| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 28.09.99 02:29l 172 Lines 7369 Bytes #-9756 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_243D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/243D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0NHM<DB0SHG<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<DB0ACC<
DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990927/2014Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:3614 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_243
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20114 ; Mon, 27 Sep 99 19:13:06 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016026 ; Mon, 27 Sep 99 20:41:50 MET
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 99 20:38:44 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_243D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/243D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ascend, etc . . . etc . . .
Why are Ericson, Siemens, Nokia and others buying up new startup American
compeititive companies. Check it out, read the annual reports, follow the
financial newspapers. Why in the last year alone, Siemens has bought at
least 6 American new technology companies. In fact, there is a new saying
in the board rooms of all of the major European telecom equipment
manufacturers, it goes, "buy American", heh, heh.
Your claims are simply not true. You may not like competition, as I can
plainly see from your comments, and it may actually be hurting the
Netherlands and KPN, but . . . protectionism is not the way to succeed.
The best defense is a good offense, there are probably more smart engineers
in the Netherlands than in all of Silicon Valley, I know because I have met
many ot them, they take a back seat to no one, I say just turn em loose!
Rob, I do feel sorry for the poor Netherlanders being pushed around by the
roughshod ways of those bad bad civil servants in the EC beaurocracy over
there in Brussels.
Maybe the Dutch should simply complete the dike system all around the
Netherlands and then simply sail away from the European Union. I always
liked Schevenign better than the "Grand Place" anyway.
Best Regards from a clearly pro-competition, crass, commercial, competitive
America, where everyone works full 40 hour weeks with only 2 weeks of
vacation, and has fun doing it!
Peter AB4BC
Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:slrn7urpkp.19v.nomail@linux.pe1chl.ampr.org...
> Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote:
> >Rob Janssen <nomail@pe1chl.demon.nl> wrote:
> >> Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>Isn't competition great?
>
> >> I don't think it is. Competition in a small network as we have here
only
> >> means extra interconnection costs and overhead because of multiple
small
> >> companies operating the same services (administration, customer
support,
> >> etc). Up to now, competition has only increased the prices here
because
> >> these extra costs somehow need to be recovered.
>
> >welcome to the wonderful world of natural monopolies. A natural
> >monopoly is any service in which it doesn't make sense to have
> >competition. Examples of natural monopolies are: water, sewer, power
> >lines, telephone lines, and roads. Note that I did not include power
> >generation, water production, and telecommunication services.
>
> >As you pointed out Rob, there are tremendous inefficiencies when there
> >is competition at the natural monopoly level. It makes no sense to
> >replicate last mile infrastructure (wire, switches etc.).
>
> >However, even in a small town it makes sense to have competition if
> >you allow for competition at the right level. For example, it makes
> >good economic and social sense for a municipality to manage the
> >quality of water, roads, power lines, and telecommunications lines
> >(copper and fiber). Competition is then had at the entry points to
> >these "natural monopoly" services. In the case of electrical power,
> >paying for electricity from different generation sources. In the case
> >of telecommunications, buying local loop, long distance, and data
> >services from different vendors.
>
> In this country we have had a long tradition of very reliable power
> generation and distribution (so reliable it makes hardly any sense to
> install UPS equipment except for really critical equipment), water quality
> has been so good that you can just drink water out of the tap, the
> telephony system has been working fully automatically (no operator
required
> for any national call) since the fifties, a very dense railroad network
> has provided service even in areas where that is not profitable, etc.
> This has all been established without any competition and at very good
> prices.
>
> Now, the EU requires us to open these markets for competition. This
> has resulted in lots of extra efforts by the existing companies that had
> not been structured in a way to support multi-access to the
infrastructures
> they manage, and also in a lot of rework on the infrastructure itself.
>
> So what do we have now? The railroad company has been split into
> infrastructure and operating companies, had to raise tariffs to allow
that,
> a "mickey-mouse" 2nd operating company was introduced and has already
> terminated its services. So we are left with just the costs.
> The mobile phone market is now services by 5 different networks (and even
> more "service providers" operating on those networks). Antennas are
> popping up literally everywhere, not a pretty sight both in urban and
rural
> environments. It has become nearly impossible to select a good deal.
> The phone company had to make difficult "interconnect" arrangements and
> technical modifications, and therefore could not properly service its
> regular customers for a long period of time. And when it (KPN) wants to
> introduce some new service it first has to wait until the competitors can
> offer it as well... thus, competition is hampering progress.
> The local electricity company is being sold to an American company. I
hope
> this does not mean they will adjust the quality to American standards!
> Who knows what will happen with the water and gas, but looking at what
> happened it GB does not promise much good...
>
> Don't tell me "the prices will drop because of competition". They
haven't.
> You a probably mistaking price drops in telecom (etc) as being cause by
> competition, where they in fact are made possible by advances in
technology
> that would have taken place anyway. It has just become cheaper to build
> and maintain a switch and its interconnections, that has nothing to do
> with competition.
>
> Rob
> --
>
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
> | Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWWhome: http://www.pe1chl.demon.nl/
|
> | AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU
|
>
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: 26 Sep 1999 16:00:50 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
n5pvl@texoma.net (Charles Brabham) wrote in <7skr6h$npo@enews3.newsguy.com>:
>
><steve_sampson@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:7sjn41$kru$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> This is the "limit" theory as opposed to the "technology" theory.
>> Even the Central States VHF club proposes a "limit" rather than
>> "technology." Technology will build membership and save our spectrum.
>> Those who want to limit Ham radio, will destroy the hobby.
>
>Yes, I couldn't agree more, Steve, with your assessment. When a LandLine Lid
>takes traffic intended for the Ham digital network and routes it over
>non-ham links instead, he in effect tells the packet users who originated
To be continued in digest: hd_99_243E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
