Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
"Open Access" and regulation of railroad freight rates.
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Datafever"][quote user="futuremodal"][quote user="Datafever"][quote user="futuremodal"] <P>the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which <STRONG>would not have occurred</STRONG> if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.</P> <P>[/quote]<BR>That's what I love about this forum. The most outlandish claims get to be presented as absolute fact. Ma Bell, of course, made no technological improvements to the phone system during her tenure which is why we were still all ringing up the local switchboard from our hand cranked phones to have our calls manually placed at the time of the breakup in 1984. Methinks that the Mother Lode of technological innovation had much less to do with the breakup of Ma Bell than it was the direct result of the computer revolution that has taken place since that time.<BR><BR>Price competition? Is that why my basic phone bill is double what it was just 15 years ago?[/quote]</P> <P>This is what is so astonishing about some of the forum members. It is as if the concept of innovation due to competition simply does not exist in their world. </P> <P>If you guys won't acknowledge basic economic fact, then there's no helping you.</P> <P>BTW - if you don't like your current phone service provide, THEN GO OUT AND GET YOURSELF A DIFFERENT ONE!</P> <P>Sheeesh!</P> <P>[/quote]<BR>You may not have noticed, but <U>you</U> were the one making the absurd claim that technogical innovation did not occur under Ma Bell's monopoly. History shows otherwise. Bell Labs had been one of this country's premier founts of innovation since it was established. I don't think that you could have chosen a poorer example to try to make your case.<BR>[/quote]</P> <P>No, I did not say technological innovation did not occur under the monopoly. I said that technological innovation (along with price and service offerings) that we are witnessing today would not have occured if Ma Bell had been allowed to maintain her monopoly. This all goes back to the basic economic tenet that <STRONG>competition spurs innovation</STRONG>.</P> <P>Agree or disagree? </P> <P>Sure, Bell had an R&D department, but so what? Without fear of losing business to a competitor what motive existed to provide newer designs and service packages? Those guys were more like a university research department, not a business R&D sector. E.g. they were not pressed as if the company's survival was at stake. The motive seems to have been born of pet projects and the like, some of which may have aided in reducing costs to increase revenues, but for the most part just toys for bragging rights. There was no motive of growing a customer base to increase revenues. </P> <P>Kind of like our railroad industry - unit trains and terminal consolidations (aka the "innovations" usually refered to) were implemented to reduce costs, not to increase customer satisfaction. Thus, monopolies produce "reactive innovations", while competitive players give us "proactive innovations".</P>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy