NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:53:09 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13odbv5mvi971b0@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:14:31 +0000, Mark McIntyre
>> <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> <13oalannb9v2g80@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>> By placing a barrier to free engagement on equal terms?
>>
>> By inhibiting abuse of the system.
>
>Weasel words. By placing the barrier in place, the market is skewed in
>favour of those who can afford to lose the fee.

Just the opposite -- it prevents skewing by those that can't afford to
play.

>> The terms are in fact equal. Anyone is free to raise as much capital as
>> they can justify.
>
>Classic captalism - everyone is free to dine at the castle, all they
>have to do is raise enough cash to buy a suit of armour and horse.

Yep. That's how it works. And it works quite well in this country --
capital is readily available to those with good business cases, and even
to those with not so good business cases. :)

>> Trying to correct for financial differences would be meddling in the
>> market.
>
>Which is what is being done by placing a barrier to entry.

Requiring bona fides in advance isn't a barrier to entry.

>I'm wondering if you understand much about market theory?

Ditto. Feel free to cite any authority that you think supports your
position. If you have any that is. :)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:55:49 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13odc46e5fgqe19@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> My own take is just the opposite. Otherwise they'd be shedding their 3G
>> spectrum instead of promoting it heavily.
>
>You /really/ don't have a clue do you? If you've spent a billion quid on
>a multuyear license, you absolutely *have* to promote it heavily, in the
>hopes of getting a return. No company accountant in their right mind
>could afford to simply write off the expense.

They could instead put it up for sale, assuming they haven't been dumb
enough to overpay of course. ;)

The free market does tend to punish stupidity and reward good business
judgement. ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:57:53 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13odc823dg2306e@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:32:01 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>> <xvmdnbcJjdutnxvanZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>> In other words, George is right.
>>
>> Is that the best you can do? How childish.
>
>Given that you were unable to produce a counter-argument, one is forced
>to conclude you don't have one. Ergo, you lost.
>
>And how childish of you not to concede that point.

Sorry, but you don't get to make the rules.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> Sorry, but you don't get to make the rules.

"Pot calling kettle, got yer ears on good buddy?"

Mark McIntyre wrote:
<snip>
>
> Classic captalism - everyone is free to dine at the castle, all they
> have to do is raise enough cash to buy a suit of armour and horse.
>

Actual capitalism is pretty much the antidote for medevialism. There's
plenty of cash out there.

<snip>

--
Les Cargill

John Navas wrote:
> Ditto. Feel free to cite any authority that you think supports your
> position.

You apparently missed the bit where I said I really couldn't be assed to
play with you.

> If you have any that is. :)

I do this professionally, for a living. The line you've been arguing is
classic big business smoke-and-mirrors to skew the field.

I also notice you've steadfastly refused to explain why the UK's 3G
auction was so brilliant. It happened 8 years ago, netted 22.5Bn for the
Govt, and4 years later they had 1% market penetration, via expensive
handsets. Indeed an Ofcom report in 2006 reckoned that the networks had
paid on average £5,000 per customer, and despite high charged had
recouped hardly any of that. Meanwhile the 2.5G services are ubiquitous,
and by comparison cheap.

So what happened? A few big companies with very deep pockets completely
misread the market and threw caution to the wind. Was the auction a
success? Sure - if youre HMRC and your job is to collect lots of cash.
But did this result in the best service to the consumers? No.

*threadplonk*

John Navas wrote:

> They could instead put it up for sale, assuming they haven't been dumb
> enough to overpay of course. ;)

Which of course they were.

> The free market does tend to punish stupidity and reward good business
> judgement. ;)

Reward good judgement, sure. Punish stupidity? Only when its in its
interests. Plenty of stupid company execs out there still getting paid
big bucks to make stupid decisions day on day. Take a look at half of
corporate America.

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:57:53 +0000, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
> <13odc823dg2306e@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:32:01 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>> <xvmdnbcJjdutnxvanZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>>> In other words, George is right.
>>> Is that the best you can do? How childish.
>> Given that you were unable to produce a counter-argument, one is forced
>> to conclude you don't have one. Ergo, you lost.
>>
>> And how childish of you not to concede that point.
>
> Sorry, but you don't get to make the rules.

Sorry, but you don't get to ignore how arguments work.

Actually, you do, of course - but only by tacitly admitting you've lost.

John Navas wrote:

(of capitalism)

> Yep. Because it clearly does produce public good, as in better products
> and services at lower prices.

Wow, you really /have/ been suckered in by that line, haven't you?
Take a long hard look at the billions of people /not/ living in the US
or Europe.


--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:03:04 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in <13og0tpfaufte3@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>(of capitalism)
>
>> Yep. Because it clearly does produce public good, as in better products
>> and services at lower prices.
>
>Wow, you really /have/ been suckered in by that line, haven't you?

You bet, because evidence is overwhelming that it really works, and that
the alternative doesn't.

>Take a long hard look at the billions of people /not/ living in the US
>or Europe.

The result of massive government interference and mismanagement.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>