6 ms·

That's why it's a monopoly. The region can tell companies "who can make these lines (some profitable, some less) for the lowest subsidies, while fulfilling thes

by devcpp 8y ago

That's why it's a monopoly. The region can tell companies "who can make these lines (some profitable, some less) for the lowest subsidies, while fulfilling these other requirements?" Then the private companies compete, one wins and has to serve cake routes as well as empty ones, because the contract with the region makes them do it. Everyone wants your region? Great, you can lower the subsidies, or even tax the company. No one wants it? Ask for more money from the state, or consider eliminating some useless routes. Then the monopoly part makes it easy to calculate the profitability of the package and get concrete offers.

atoav 8y ago
But you could then just go, give the same plan to different competing teams in the public railway network and you will get a similar effect. Because over all the private companies will also have to carry the cost of a lost competition to their customers. I just don’t think it is good to give public infrastructure into the hands of any entity that has to generate profit. It is not a good idea for trains (look at the German Bahn where it now turns out they neglected infrastructure for years just to look profitable), it is not a good idea for water and not for cellular networks or internet (the German market is again a good example). If you have a monopolist it will also leverage the fact that they are the only one. They essentially will blackmail you by strategic problems that will fall back onto you as the responsible governing body. They will put lobbyists into every possible spot and suddenly you live in a world where the only people who understand railways are on the monopolists payroll and a politician should decide about a topic they have no idea about. And if put up too high requirements, everybody loses. In Germany the frequencies for 3G were auctioned for way to much money. How did the mobile networks compensate that loss? By essentially halting any infrastructure investment and changing the requirement from “has to reach 99% of the area” to “has to reach 99% of the households”. The effects: broken train infrastructure with 1 in 5 trains arriving late, the worst mobile network of Europe, the slowest internet of Europe. I am convinced a public train, mobile and internet infrastructure would be expensive — but I might get reception 10km outside of Berlin — I might be able to catch that next train and I might be able to get fibre in the middle of the German capital.
matthewdgreen 8y ago
Alternative, the private companies spend their resources lobbying politicians to remove the unprofitable requirements, something that is relatively easier than making them profitable, and the whole system collapses.

by devcpp 8y ago

atoav 8y ago

But you could then just go, give the same plan to different competing teams in the public railway network and you will get a similar effect. Because over all the private companies will also have to carry the cost of a lost competition to their customers. I just don’t think it is good to give public infrastructure into the hands of any entity that has to generate profit. It is not a good idea for trains (look at the German Bahn where it now turns out they neglected infrastructure for years just to look profitable), it is not a good idea for water and not for cellular networks or internet (the German market is again a good example). If you have a monopolist it will also leverage the fact that they are the only one. They essentially will blackmail you by strategic problems that will fall back onto you as the responsible governing body. They will put lobbyists into every possible spot and suddenly you live in a world where the only people who understand railways are on the monopolists payroll and a politician should decide about a topic they have no idea about. And if put up too high requirements, everybody loses. In Germany the frequencies for 3G were auctioned for way to much money. How did the mobile networks compensate that loss? By essentially halting any infrastructure investment and changing the requirement from “has to reach 99% of the area” to “has to reach 99% of the households”. The effects: broken train infrastructure with 1 in 5 trains arriving late, the worst mobile network of Europe, the slowest internet of Europe. I am convinced a public train, mobile and internet infrastructure would be expensive — but I might get reception 10km outside of Berlin — I might be able to catch that next train and I might be able to get fibre in the middle of the German capital.

matthewdgreen 8y ago

Alternative, the private companies spend their resources lobbying politicians to remove the unprofitable requirements, something that is relatively easier than making them profitable, and the whole system collapses.