Explain deregulation to me in layman's terms?
81637
It removes government forced regulations (rules) that may have never been a good idea in the first place.
552533
It's really more of an Oligopolistic market ... few large companies who have Monopolistic powers in select markets.\n\nMonopolies aren't always bad.  In some cases, there is sufficient demand for a good or service, however, if divided among multiple suppliers, it is not cost effective to provide ... in other words ... the cost of laying the infrastructure is such that an incremental sale does not cover the incremental revenue !\n\nThe whole concept of Marginal Cost and Marginal Benefit is thrown out and the market fails.\n\nThese companies are granted rights by the FCC and their performance, both service wise and profit wise are reviewed and monitored.  Their prices are also regulated.\n\nThere are alternatives such as Satalite TV, etc.  Most of us don't opt for them because the quality isn't what you can get from a cable.\n\nThink about it in terms of the railroads and the old west.  If one railroad went through the expense of putting in a track to a town, it made little sense for another railroad to do the same ... yet the folks in the town had no choice if they wanted to ship anything in or out.\n\nEventually, technology (i.e. the Automobile and Plane) eventually eroded this.\n\nAs the technology improves, with WIFI and Satalite reception, larger and larger amounts of data will be able to be transmitted without the need for as much physical infrastructure.\n\nYou are absolutely correct.  They pretty much do have a monopoly within specific geographic areas.  Remember, however, that they were the one's who paid the cost of installing that cable to your home ...\n\nThis was a very good question.  I've used the cable companies as examples of Oligopoly (not Monopoly) when I taught college Economics.
1106733
Build Operate Transfer\n\nThis is an arrangement usually entered by a government in partnership with a private company, often for large utility and capital projects (e.g. dam, toll roads). In a typical BOT arrangement a private firm might undertake to construct the project (say a toll road), operate them for a number of years, and at the end of the contract relinquish all rights to them to the public utility.\n\nHere are some information on BOT:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build-Operate-Transfer\nhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/bot.htm\nhttp://www.unido.org/en/doc/3426
1172016
To reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO).  Currently there are too many proprietary technologies, cost of integrating them is huge.  The savings might not be "immediate" but over the course of time, it will be beneficial.\n\nI am answering the question very generically.  Need more details to answer more specifically.
205547
Times are changing and so do prices. How can they expect you to keep giving great service if you can't make enough money to keep your buissness afloat. If anyone has a good idea of how to explain that with finece be my guest.
544590
See this:\n\nhttp://www.economist.com/theworldin/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5149435&d=2006
1138698
It is a state owned business. \nWhat that means is no private person/firm/company can own shares in that enterprise. It is 100% controlled by the state. When it gets privatized then it is a public business.
481988
Not really.  The government has to regulate correctly.  If they don't put the price ceiling where it would be in perfect competition or at least lower than monopoly price, then it doesn't really do anything.  Even then, there might be some dead weight.  I don't remember fully.
263245
First, the actual purpose of anti-monopoly laws is to keep enough companies in each industry that no one player can artificially inflate prices or limit available offerings.  It is not to create opportunities for the little guys per se.\nSecondly, AT&T once owned the entity now known as BellSouth (as well as the current Verizon, SBC, and every other "Baby Bell"), but was forced to break them off as a result of legislation passed in 1983 and 1984.  In the time since then, a series of bad business decisions and a changing marketplace have greatly diminished what was once one of the largest and most important companies in the world, causing it to no longer be the monopolistic threat in any of the industries it serves.  It can probably buy BellSouth because it is now no longer a serious player in most of the areas that BellSouth services.\nAnd the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division), the Consumer's Union and other related groups, and the attorneys general of several large states whose populations may be adversely affected by such a merger are watching.  You can take my word for that!
540706
Someone else mentioned there is competition. Now there is, sort of. Cables have a basic monopoly that is guaranteed to them through some byzantine laws. So what they do is carve up the regions. If the cable companies had competition from other cable companies in the same local market then satellite, television over fiber, television over power lines, probably would not have been created or even thought of.
198279
Goverment turning over the operation of operation to a private company. For example, the US president wants to turn over the social security admin to the private market.\nTry Wikipedia for a definition, too, maybe they have a better defination.\nGood luck with the project.
427756
Well there are many prob firms...\nGndt.com, Carlin Group, TD waterhouse, Hold Brothers, etc..\n\nThey are all upfront with their contracts and regulations.\nYou just need to set your priorities right to start with them.\nBe clear with the deal and the contracts.\n\nJust make sure you get good percentage of profits of what you make for them, atleast 25%.\nThey give you good commissions on trading.\nAlso they should give you some kick back on the volume trade....\n\n\nhave a nice day.\nYou can message me on my yahoo msgr if you want to know more .\nmy id is kgirishraman\n\ncheers
991609
it's like trading in an old car for a shiny new improved car - \n\nlike that but with people
196611
freight prices were higher.  The government wouldn't let people carry anything they wanted or go where ever they wanted.  You had to have special authority to transport goods; consumer, chemical, agriculture, etc.  Sometimes you couldn't even take a load that started and ended in the same state...you had to cross state lines.  With the competition kept out of taking loads, freight prices stayed high.  After deregulation, a lot of the red tape is down, but that means more competition. Rates came down, but people are able to get work, so which is better?  depends on your politics I guess.
788805
Basically this is a class on "what if" scenarios.  "What if the company raises the price of a widget by $1.25?  What will that do to our sales?  What is the projected increase or decrease in sales stated in terms of a percentage?"\n\nIt is more complicate than that but that is essentially it.
717668
The story is developing.  It will be most interesting to see what the telecom CEOs say when Congress starts asking questions.\nHowever, deregulation of the telecom industry is not relevant.  The telecoms rolled over on their customers because they thought they were doing the right thing and aiding in the fight against terror.  I assume they were also under the impression that their actions would never be known to the customers.  If anything, highly regulated telecoms would be more prone to rolling over on their customers as the telecoms entire financial life would be in the hands of the same government asking them to provide the information.  If you said no, would your next request for a rate increase be approved?
254051
You want us to write your management essay for you? Are you serious? OK fine, here is my critical analysis:\n\n"Privatization is bad. The whole thing was a mistake. What's a PSU?"\n\nHand that in. I promise you an A+.