Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
??????
Pretty much everything was a duopoly and as the market was so small they just grew to mutually exist without need to compete.
Shit most of them are all owned by the same parent companies now.
My point being that while a duopoly may seem like a worst case scenario, it very much isn't.
My point is that is isn’t any better or worse when there isn’t competition.
You’re still a captive market being charged the highest costs possible.
The "highest cost possible" is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
No, it's at the consumers wallet.
I don't know what this means
The highest cost is hard set by what the consumer is able to spend.
They cannot go higher.
if that's how you want to define "highest cost", then goods absolutely aren't priced at highest cost in a duopoly
they aren't even priced at highest cost in a monopoly, because "all the money a person has" is just cartoon logic
Markets have a carrying capacity.
You cannot exceed this, it’s not a cartoonish “all the money you have”
So "highest cost" isn't set by "what the consumer is able to spend"? So what's it set by?
Are you like an idiot or something? I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know how many times I can keep saying the same basic thing to you.
It’s set by the maximum market rate, that being the highest price before it’s too expensive and loss of sales cuts into revenue.
And "the highest price before it’s too expensive and loss of sales cuts into revenue" is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly. Meaning the "highest cost" is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
As an addendum, you haven't really mentioned anything past a vague idea of "maximum cost" until now, so I'm not really sure what you mean about repeating yourself. Are you okay, friend?
So private telecoms frantically lowering their prices when a public-funded internet company launches is just a coincidence?