Fiber Optics!

I've heard that whichever telecomm company can mainstream/upgrade to fiber optics first and most successfully is going to dominate the entire market. Do you guys think this is accurate? I don't know much about this technology.

I don't think so.

Ma Bell was broken up years ago for this very reason. Nowadays, it really doesn't matter who owns the lines, cables, stations, etc...What matters is that there are multiple companies that lease/rent space and then market packages to consumers.

Doesn't matter which company you get your cell service/home service/internet service with. Your data goes through almost all the same lines/stations/computers.

It won't be an issue.

Sand wrote:

I've heard that whichever telecomm company can mainstream/upgrade to fiber optics first and most successfully is going to dominate the entire market. Do you guys think this is accurate? I don't know much about this technology.

more than likely, but in order to avoid a monopoly (ensuring a lawsuit), the competition has to remain, and for the competition to remain, their prices will be lower. So, you'd have a good company, but with a high price, or a lesser quality with a low price. In this case, you'd get the cliched mentality "what you paid for."

Unless the poor quality company had high prices, if you went along with the previous mentality, making it hard to decipher which company is better. As for domination over the market, i don't think so, because when the newest thing comes out, every company will claim to own it, or claim to have something better, or a better price for the current service. But that's my theory.

clutch wrote:

Sand wrote:

I've heard that whichever telecomm company can mainstream/upgrade to fiber optics first and most successfully is going to dominate the entire market. Do you guys think this is accurate? I don't know much about this technology.

more than likely, but in order to avoid a monopoly (ensuring a lawsuit), the competition has to remain, and for the competition to remain, their prices will be lower. So, you'd have a good company, but with a high price, or a lesser quality with a low price. In this case, you'd get the cliched mentality "what you paid for."

Unless the poor quality company had high prices, if you went along with the previous mentality, making it hard to decipher which company is better. As for domination over the market, i don't think so, because when the newest thing comes out, every company will claim to own it, or claim to have something better, or a better price for the current service. But that's my theory.

This...

I just noticed the OP's name...

SAND? I love you SAND, SAND?

I hope so. Welcome, SAND

clutch wrote:

Sand wrote:

I've heard that whichever telecomm company can mainstream/upgrade to fiber optics first and most successfully is going to dominate the entire market. Do you guys think this is accurate? I don't know much about this technology.

more than likely, but in order to avoid a monopoly (ensuring a lawsuit), the competition has to remain, and for the competition to remain, their prices will be lower. So, you'd have a good company, but with a high price, or a lesser quality with a low price. In this case, you'd get the cliched mentality "what you paid for."

Unless the poor quality company had high prices, if you went along with the previous mentality, making it hard to decipher which company is better. As for domination over the market, i don't think so, because when the newest thing comes out, every company will claim to own it, or claim to have something better, or a better price for the current service. But that's my theory.

Actually, monopolies increase the quality of the product delivered AS WELL AS lower the prices. If there's competition in the market a company can either lower their prices or increase the quality of their product so consumers are more likely to purchase it. More often than not both of these happen and we, as consumers, get awesome, cheap products

Edit: 100th post, and I not have stars, awesome.

Coda wrote:

clutch wrote:

Sand wrote:

I've heard that whichever telecomm company can mainstream/upgrade to fiber optics first and most successfully is going to dominate the entire market. Do you guys think this is accurate? I don't know much about this technology.

more than likely, but in order to avoid a monopoly (ensuring a lawsuit), the competition has to remain, and for the competition to remain, their prices will be lower. So, you'd have a good company, but with a high price, or a lesser quality with a low price. In this case, you'd get the cliched mentality "what you paid for."

Unless the poor quality company had high prices, if you went along with the previous mentality, making it hard to decipher which company is better. As for domination over the market, i don't think so, because when the newest thing comes out, every company will claim to own it, or claim to have something better, or a better price for the current service. But that's my theory.

Actually, monopolies increase the quality of the product delivered AS WELL AS lower the prices. If there's competition in the market a company can either lower their prices or increase the quality of their product so consumers are more likely to purchase it. More often than not both of these happen and we, as consumers, get awesome, cheap products

Edit: 100th post, and I not have stars, awesome.

That ideal works well until you put "supply and demand" into the equation. Company "a" would hype up a great product, to make it sound better than company "b." Now, Company "b" would do the same against company "a." Let's assume in this example that there are only two companies fighting for customers. Company "a" has a better product, but less in production to keep demand high, therefore increasing the prices. But company "b" has a lot of the product in stock, and to sell them all, it must decrease the price. When a company (either a or b) wins the competition, then the price may go down, but only for a limited time, making other consumers think they're getting a great deal. For this example, lets say "a" won. Lets' say there is a discount of 50%, and that price is lower than company "b"s original price. That's when you'd get the good thing for less money, however, company "a" will be having a hard time selling because the demand is now low, and the supply is now high after ordering more. So now after the sale, the price is permanently lowered by, oh, 10% as an example. Company "b" then takes advantage of this, and comes out with the next best thing, and raises it's price incredibly high, saying company "a" is not worth the money. Company "b" then follows the pattern of company "a."

Td;lr So yes, we can get good products for cheap, but only for a limited time, then the next best thing comes out, and the cycle repeats.

But if you throw a third company into the mix, then things get a little more interesting. "supply and demand" becomes even more important, but because things change out so often, you're doomed to save money on something outdated. Mind you, i'm leaving the economy out of this equation.. Shit hits the fan when you put that in too, because you have inflation and deflation.

clutch wrote:

Coda wrote:

clutch wrote:

Sand wrote:

I've heard that whichever telecomm company can mainstream/upgrade to fiber optics first and most successfully is going to dominate the entire market. Do you guys think this is accurate? I don't know much about this technology.

more than likely, but in order to avoid a monopoly (ensuring a lawsuit), the competition has to remain, and for the competition to remain, their prices will be lower. So, you'd have a good company, but with a high price, or a lesser quality with a low price. In this case, you'd get the cliched mentality "what you paid for."

Unless the poor quality company had high prices, if you went along with the previous mentality, making it hard to decipher which company is better. As for domination over the market, i don't think so, because when the newest thing comes out, every company will claim to own it, or claim to have something better, or a better price for the current service. But that's my theory.

Actually, monopolies increase the quality of the product delivered AS WELL AS lower the prices. If there's competition in the market a company can either lower their prices or increase the quality of their product so consumers are more likely to purchase it. More often than not both of these happen and we, as consumers, get awesome, cheap products

Edit: 100th post, and I not have stars, awesome.

That ideal works well until you put "supply and demand" into the equation. Company "a" would hype up a great product, to make it sound better than company "b." Now, Company "b" would do the same against company "a." Let's assume in this example that there are only two companies fighting for customers. Company "a" has a better product, but less in production to keep demand high, therefore increasing the prices. But company "b" has a lot of the product in stock, and to sell them all, it must decrease the price. When a company (either a or b) wins the competition, then the price may go down, but only for a limited time, making other consumers think they're getting a great deal. For this example, lets say "a" won. Lets' say there is a discount of 50%, and that price is lower than company "b"s original price. That's when you'd get the good thing for less money, however, company "a" will be having a hard time selling because the demand is now low, and the supply is now high after ordering more. So now after the sale, the price is permanently lowered by, oh, 10% as an example. Company "b" then takes advantage of this, and comes out with the next best thing, and raises it's price incredibly high, saying company "a" is not worth the money. Company "b" then follows the pattern of company "a."

Td;lr So yes, we can get good products for cheap, but only for a limited time, then the next best thing comes out, and the cycle repeats.

But if you throw a third company into the mix, then things get a little more interesting. "supply and demand" becomes even more important, but because things change out so often, you're doomed to save money on something outdated. Mind you, i'm leaving the economy out of this equation.. Shit hits the fan when you put that in too, because you have inflation and deflation.

Too many dependencies to give a definite answer. That theory is likely to apply less to inferior goods and services, but will apply heavily to something such as mobile phones where the latest really does matter. It's nice to see some economics here! Are you studying economics at university?

Coda wrote:

clutch wrote:

Coda wrote:

clutch wrote:

Sand wrote:

I've heard that whichever telecomm company can mainstream/upgrade to fiber optics first and most successfully is going to dominate the entire market. Do you guys think this is accurate? I don't know much about this technology.

more than likely, but in order to avoid a monopoly (ensuring a lawsuit), the competition has to remain, and for the competition to remain, their prices will be lower. So, you'd have a good company, but with a high price, or a lesser quality with a low price. In this case, you'd get the cliched mentality "what you paid for."

Unless the poor quality company had high prices, if you went along with the previous mentality, making it hard to decipher which company is better. As for domination over the market, i don't think so, because when the newest thing comes out, every company will claim to own it, or claim to have something better, or a better price for the current service. But that's my theory.

Actually, monopolies increase the quality of the product delivered AS WELL AS lower the prices. If there's competition in the market a company can either lower their prices or increase the quality of their product so consumers are more likely to purchase it. More often than not both of these happen and we, as consumers, get awesome, cheap products

Edit: 100th post, and I not have stars, awesome.

That ideal works well until you put "supply and demand" into the equation. Company "a" would hype up a great product, to make it sound better than company "b." Now, Company "b" would do the same against company "a." Let's assume in this example that there are only two companies fighting for customers. Company "a" has a better product, but less in production to keep demand high, therefore increasing the prices. But company "b" has a lot of the product in stock, and to sell them all, it must decrease the price. When a company (either a or b) wins the competition, then the price may go down, but only for a limited time, making other consumers think they're getting a great deal. For this example, lets say "a" won. Lets' say there is a discount of 50%, and that price is lower than company "b"s original price. That's when you'd get the good thing for less money, however, company "a" will be having a hard time selling because the demand is now low, and the supply is now high after ordering more. So now after the sale, the price is permanently lowered by, oh, 10% as an example. Company "b" then takes advantage of this, and comes out with the next best thing, and raises it's price incredibly high, saying company "a" is not worth the money. Company "b" then follows the pattern of company "a."

Td;lr So yes, we can get good products for cheap, but only for a limited time, then the next best thing comes out, and the cycle repeats.

But if you throw a third company into the mix, then things get a little more interesting. "supply and demand" becomes even more important, but because things change out so often, you're doomed to save money on something outdated. Mind you, i'm leaving the economy out of this equation.. Shit hits the fan when you put that in too, because you have inflation and deflation.

Too many dependencies to give a definite answer. That theory is likely to apply less to inferior goods and services, but will apply heavily to something such as mobile phones where the latest really does matter. It's nice to see some economics here! Are you studying economics at university?

No, but i should. That's all stuff i remember from previous schooling. I have a feeling i'd be good in that feild, i'm just more interested in mechanics than economics. I was going for the mobile phone or computer approach, because i know those things are more applicable here on this forum more than any other product.