If you want. No one was giving you grief for offering links. YOU were giving US grief for not.
I already said that it CAN drive down the price, or rather I said price could be higher within a country/state where government assistance is absent. But to simply say government elements at play = artificial is an oversimplification of culture wherein you can’t even have a corporation without a state.
Not sure why you wrote that last line, that’s not a point that I personally have made.
Not in relation to government subsidies, when they are given or not given, or even WHERE (which states) they are given or not given.
Also, bandwidth itself does not effect price unless infrastructure (including machinery outside the cables/fiber) is in need of an upgrade to process faster speeds. But the actual use of faster speeds effects price extremely minimally. Prices for monthly internet have risen, even if the speeds involved have also risen. But these speeds do not have an easy $/bandwidth relation costs-wise. Or rather, they do, but it’s not publicly revealed, though this write up is a decent (if flawed) attempt. But this is a much longer debate to have - the fact that the “price” of bandwidth speed is similar to the “cost” of piracy - it exists, but hell if anybody can actually calculate it.
Agreed, but the point is that a very large swath of such programs and subsidies and direct payments exist, and yet when the anyone reports of the telecos P&L…not one word. So something is obviously missing from those calculations.
It’s nevertheless an example, and a cited one, something you claim is important, but good job on dismissing it because of age (not sure why that matters, especially since it was during a period where all these “infrastructure costs” were supposedly being accrued, that seems awfully spot on topic) and for the fact that it’s specific to a single case, which if you ask me helps in its precision - a specific damning example rather than a broad meaningless “look, the books say they’re not making as much profit as we think”. Why? Look at Europe! Uhm…that’s not a convincing answer either.
If you would like to whip up a full on report for us, I’ll happily follow every link. If you want me to do all the work to see if and how your argument posted in a forum may or may not be supported, I’m not going to do it. If you want to put it all together for me since it’s your argument, go for it. Otherwise, linkbait.
Now you’re just being disingenuous, or willfully obtuse. The point I made was that one (roads) is NOT calculated as artificial while another (broadband infrastructure) is. And that’s arbitrary. If you want to treat all government involvement equally, that would work, but it’s mostly impossible to cover anything on that scale, so we don’t. And if we don’t, then to claim only specific acts create “artificiality” is unsupportable.
Because consumers. More specifically consumer ability based on consumer income, which is something gravely under-acknowledged by many. I’ve already covered this, albeit only roughly. And with that, I’m off for the holidays. If you post anything else I’ll probably read it, but likely no more ripostes from me from hereon out.
