"Open Access" and regulation of railroad freight rates.

[TomDiehl]

Then I see that greyhounds is back to his redundant obsession with stagnant aggregation, as if every rail terminal in the US only has enough business for one rail crew per day.  Memo to Ken:  There is more than enough business at most rail terminals across the USA to support more than one rail service provider.  So now's the time to pull your head out of whatever it is you have it stuck in.

I don't know what you're defining as a terminal.  What are you defining as a terminal?  If you define it large enough then you're obviously right. 

The problem is not with the total amount of business, but with business that can be aggregated into a train moving to a specific destination.  There's a lot of business moving from Louisville, but only a fraction of it can get aggregated into any one train.  The cigarettes for New York aren't going to ride with the cigarettes for Dallas.

It's this destination specific aggregation of individual, indentifiable units (freightcars) that you don't seem to understand.  Maybe because it isn't present in the distribution of electricity. 

Again, it's not the total amount of business in the terminal (whatever you're calling a 'terminal'), but the amount that can be aggregated into any one train.  If you split that aggrergation up between more rail carriers you'll make that aggregation more difficult and drive up the cost of rail transportation.

That's why Open Access is a realy bad concept.

Can you reference any research showing OA will be benificial?

Now you're just stuck on misplaced contextualization.  You keep coming back with the "one train load being split between two or more carriers" scenario, while completely ignoring the current multiple trainset scenarios.  I have provided several OA interpretations that would mitigate the single train per day scenario (franchising, business shift back to rail), and such trainset limitations are the exception rather than the rule as they pertain to total rail tonnage.

It's almost as if you guys need to keep shoving that out of context example into our faces with such ad nauseum repetition in order to frame it as the reality, courtesy of Goebbels.

Talk about "shoving that out of context example into our faces with such ad nauseum repetition in order to frame it as the reality," at least we're giving real world examples of the problems that would be faced by such a concept rather than being stuck in the theoretical. 1. You have yet to show a guarantee, that stockholders would approve, that business will increase to actually pay for more carriers on the same line. 2. You have yet to show why multiple managements (more operating companies) would REDUCE costs by introducing more overhead to the operation. 3. You have yet to explain why a right-of-way owning company would suddenly offer more capacity in high traffic corridors than exists now. 4. You have yet to give ANY reason that the current railroad companies would be interested in breaking up operation and property into two separate entities. 5. The example that a few supposedly "captive" shippers may possibly benefit from lower rates isn't enough for the government to confiscate that large of an amount of private property for such a limited benefit.

[Datafever]

Current Class I branchlines and shortlines could be franchised to a single rail carrier as the likely alternative to your doomsday spector.  It may not be true OA, but at least the franchise can be yanked from poor service providers and re-bid out to others.  That's a much better situation for those captive customers than what they have to deal with now.

So, if I understand what you are saying here, you are advocating not only regulating the infrastructure, but also regulating the transport system.  I am pretty sure that one of your arguments for dividing the infrastructure from the transport system was so that only the infrastructure would need to be regulated.  But if a "poor service provider" (however that is going to be defined) can have its franchise "yanked", that sure smacks of regulation to me.

[Murphy Siding]

      Any reason that could be used to force open access onto the NA rail system could easily be used to regulate all facets of the same system.  This would be all handled by the new cabinet post:  Secretary of Railroad Bureaucracy

[Anonymous]

Current Class I branchlines and shortlines could be franchised to a single rail carrier as the likely alternative to your doomsday spector.  It may not be true OA, but at least the franchise can be yanked from poor service providers and re-bid out to others.  That's a much better situation for those captive customers than what they have to deal with now.

So, if I understand what you are saying here, you are advocating not only regulating the infrastructure, but also regulating the transport system.  I am pretty sure that one of your arguments for dividing the infrastructure from the transport system was so that only the infrastructure would need to be regulated.  But if a "poor service provider" (however that is going to be defined) can have its franchise "yanked", that sure smacks of regulation to me.

"Yanked" means that when the franchise renewal period comes up, a better service provider can be had if the current provider is unsatisfactory.  Otherwise, if the service is satisfactory, the franchise contract is probably renewed.  Business park owners, et al, do it this way all the time.  It is not a new form of regulation.

[Anonymous]

Yes it would, for the same reasons Standard Oil and Ma Bell were broken up by governmen action.

Since none of you dared answer the question as to your collective preference of keeping Standard Oil and Ma Bell intact vs the government forced break up of these companies, I have no alternative but to assume that you all would have favored keeping those entities as monopolies.  And that certainly explains your dogged attatchment to the anachronistic integrated monopolistic rail system.

Since nobody else has answered this, breaking up Ma Bell was a great example of government butting into business to make things worse for the consumers. When this happened, my phone bill went up, service went down, I was now responsible for maintaining the wiring and equipment in my house, I now had to pay for local and long distance calls separately, usually with two different companies.

My preference would be for the government to have left the Bell System alone. I got better service at a better price from the "anachronistic integrated monopolistic" phone system. A great example of it not being broken in the first place, but they "fixed" it anyway.

Tom, you were born to be a serf.

There's not too many folks in this world who prefer an economic feudalism (aka an economy dominated by monopolies) to a competitive market array, let alone have the guts to admit it.  At least you are consistent.

Anyone else have a hankerin' for Tom's *feudal nirvana*?

[TomDiehl]

Yes it would, for the same reasons Standard Oil and Ma Bell were broken up by governmen action.

Since none of you dared answer the question as to your collective preference of keeping Standard Oil and Ma Bell intact vs the government forced break up of these companies, I have no alternative but to assume that you all would have favored keeping those entities as monopolies.  And that certainly explains your dogged attatchment to the anachronistic integrated monopolistic rail system.

Since nobody else has answered this, breaking up Ma Bell was a great example of government butting into business to make things worse for the consumers. When this happened, my phone bill went up, service went down, I was now responsible for maintaining the wiring and equipment in my house, I now had to pay for local and long distance calls separately, usually with two different companies.

My preference would be for the government to have left the Bell System alone. I got better service at a better price from the "anachronistic integrated monopolistic" phone system. A great example of it not being broken in the first place, but they "fixed" it anyway.

Tom, you were born to be a serf.

There's not too many folks in this world who prefer an economic feudalism (aka an economy dominated by monopolies) to a competitive market array, let alone have the guts to admit it.  At least you are consistent.

Anyone else have a hankerin' for Tom's *feudal nirvana*?

And you were born to be stuck at the starting gate, never moving beyond theory into the world of implementation or reality.

In the example of Ma Bell, the monopoly provided the best service at the best price. The example I gave stands up, the government butts in and tried to change things for the sake of "competition" and we all ended up paying the price for it in higher phone bills to support more redundant management in the smaller companies.

As I've said, I prefer real world examples instead of a "theoretical nirvana" that someone "believes" that a major change, supported only by theory, should be imposed on a system that already works well and has no real world facts to back it up. Our forum members overseas have already blown your arguments about how well it "works" in at least two of the countries over there. Government bailouts of the infrastructure are hardly success stories.

I also noticed that you haven't been able to take this anywhere beyond your theory, as the points I stated earlier.

[Datafever]

Current Class I branchlines and shortlines could be franchised to a single rail carrier as the likely alternative to your doomsday spector.  It may not be true OA, but at least the franchise can be yanked from poor service providers and re-bid out to others.  That's a much better situation for those captive customers than what they have to deal with now.

So, if I understand what you are saying here, you are advocating not only regulating the infrastructure, but also regulating the transport system.  I am pretty sure that one of your arguments for dividing the infrastructure from the transport system was so that only the infrastructure would need to be regulated.  But if a "poor service provider" (however that is going to be defined) can have its franchise "yanked", that sure smacks of regulation to me.

"Yanked" means that when the franchise renewal period comes up, a better service provider can be had if the current provider is unsatisfactory.  Otherwise, if the service is satisfactory, the franchise contract is probably renewed.  Business park owners, et al, do it this way all the time.  It is not a new form of regulation.

Okay, so help me understand this, because I am feeling awful dense right now.

For a particular terminal area, one company will own the infrastructure.  This will be regulated.  (Why?)

Another company (government?) owns the right to transport and service customers in that terminal area, and it franchises out that right to an appropriate provider which in turn provides the actual service.  This doesn't need to be regulated because the franchiser can "yank" the franchisee's contract if the service is substandard.

In addition, the shippers in this terminal area pay 1) 100% of the costs to maintain the ROW in the terminal area, 2) 100% of the costs to service the terminal area, 3) a reasonable profit for the ROW owner, 4) a reasonable profit for the service provider, and 5) any extraordinary costs that may occur within the terminal area.

[Flint Hills Tex]

futuremodal wrote:

"Lee, you're following the same flawed logic as Ken. Why do you focus on the spector of multiple rail carriers having to compete for 10 branchline customers (with the subsequent need to barter for access to that single track), rather than focussing on the more reasonable scenarios of splitting the multiple trainsets among multiple carriers that currently are hogged by one railroad? The single branchline connundrum is a highly exceptional scenario, with multiple carriers each day picking up and setting out a few carloads each highly unlikely in an OA system.

Current Class I branchlines and shortlines could be franchised to a single rail carrier as the likely alternative to your doomsday spector. It may not be true OA, but at least the franchise can be yanked from poor service providers and re-bid out to others. That's a much better situation for those captive customers than what they have to deal with now.

Captive customers located on mainlines will of course have more OA options."

I'm not sure whose logic is more flawed, FM, as OA would require major changes in the way railroads plan their logistics. Your idea might work, if all customers along a branch could agree on which RR to franchise with. Granted, with the move towards increased intermodal traffic, the "single branchline conondrum", as you call it, may become the exception at some point. But don't forget that not every railroad has a 40-50% intermodal portion of traffic, in particular the small guys. And, by the way, aren't most captive shippers "captive" precisely because they are located on a branchline or remote division without access to a competitor's mainline?

Then, as you admit, your suggestion does not represent true OA. If I understand the reasons for wanting OA in North America, then it is to relieve captive shippers of overpricing by the railroads. How does OA accomplish this feat? By creating a transportation situation similar to that of interstate trucking, meaning that EVERY shipper is free to choose what company will ship for him. And whether that takes the form of a long-term contract or of taking the lowest bidder on a monthly, a weekly or even a daily basis is also up to the Customer!

Limitedclear wrote:

"Sure FM, lets just confiscate everyone's property. Wouldn't things be ever so much easier to operate then. Don't forget the failed efforts at nationalizing the railroads in the past and all the long term damage regulation wrought. Oh, and what's a little violation of Constitutional Rights to liberty and property..."

Now, you mustn't forget that the development of the railroad industry in NA took place under a wholly different set of circumstances as that of either trucking or air freight. Both of the latter developed as OA systems because the public domain provided the infrastructure at "no cost". The interstate highway system was built out of a national interest: defense. The nation's air traffic system also developed on the shoulders of the military, utilizing facilities no longer needed by the Airforce after WW II. Railroads were given huge land grants, tax exemptions, etc. because the US government wanted their help in connecting the east with the west coast, and then in settling the great plains. The plan worked: my ancestors travelled by "immigrant car" from Indiana to Kansas on the Rock Island/O&K. You want to talk about overpricing for captive shippers, take a look at post-Civil War 19th century railroading! I think that anybody comparing the price situation then and now would have to admit that the current system is much fairer and works just fine. If these "captive shippers" are being taken by the RRs, why don't they just ship by truck?!

Now, how could you justify government confiscation of corporate property without risking years of expensive litigation and, eventually, a turnover on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court? And if you just left the RRs their ROW but forced OA upon them, then you would see a lack of investment in the physical plant by the owners. I just don't believe that OA is do-able in NA!

[JSGreen]

I dont disagree with what you posted, but I do have a minor quibble: 

Now, how could you justify government confiscation of corporate property without risking years of expensive litigation and, eventually, a turnover on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court?

That isnt a slam dunk any longer.  Last year the Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut case, in which the local government (dont think it was state) condemed and took by immanent domain property from landowners who had houses, to give to a developers to make a high-priced condo unit, so as to increase the tax base of the area.

Which is why so many states had constitutional ammendents on the ballots this year, to prevent that from happening in their state. 

But if the supreme court said it was OK for lower level governmental agencies to do somethin like this, they just might find it was OK for the Federal Government to do it, also.  I think the Key Phrase was something like "For the Public Benefit".

[zapp]

I dont disagree with what you posted, but I do have a minor quibble: 

Now, how could you justify government confiscation of corporate property without risking years of expensive litigation and, eventually, a turnover on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court?

That isnt a slam dunk any longer.  Last year the Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut case, in which the local government (dont think it was state) condemed and took by immanent domain property from landowners who had houses, to give to a developers to make a high-priced condo unit, so as to increase the tax base of the area.

Which is why so many states had constitutional ammendents on the ballots this year, to prevent that from happening in their state. 

But if the supreme court said it was OK for lower level governmental agencies to do somethin like this, they just might find it was OK for the Federal Government to do it, also.  I think the Key Phrase was something like "For the Public Benefit".

The city of Arlington, TX. did the same thing to home owners so they could build a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys.

[Anonymous]

Yes it would, for the same reasons Standard Oil and Ma Bell were broken up by governmen action.

Since none of you dared answer the question as to your collective preference of keeping Standard Oil and Ma Bell intact vs the government forced break up of these companies, I have no alternative but to assume that you all would have favored keeping those entities as monopolies.  And that certainly explains your dogged attatchment to the anachronistic integrated monopolistic rail system.

Since nobody else has answered this, breaking up Ma Bell was a great example of government butting into business to make things worse for the consumers. When this happened, my phone bill went up, service went down, I was now responsible for maintaining the wiring and equipment in my house, I now had to pay for local and long distance calls separately, usually with two different companies.

My preference would be for the government to have left the Bell System alone. I got better service at a better price from the "anachronistic integrated monopolistic" phone system. A great example of it not being broken in the first place, but they "fixed" it anyway.

Tom, you were born to be a serf.

There's not too many folks in this world who prefer an economic feudalism (aka an economy dominated by monopolies) to a competitive market array, let alone have the guts to admit it.  At least you are consistent.

Anyone else have a hankerin' for Tom's *feudal nirvana*?

And you were born to be stuck at the starting gate, never moving beyond theory into the world of implementation or reality.

In the example of Ma Bell, the monopoly provided the best service at the best price. The example I gave stands up, the government butts in and tried to change things for the sake of "competition" and we all ended up paying the price for it in higher phone bills to support more redundant management in the smaller companies.

As I've said, I prefer real world examples instead of a "theoretical nirvana" that someone "believes" that a major change, supported only by theory, should be imposed on a system that already works well and has no real world facts to back it up. Our forum members overseas have already blown your arguments about how well it "works" in at least two of the countries over there. Government bailouts of the infrastructure are hardly success stories.

Tom, in the real world of telecommunications reform the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.  Yeah, there's still a few out there who seemingly would prefer to go back to the days of land line rotary dial telephones (in basic black of course).................

[jeaton]

Tom

Futuremodal's use of the telecommunication situation as a comparison to railroad OA is very appropriate.  Afterall, there is no difference between pushing electrons thru wire or photons through glass and running trains down a track.  Also, just like there is no competition between railroads and trucks, the telephone companies do not compete with cable companies.

Right?

[Anonymous]

   I'm not sure whose logic is more flawed, FM, as OA would require major changes in the way railroads plan their logistics.

Why?  Other than the elimination of bottleneck rate gouging and paper barriers, there would be no major changes in railroad transport strategies that could conceivably seen as having a negative impact.  There would be an increase in the number of viable pathways with OA, but that can hardly be infered as a negative.

Your idea might work, if all customers along a branch could agree on which RR to franchise with. Granted, with the move towards increased intermodal traffic, the "single branchline conondrum", as you call it, may become the exception at some point. But don't forget that not every railroad has a 40-50% intermodal portion of traffic, in particular the small guys. And, by the way, aren't most captive shippers "captive" precisely because they are located on a branchline or remote division without access to a competitor's mainline?

Look at the shortline example.  There are currently quite a few shortline properties that could physically interchange with more than one Class I, if not for those quasi-illegal paper barriers.  Thus, under a franchised OA scenario, you can have 3rd party shortlines do the carload work for all online shippers, with certain moves dedicated to specific Class I's at the interchange point.  And you do so without duplicating crews or rolling stock.  We have a few shortline operators up here that do just that - one day or two they work on the carloads bound for one Class I, then other days they do the same for the other Class I.  Yes, certain shippers are contractually limited to doing business with only the former Class I branchline owner (which is obviously a cause for inefficiencies), but that may change shortly as the State has found a loophole that may allow 3rd party-owned railcars to be loaded at the facility once limited to BN but then shipped out via UP, since the State has bought the ROW.  The other shortline mentioned was formerly owned by both UP and BN, so those shippers already have duopoly rate access.  (Yet another example of the natural economic tendency toward OA working it's way up from the grassroots level.)

As for the statement.........

"And, by the way, aren't most captive shippers "captive" precisely because they are located on a branchline or remote division without access to a competitor's mainline?"

......I would disagree with the contention that such are "remote".  I believe most captive customers are located on mainlines, since branchline abandonment and terminal consolidation has all but eliminated the "out of the way" rail shipper for those lines not already shortlined.  Of course, with OA all such customers would then have access to the competitor's mainline (which would also be OA).  May seem like a moot point, yet having access to mainline alternatives not currently availed under integration would bring a whole new package of efficiencies to the table.  Whereas now all traffic regardless of product differentiation travel on the same mainline - coal drags, intermodal hot shots, etc. - with OA you would see mainlines themselves differentiated in what basic types of train configurations they would host based on grades, profiles, online customer array, etc.  Additionally, you would have greater prospects for directional running with roughly parallel mainlines, yet another efficiency the monopoly apologists don't seem to recognize.

Then, as you admit, your suggestion does not represent true OA. If I understand the reasons for wanting OA in North America, then it is to relieve captive shippers of overpricing by the railroads. How does OA accomplish this feat? By creating a transportation situation similar to that of interstate trucking, meaning that EVERY shipper is free to choose what company will ship for him. And whether that takes the form of a long-term contract or of taking the lowest bidder on a monthly, a weekly or even a daily basis is also up to the Customer!

Yep, franchising is not true OA, but it is a positive move in that direction, especially if the franchise is operated by in independent 3rd party outfit who can deliver to more than one Class I carrier.  And that in and of itself may be enough to bring that price competition that is so sorely lacking right now, which is the whole point of this debate.

Limitedclear wrote: "Sure FM, lets just confiscate everyone's property. Wouldn't things be ever so much easier to operate then. Don't forget the failed efforts at nationalizing the railroads in the past and all the long term damage regulation wrought. Oh, and what's a little violation of Constitutional Rights to liberty and property..."

(insert "Leave It to Beaver" music here)

Oh that LC!  It's best if you just ignore his crazy notions....

Now, you mustn't forget that the development of the railroad industry in NA took place under a wholly different set of circumstances as that of either trucking or air freight. Both of the latter developed as OA systems because the public domain provided the infrastructure at "no cost". The interstate highway system was built out of a national interest: defense. The nation's air traffic system also developed on the shoulders of the military, utilizing facilities no longer needed by the Airforce after WW II. Railroads were given huge land grants, tax exemptions, etc. because the US government wanted their help in connecting the east with the west coast, and then in settling the great plains. The plan worked: my ancestors travelled by "immigrant car" from Indiana to Kansas on the Rock Island/O&K. You want to talk about overpricing for captive shippers, take a look at post-Civil War 19th century railroading! I think that anybody comparing the price situation then and now would have to admit that the current system is much fairer and works just fine. If these "captive shippers" are being taken by the RRs, why don't they just ship by truck?! Now, how could you justify government confiscation of corporate property without risking years of expensive litigation and, eventually, a turnover on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court? And if you just left the RRs their ROW but forced OA upon them, then you would see a lack of investment in the physical plant by the owners. I just don't believe that OA is do-able in NA!

Yep, it was that overpricing post Ante Bellum that eventually brought in the original railroad regulation.  That's always been the way in the US-style capitalism - monopoly regulation.  So why didn't railroads also start out as public ROW's supporting multiple private usage?  Back then it just wasn't technologically or logistically feasible to do it that way - how do you control two way traffic on a single track without

[greyhounds]

Yep, it was that overpricing post Ante Bellum that eventually brought in the original railroad regulation.  That's always been the way in the US-style capitalism - monopoly regulation.  So why didn't railroads also start out as public ROW's supporting multiple private usage?  Back then it just wasn't technologically or logistically feasible to do it that way - how do you control two way traffic on a single track without indepth training and complete insider control?  Today we have the technology to make comprehensive mulitple user track access relatively easy, and now that integrated rail model is fast becoming a relic of the past along with plank roads and horse drawn barges.

No, it wasn't.  Railroad rates were in a steady decline after the Civil War.  Read "Enterprise Denied."  The railroad industry was then, as it is now, in a competitive situation that forced productivity gains (reduced cost) through to consumers in the form of reduced rates.  The railroads have never been a monopoly.  While an individual railroad may be a "natural monopoly" for railcar transportation, it is not a monopoly on what it sells, which is time and place utility for a product. That means a product has to be where it is needed when it is needed to be useful.  That is what a railroad sells. 

There are many ways to get a product where it is needed when it is needed.  That is why railroads are not, and have never been, monopolies.

Railroads didn't like the decline in rates.  They tried to form cartels (perfectly legal) to keep the rates up.  The cartels didn't work.  Somebody always cheated.  So the railroads sought to use the power of the government to stabilize the cartels.  The act that created the Interstate Commerce Commission was written by a lawyer employed by the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad.

I think it is important to keep in mind that Open Access is an unproven, ill concieved, solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  Railroads operate in a competitive environment.  Are there "Captive Shippers".  Well, the GAO says 6% of rail business is "Captive".  Which means 94% is "Competitive".  So why muck things up over 6% of the business?

And I'll argue with the 6%.  These shippers aren't in jail.  They're not "captives". They've always got an alternative.  They're just trying to use the government to transfer money from the railroads to themselves. 

 

 

[Datafever]

the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.

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.

Price competition?  Is that why my basic phone bill is double what it was just 15 years ago?

[JSGreen]

Tom, in the real world of telecommunications reform the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.  Yeah, there's still a few out there who seemingly would prefer to go back to the days of land line rotary dial telephones (in basic black of course).................

Hmmmm....doesnt sound like the history I remember.  Wasnt Schockly working for Bell Labs when he invented the Transistor?   They also hold a number of patents in the industry...and, Color Telephones and Touch Tone was actually available long before the forced breakup.   As part of the breakup, they spun off Lucent Techonlogies from the Bell Labs R&D....which hasn't done as much as an independant lab, becasue of less R&D Money.  Not to mention when you called customer service, you usually spoke to someone in the same state, if not the same town. 

Based on the blatently incorrect statements of fact, in my modest and humble opinion, all your other arguments in support of OA are also open to increased scrutiny, and not to be accepted at face value. 
Condensed version:  Just 'cause you say it loud and often doesnt make it more correct. 

[TomDiehl]

Yes it would, for the same reasons Standard Oil and Ma Bell were broken up by governmen action.

Since none of you dared answer the question as to your collective preference of keeping Standard Oil and Ma Bell intact vs the government forced break up of these companies, I have no alternative but to assume that you all would have favored keeping those entities as monopolies.  And that certainly explains your dogged attatchment to the anachronistic integrated monopolistic rail system.

Since nobody else has answered this, breaking up Ma Bell was a great example of government butting into business to make things worse for the consumers. When this happened, my phone bill went up, service went down, I was now responsible for maintaining the wiring and equipment in my house, I now had to pay for local and long distance calls separately, usually with two different companies.

My preference would be for the government to have left the Bell System alone. I got better service at a better price from the "anachronistic integrated monopolistic" phone system. A great example of it not being broken in the first place, but they "fixed" it anyway.

Tom, you were born to be a serf.

There's not too many folks in this world who prefer an economic feudalism (aka an economy dominated by monopolies) to a competitive market array, let alone have the guts to admit it.  At least you are consistent.

Anyone else have a hankerin' for Tom's *feudal nirvana*?

And you were born to be stuck at the starting gate, never moving beyond theory into the world of implementation or reality.

In the example of Ma Bell, the monopoly provided the best service at the best price. The example I gave stands up, the government butts in and tried to change things for the sake of "competition" and we all ended up paying the price for it in higher phone bills to support more redundant management in the smaller companies.

As I've said, I prefer real world examples instead of a "theoretical nirvana" that someone "believes" that a major change, supported only by theory, should be imposed on a system that already works well and has no real world facts to back it up. Our forum members overseas have already blown your arguments about how well it "works" in at least two of the countries over there. Government bailouts of the infrastructure are hardly success stories.

Tom, in the real world of telecommunications reform the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.  Yeah, there's still a few out there who seemingly would prefer to go back to the days of land line rotary dial telephones (in basic black of course).................

In the real world, you should drop by sometime, the idea that the "technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc" would not have taken place is pure speculation. And I hate to burst your bubble one more time (that's a lie, I LOVE doing it), but touch tone phones in colors other than black were available BEFORE the breakup of the Bell System.

And just like your misguided "Open Access" theory, in the real world, the breakup of the Bell System caused my price for phone service to go up, as well as the complexity of my phone service. Maybe there is a small percentage of shippers out there that would get a slightly lower price for rail shipments, but the proof, just as in the questions posed to you at the top of page 10 in this thread, is still awaiting an answer. Having a bit of trouble getting out of the starting gate again?

Somehow it brings to mind a common statement that strikes great fear into the people, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[TomDiehl]

Tom

Futuremodal's use of the telecommunication situation as a comparison to railroad OA is very appropriate.  Afterall, there is no difference between pushing electrons thru wire or photons through glass and running trains down a track.  Also, just like there is no competition between railroads and trucks, the telephone companies do not compete with cable companies.

Right?

Right. Open access sounds like a plan to benefit a small percentage of the rail customers just like the breakup of the Bell System benefited only a small percentage (if that much) of the telecommunications customers. Just ignore those cable or trucking companies, they shine the light on too many of the holes in your theory.

[zapp]

Sorry, but I'm still waiting for him to reply to questions that I posted awhile back ago, What about all us union employees of the Class 1's?

Are the shortlines, that are going to be the movers of all this freight, gonna buy out our contracts?

Are we going to "wish away" my agreement book, you know the one that railroader's have been working under for almost 100 years. Yes, we've changed alot of the original agreements, but there are still alot of agreements in the books that haven't changed.

You make it sound like this would be an easy operation. I guess after the railroads we can have General Motors build their trucks at Toyota's new San Antonio facility. That would keep GM from having to build a new plant, but keep competition strong. Some really flawed thinking going on.

[Flint Hills Tex]

greyhounds wrote:

"' futuremodal wrote:

Yep, it was that overpricing post Ante Bellum that eventually brought in the original railroad regulation.'

No, it wasn't. Railroad rates were in a steady decline after the Civil War. Read "Enterprise Denied." The railroad industry was then, as it is now, in a competitive situation that forced productivity gains (reduced cost) through to consumers in the form of reduced rates."

Of course RRs were in vicious competition after the Civil War, and on most of their lines, where they had to win customers from that competition, they waged a rate-war. But the history books I've read all agree that customers on branchlines without the alternative of another depot nearby (i.e. captive shippers) had to pay premium rates for less than satisfactory service. Why? Because the RRs had to make up for the profit losses elsewhere in their system. Don't forget, the rail network wasn't as dense as during the first half of the 20th century, so RRs had enough branchlines to make this strategy effective.

[Anonymous]

the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.

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.

Price competition?  Is that why my basic phone bill is double what it was just 15 years ago?

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. 

If you guys won't acknowledge basic economic fact, then there's no helping you.

BTW - if you don't like your current phone service provide, THEN GO OUT AND GET YOURSELF A DIFFERENT ONE!

Sheeesh!

[Anonymous]

Yes it would, for the same reasons Standard Oil and Ma Bell were broken up by governmen action.

Since none of you dared answer the question as to your collective preference of keeping Standard Oil and Ma Bell intact vs the government forced break up of these companies, I have no alternative but to assume that you all would have favored keeping those entities as monopolies.  And that certainly explains your dogged attatchment to the anachronistic integrated monopolistic rail system.

Since nobody else has answered this, breaking up Ma Bell was a great example of government butting into business to make things worse for the consumers. When this happened, my phone bill went up, service went down, I was now responsible for maintaining the wiring and equipment in my house, I now had to pay for local and long distance calls separately, usually with two different companies.

My preference would be for the government to have left the Bell System alone. I got better service at a better price from the "anachronistic integrated monopolistic" phone system. A great example of it not being broken in the first place, but they "fixed" it anyway.

Tom, you were born to be a serf.

There's not too many folks in this world who prefer an economic feudalism (aka an economy dominated by monopolies) to a competitive market array, let alone have the guts to admit it.  At least you are consistent.

Anyone else have a hankerin' for Tom's *feudal nirvana*?

And you were born to be stuck at the starting gate, never moving beyond theory into the world of implementation or reality.

In the example of Ma Bell, the monopoly provided the best service at the best price. The example I gave stands up, the government butts in and tried to change things for the sake of "competition" and we all ended up paying the price for it in higher phone bills to support more redundant management in the smaller companies.

As I've said, I prefer real world examples instead of a "theoretical nirvana" that someone "believes" that a major change, supported only by theory, should be imposed on a system that already works well and has no real world facts to back it up. Our forum members overseas have already blown your arguments about how well it "works" in at least two of the countries over there. Government bailouts of the infrastructure are hardly success stories.

Tom, in the real world of telecommunications reform the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.  Yeah, there's still a few out there who seemingly would prefer to go back to the days of land line rotary dial telephones (in basic black of course).................

In the real world, you should drop by sometime, the idea that the "technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc" would not have taken place is pure speculation. And I hate to burst your bubble one more time (that's a lie, I LOVE doing it), but touch tone phones in colors other than black were available BEFORE the breakup of the Bell System.

And just like your misguided "Open Access" theory, in the real world, the breakup of the Bell System caused my price for phone service to go up, as well as the complexity of my phone service. Maybe there is a small percentage of shippers out there that would get a slightly lower price for rail shipments, but the proof, just as in the questions posed to you at the top of page 10 in this thread, is still awaiting an answer. Having a bit of trouble getting out of the starting gate again?

Somehow it brings to mind a common statement that strikes great fear into the people, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Tom,

You couldn't burst a bubble if you shot it with a .357 at point blank range.

Your allegation that telecommunications options were better under Ma Bell is beyond laughable.  It is competition that has brought most of the innovations in technology and service.  Just because there are still a few brain dead Americans out there who by their own admission can't figure out their phone bill, doesn't mean the problem is on the service end, it means the problem is in your lack of collective brain cells and your unwillingness to get up off your lazy asses and go out and change your service provider if indeed you are unsatisfied with your current provider.

Next you're gonna tell us that it was the breakup of Standard Oil that has caused your gas prices to double over the last 15 years.

May I remind you for the umpteenth time that outside government run systems, OA in some variation is the standard in the real world of transportation, but for Canadian and US railroads.  But of course, you keep calling OA *my* theory, so I guess that means I am in charge of the rest of the world by your definition.

And yes, our current NA rail system is a government granted fiefdom, so your last statement IS apt.

[Anonymous]

Yep, it was that overpricing post Ante Bellum that eventually brought in the original railroad regulation.  That's always been the way in the US-style capitalism - monopoly regulation.  So why didn't railroads also start out as public ROW's supporting multiple private usage?  Back then it just wasn't technologically or logistically feasible to do it that way - how do you control two way traffic on a single track without indepth training and complete insider control?  Today we have the technology to make comprehensive mulitple user track access relatively easy, and now that integrated rail model is fast becoming a relic of the past along with plank roads and horse drawn barges.

No, it wasn't.  Railroad rates were in a steady decline after the Civil War.  Read "Enterprise Denied."  The railroad industry was then, as it is now, in a competitive situation that forced productivity gains (reduced cost) through to consumers in the form of reduced rates.  The railroads have never been a monopoly.  While an individual railroad may be a "natural monopoly" for railcar transportation, it is not a monopoly on what it sells, which is time and place utility for a product. That means a product has to be where it is needed when it is needed to be useful.  That is what a railroad sells. 

Hey, Ken.  Try reading real historical analysis rather than your monopolist apologist sources.  Regulation came about because of railroad price gouging.  Otherwise there was no reason for regulation.

It's funny, you state "The railroads have never been a monopoly" but you acknowledge that railroads are a "natural monopoly".  So which is it?  Monopoly or not monopoly? 

And you think railroads developed innovation by their own volition?  Wrong.  It was forced upon them by government mandate - air brakes, knuckle couplers, standard gauge, etc.  You see, there was not sufficient competition to force these innovations, since roads (what one's existed at the time) were still rather primitive, e.g. none of that alleged competition from trucks you're always harping about.

Since you still do not acknowledge product differentiation, it's a waste of effort to dispel your homogenous description of "time and place utility".  Obviously, if there's no "time and place" difference between coal, bread, lumber..............

There are many ways to get a product where it is needed when it is needed.  That is why railroads are not, and have never been, monopolies.

Yep, there are many ways to move 10,000 tons of coal from a mine to a power plant.  1 train, 400 trucks, 200,000 wheelbarrows, 500,000 backpacks,.......the number of options are endless!  You're so right - railroads aren't monopolies!

Railroads didn't like the decline in rates.  They tried to form cartels (perfectly legal) to keep the rates up.  The cartels didn't work.  Somebody always cheated.  So the railroads sought to use the power of the government to stabilize the cartels.  The act that created the Interstate Commerce Commission was written by a lawyer employed by the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad.

So, it was the railroads' fear of internal competition that prompted them to beg the government for regulation to save themselves from each other?

I think it is important to keep in mind that Open Access is an unproven, ill concieved, solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  Railroads operate in a competitive environment.  Are there "Captive Shippers".  Well, the GAO says 6% of rail business is "Captive".  Which means 94% is "Competitive".  So why muck things up over 6% of the business?

And I'll argue with the 6%.  These shippers aren't in jail.  They're not "captives". They've always got an alternative.  They're just trying to use the government to transfer money from the railroads to themselves. 

I'll argue with that 6% figure as well, since it is a weakly derived, illogically conceived hypothetical based on a railroad recommended arbitrary R/VC standard, and not an actual physical count of the number of potential rail shippers who have only one physical connection to one Class I railroad.

I think it is important to keep in mind that Closed Access is a discredited, maliciously concieved system that has hurt domestic producers in their battle to stay globally competition.  It is a problem apparent to all but the most closed of minds.

[TomDiehl]

the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.

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.

Price competition?  Is that why my basic phone bill is double what it was just 15 years ago?

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. 

If you guys won't acknowledge basic economic fact, then there's no helping you.

BTW - if you don't like your current phone service provide, THEN GO OUT AND GET YOURSELF A DIFFERENT ONE!

Sheeesh!

As I've pointed out before, Dave has shown no ability to go BEYOND concept to a workable plan. Innovation simply for the concept of competition does not necessarily improve the situation for all, or even most users of the service. But since Dave says it's so much better to go to this open access concept to bring a limited amount of competition, his only argument for it seems to be, "I say so, so it must be so."

The "basic economic fact" that Dave seems to think none of us will acknowledge must be that he is always right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Or is it the fact that certain members phone bill have gone up, but since we now have competition in this area, things are so much better. For who, I noice that he sidesteps this question, just as he has sidestepped any question on how this "open access" concept will make anything better for the majority of shippers. Even the examples he has introduced have shown that competition is no guarantee of improved service or costs.

[TomDiehl]

Yes it would, for the same reasons Standard Oil and Ma Bell were broken up by governmen action.

Since none of you dared answer the question as to your collective preference of keeping Standard Oil and Ma Bell intact vs the government forced break up of these companies, I have no alternative but to assume that you all would have favored keeping those entities as monopolies.  And that certainly explains your dogged attatchment to the anachronistic integrated monopolistic rail system.

Since nobody else has answered this, breaking up Ma Bell was a great example of government butting into business to make things worse for the consumers. When this happened, my phone bill went up, service went down, I was now responsible for maintaining the wiring and equipment in my house, I now had to pay for local and long distance calls separately, usually with two different companies.

My preference would be for the government to have left the Bell System alone. I got better service at a better price from the "anachronistic integrated monopolistic" phone system. A great example of it not being broken in the first place, but they "fixed" it anyway.

Tom, you were born to be a serf.

There's not too many folks in this world who prefer an economic feudalism (aka an economy dominated by monopolies) to a competitive market array, let alone have the guts to admit it.  At least you are consistent.

Anyone else have a hankerin' for Tom's *feudal nirvana*?

And you were born to be stuck at the starting gate, never moving beyond theory into the world of implementation or reality.

In the example of Ma Bell, the monopoly provided the best service at the best price. The example I gave stands up, the government butts in and tried to change things for the sake of "competition" and we all ended up paying the price for it in higher phone bills to support more redundant management in the smaller companies.

As I've said, I prefer real world examples instead of a "theoretical nirvana" that someone "believes" that a major change, supported only by theory, should be imposed on a system that already works well and has no real world facts to back it up. Our forum members overseas have already blown your arguments about how well it "works" in at least two of the countries over there. Government bailouts of the infrastructure are hardly success stories.

Tom, in the real world of telecommunications reform the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.  Yeah, there's still a few out there who seemingly would prefer to go back to the days of land line rotary dial telephones (in basic black of course).................

In the real world, you should drop by sometime, the idea that the "technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc" would not have taken place is pure speculation. And I hate to burst your bubble one more time (that's a lie, I LOVE doing it), but touch tone phones in colors other than black were available BEFORE the breakup of the Bell System.

And just like your misguided "Open Access" theory, in the real world, the breakup of the Bell System caused my price for phone service to go up, as well as the complexity of my phone service. Maybe there is a small percentage of shippers out there that would get a slightly lower price for rail shipments, but the proof, just as in the questions posed to you at the top of page 10 in this thread, is still awaiting an answer. Having a bit of trouble getting out of the starting gate again?

Somehow it brings to mind a common statement that strikes great fear into the people, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Tom,

You couldn't burst a bubble if you shot it with a .357 at point blank range.

Your allegation that telecommunications options were better under Ma Bell is beyond laughable.  It is competition that has brought most of the innovations in technology and service.  Just because there are still a few brain dead Americans out there who by their own admission can't figure out their phone bill, doesn't mean the problem is on the service end, it means the problem is in your lack of collective brain cells and your unwillingness to get up off your lazy asses and go out and change your service provider if indeed you are unsatisfied with your current provider.

Next you're gonna tell us that it was the breakup of Standard Oil that has caused your gas prices to double over the last 15 years.

May I remind you for the umpteenth time that outside government run systems, OA in some variation is the standard in the real world of transportation, but for Canadian and US railroads.  But of course, you keep calling OA *my* theory, so I guess that means I am in charge of the rest of the world by your definition.

And yes, our current NA rail system is a government granted fiefdom, so your last statement IS apt.

I see Dave has finally run out of arguments as he has fallen back to his usual juvenile references rather than a real world example.

Telecommunications "options?" I could make a phone call back then, I can make a phone call now. When they made the change from the Bell System to the disjointed system we have today, my phone bill went up. So exactly what improved with this competition? Competition does not automatically equal better rates or service as has been stated here by several posters based on personal experience. You need to get your nose out of the theory book and look at the real world for a change.

We have been calling open access "your theory" becaus

[Datafever]

the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.

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.

Price competition?  Is that why my basic phone bill is double what it was just 15 years ago?

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. 

If you guys won't acknowledge basic economic fact, then there's no helping you.

BTW - if you don't like your current phone service provide, THEN GO OUT AND GET YOURSELF A DIFFERENT ONE!

Sheeesh!

You may not have noticed, but you 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.

[Anonymous]

the break up of Ma Bell started an economic Mother Lode of technological innovations, price competition, service competition, etc., all of which would not have occurred if Ma Bell would have been left to her devices.

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.

Price competition?  Is that why my basic phone bill is double what it was just 15 years ago?

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. 

If you guys won't acknowledge basic economic fact, then there's no helping you.

BTW - if you don't like your current phone service provide, THEN GO OUT AND GET YOURSELF A DIFFERENT ONE!

Sheeesh!

You may not have noticed, but you 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.

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 competition spurs innovation.

Agree or disagree? 

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. 

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".

[Datafever]

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 competition spurs innovation.

Agree or disagree?

You are correct.  You did not say that technological innovation did not occur under the monopoly.  I apologize.  Perhaps you could provide an example of a technological innovation that you feel was the result of the breakup - something that would not have been invented had the monopoly been maintained.

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. 

Motive?  I won't claim to know what motive was driving their innovations.  It seems fairly clear that they didn't just sit back and take advantage of their monopolistic situation.  They not only did cutting edge research, but they used that research for product development.  As such, to say that their research was merely reactive would be, IMO, disingenuous.  They weren't just reacting to customer complaints, but they were also introducing new technologies for the purpose of driving sales and to head off projected capacity problems.

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".

Perhaps you could provide examples of what proactive technological innovations the trucking industry has come up with.

[Anonymous]

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 competition spurs innovation.

Agree or disagree?

You are correct.  You did not say that technological innovation did not occur under the monopoly.  I apologize.  Perhaps you could provide an example of a technological innovation that you feel was the result of the breakup - something that would not have been invented had the monopoly been maintained.

Wireless.  AT&T was heavily invested in land lines for the long distance revenues.  So even though prefunctory wireless technologies were technically available, there was no incentive to push such technologies, thus wireless broadband and cell phones (and subsequent innovations based on real time market research) would not be as prevalent as they are today.  Remember, it's one thing to have a neat invention sitting in the lab, it's quite another to have to adapt that invention to meet market demand.

Former TRAINS columnist John Kneiling made mention many times of his observations that railroads were slow to adapt to new changes due to their heavy investments in older technologies.  There was no intra-industry competition to force such changes for each company's survival.

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. 

Motive?  I won't claim to know what motive was driving their innovations.  It seems fairly clear that they didn't just sit back and take advantage of their monopolistic situation.  They not only did cutting edge research, but they used that research for product development.  As such, to say that their research was merely reactive would be, IMO, disingenuous.  They weren't just reacting to customer complaints, but they were also introducing new technologies for the purpose of driving sales and to head off projected capacity problems.

I agree on the innovation to head off capacity problems, but disagree on the innovation to drive sales claim.  AT&T was not invested in sales - you either needed a phone or you didn't, and if you did, you contacted them.  They did not contact you.

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".

Perhaps you could provide examples of what proactive technological innovations the trucking industry has come up with.

You mean trucking innovations that would not be around today had trucking been a monopoly?

[Datafever]

Wireless.  AT&T was heavily invested in land lines for the long distance revenues.  So even though prefunctory wireless technologies were technically available, there was no incentive to push such technologies, thus wireless broadband and cell phones (and subsequent innovations based on real time market research) would not be as prevalent as they are today.  Remember, it's one thing to have a neat invention sitting in the lab, it's quite another to have to adapt that invention to meet market demand.

Former TRAINS columnist John Kneiling made mention many times of his observations that railroads were slow to adapt to new changes due to their heavy investments in older technologies.  There was no intra-industry competition to force such changes for each company's survival.

So your claim is that Ma Bell's monopoly in the area of landline telephony caused a lack of innovation in mobile telephony - an area in which they did not hold a monopoly.  Wireless needed advances in technology in many other areas, including advances in miniaturization.  These technological advances were not always driven by the communications industry, but became available to that industry after they had been developed to drive other industries.

As wireless was a technology that Motorola was industriously pursuing back in the 1970s, one would have to believe that the wireless industry was competitive unless you feel that Motorola had a monopoly on that industry and was therefore not trying very hard to make major inroads.

You mean trucking innovations that would not be around today had trucking been a monopoly?

Yes.