money, it didn’t stack up, it cost billions. But it got done and it’s legacy remains today. In a govt managed scenario two things would have happened:

1. It wouldn’t have been built to begin with
2. Tax payer would have payed for it.


Only laughable thing about that proposition is your inability to a.understand it, or b. Provide an intelligent answer to it.


Your ignorance is amazing, well done. Public financing with private professionalism and delivery - a perfect partnership.

Actually...

In return for writing off their debt, the bondholders will end up with 100 per cent of NTL's UK and Ireland ops - initially - and 86.5 per cent of its continental European business. NTL is splitting the two components into separate businesses, removing a big sticking point among many creditors, which expressed their unhappiness with the UK arm being saddled with the lossmaking European sub( to be called NTL Euroco. The operating businesses are not in Chapter 11 or local equivalents, and continue trading as normal.

Stage 2 in the recapitalisation will see a rights issue for the NTL UK and Ireland, Existing NTL shareholders, most notably France Telecom, will have subscription rights equivalent to $10.5bn "enterprise value", entitling them inter alia to buy up to 32.5 per cent of the business.

Shareholders will have 13 per cent of NTL Euroco, which will continue to have an unspecified amount of bonds outstanding. On completion of the recapitalisation, NTL will transfer its 27 per cent stake in Noos SA to France Telecom, in line with promises it made when the telco invested in the business.

And the corporate shareholders (none of the billionaires used their own funds) would have been able to write off any losses against tax liabilities.

[Mr K]

Just have a look at your VM bills over the last few years to see capitalism at work !

As for the railways and utilities, its worked wonders I admit.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually...



And the corporate shareholders (none of the billionaires used their own funds) would have been able to write off any losses against tax liabilities.

I worked for ntl at the time, and had shares which just before the bubble burst we’re valued at something like $130 per share, within weeks they were worth less than $1.

In return for writing off their debt, [11billion]the bondholders will end up with 100 per cent of NTL's UK and Ireland ops - initially

Yes of course, they had liability of 11billion and in return were given a company worth substantially less than that at the time, and had to be recapitalised with new investments in order to operate.

Many telcos went into Ch11, and their assets once worth 10s of billions sold off for substantially less than their worth.

Worldcom, Global Crossing, 360 networks I could go on and on.

Believe me people lost money.