Britain has forced companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost? So anyone could just enter the market?
Not mobile networks.
Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
11–20 of 67 posts
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#12Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#13Britain has forced companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost? So anyone could just enter the market?
So anyone could just enter the market? Better question, why would anyone ever build a network if they are prohibited from making a profit?
They are still making a significant profit, but not as much as they would without this legislation.
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#14Britain has forced companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost? So anyone could just enter the market?
This isn't true. This is only true for broadband. The article is wrong.
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#15Britain has forced companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost? So anyone could just enter the market?
That's a rather common practice to fight natural monopolies - here in Slovenia the largest operator (which was merged together from a landline / mobile / ISP) has to provide it's own networks (landline / FTTH / mobile) to competitors at a market price.
Keeps the competition going and benefits users.
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#16Just curious, but is it possible to give the costs for comparable contracts in other countries, too?
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#17Three is awesome. I actually tether through my phone at work because getting ~10Mbps to myself over 3G beats sharing a 10Mbps leased line amongst about 20 offices. I always have YouTube or Twitch on in the background, etc, and never run into any problems. I pay something like £20 a month.
To balance though, historically Internet access options were not good.. I was on dialup until about 2003, and then pretty horrific 1Mbps DSL until at least 2009 or so. The UK has done a great job at catching up somehow.
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#18I've always gone with the no-contract plans. I pay $35/month for the same phone and unlimited service that one of my family members is paying $100/month for. Really I don't see the point of the contract plans.
Right, I took it on the chin to buy my phone, but overall the cost is much less. Some months I pay nothing at all.
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#19I would think that one of the "several factors involved" may dwarf regulation: area.
The UK operators have 94,000 square miles to cover while US operators have a little over 3.1 million, just in the lower 48. Obviously no single carrier is ever going to cover 100% of either country (and in the US in in particular they don't come even close), but the simple size of the problem in the US drives their infrastructure costs way up.
If AT&T only had to cover the state of Michigan (96,000 square miles) they could probably do it for less than $60 a month...
I agree that we don't have nearly enough competition in the US, but let's not pretend that a few more "harmless" laws will make everything rosy and perfect.
Re: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills
#20I would think that one of the "several factors involved" may dwarf regulation: area. The UK operators have 94,000 square miles to cover while US operators have a little over 3.1 million, just in the lower 48. Obviously no single carrier is ever going to cover 100% of either country (and in the US in in particular they don't come even close), but the simple size of the problem in the US drives their infrastructure cos…
Well that doesn't explain why it is cheaper for me as a Brit to roam using my UK contract in the US than it is to take out a US contract. When I'm visiting America I am literally paying less than you folks for your stuff.
I can go to US and use unlimited data for no extra charge.