This is silly. The very concept of a "market" assumes independent competition.
The marketplace competition for these companies either doesn't exist or has been largely eliminated or circumvented.
For example, Starlink is part of SpaceX. SpaceX has $22 billion in government contracts. No other independent company can reasonably compete with this level of government subsidy.
> This is silly. The very concept of a "market" assumes independent competition.
A better way to think about the scope of this market is “internet access” rather than “satellite internet access”. Even in the latter case, nothing is preventing others from entering that market. Starlink has been visionary and audacious so they can command a premium. That’s the market in action.
So when "free market" ideals come up short, re-define the market? How convenient.
"Satellite internet access" is what they offer and "satellite internet customers" with no other reasonable alternative are the ones being milked --- but it's "better" not to think about that?
Even in the latter case, nothing is preventing others from entering that market.
Except for the fact that Starlink is heavily subsidized by government contracts.
Not sure what solution you are advocating for. Is it that the government should shut down Starlink or is that they should prop up other companies or what?
Google, Meta and Musk --- you are not their "customers". You are cattle on their ranch and you will be milked for everything they can get.
It may look like a good deal at first but looks can be deceiving. Ultimately, the ranch is not run to benefit the cattle.
This is silly. In a market, price is a function of what the producer tries to get and the customer is willing to pay.
This is silly. The very concept of a "market" assumes independent competition.
The marketplace competition for these companies either doesn't exist or has been largely eliminated or circumvented.
For example, Starlink is part of SpaceX. SpaceX has $22 billion in government contracts. No other independent company can reasonably compete with this level of government subsidy.
> This is silly. The very concept of a "market" assumes independent competition.
A better way to think about the scope of this market is “internet access” rather than “satellite internet access”. Even in the latter case, nothing is preventing others from entering that market. Starlink has been visionary and audacious so they can command a premium. That’s the market in action.
A better way to think
So when "free market" ideals come up short, re-define the market? How convenient.
"Satellite internet access" is what they offer and "satellite internet customers" with no other reasonable alternative are the ones being milked --- but it's "better" not to think about that?
Even in the latter case, nothing is preventing others from entering that market.
Except for the fact that Starlink is heavily subsidized by government contracts.
But there ARE competitors. Here are 10: https://thenetworkinstallers.com/blog/starlink-competitors/
Not sure what solution you are advocating for. Is it that the government should shut down Starlink or is that they should prop up other companies or what?
All of them combined don't enjoy the US government funding that Starlink does.
Assuming that's accurate (I have not researched), do you have a theory as to why?
There's a big difference between subsidies and being an actual customer. The government is both.
That's like saying if the government is buying a vehicle from Ford, they are subsidizing Ford. They are different things.
Really? So if government buys $22 billion from Ford and only Ford, they are *not* subsidizing Ford? Pollyanna much?