Don’t monopolistic operators damage the competitive advantages of a country?

Here is a thought. I am a frequent visitor to a country which has an operator who is in a strong, monopolistic situation.

Every time I visit this place, I think that the operator is doing a dis-service to the nation’s entrepreneurs.

In effect, the operator benefits on a short term basis from high prices and walled gardens.

The country’s government is blinded by short term stability in the marketplace.

Meanwhile the mobile entrepreneurs suffer (or emigrate to neighbouring countries with far more enlightened governments).

Very soon I expect that other more open technologies like wimax will come along.

The operator’s profitability will drop and they will probably be acquired because like all old operators they have a high cost base

However the real loser is the country – because I suspect that its best mobile entrepreneurs and will leave for foreign lands and that’s a permanent loss to the economy!

Comments

  1. nick says:

    welcome to New Zealand?

  2. Leo says:

    I have to add another possibility to the suggestion of my Kiwi colleague above.
    In my guess this could be Australia (although there are plenty of other examples), however in that case the governments position would be a conflict of interest as they can not be a substantial owner of a ‘de-facto monopoly’ and on the other hand act in the interest of the innovators as well as consumers. But the winds of change ….