How many Energy Suppliers Will Survive?

Section62

wittynamegoeshere said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

Openreach is a monopoly.  Perhaps if it was state run then everyone's bills would be lower?  This is how it's done in lots of countries.

Openreach isn't a monopoly.

You don't understand what a monopoly is.  Many people seem to think it means that there's absolutely no competition.  That's a load of rubbish, if true then monopolies would not exist.

Google might help you to understand.

I tried google, it said -

"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"

I checked 'exclusive' and got "excluding or not admitting other things" or "restricted to the person, group, or area concerned".

Also, 'mono' means "one, only, single".

Could it be the 'many people' consider "Oligopoly" to be the more appropriate term if there is limited competition. Or perhaps would use "virtual monopoly" where one company has a very large share of the market, but not to the exclusion of all others.

Re the BiB - if it isn't 'monopoly', then what term would describe the situation where there was only one supplier to the total exclusion of all others?

Sea_Shell

I think they're all going to have a lot of debt on their books by next summer!!

Some will be "bad" debt that they may never get back, unless they're allowed to recover it from everyone else!! 

Section62

wittynamegoeshere said:

Monopoly

A monopoly in its purest form is when one business dominates the whole market – it has 100% concentration. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) describe a monopoly as any firm with more than 25% of the industry's sales.

There you go, hope that's helped you.  The world's not as simple as many seem to think.

Very helpful.

You've confirmed that Openreach doesn't have a "monopoly", which you scolded The_Green_Hornet for suggesting.  Perhaps an apology would be in order?

That one organisation (e.g. the CMA) use the term in a different way, doesn't change the definition of the term. 

The CMA don't have a monopoly on defining the meaning of words.

As you say, the world's not as simple as many seem to think.

Returning to topic, the lack of a monopolistic position in some geographic areas when it comes to the provision of fixed communications connections means that Openreach has experienced strong competition from other providers, precisely because they have been able to provide better services and/or at lower cost.

There's no reason to think that a state-run Openreach would have lower costs.  Indeed, the CMA (see above) together with Ofcom are minded to believe that a break-up of BT/Openreach (i.e. further fragmentation) may be the way to go, rather than forming a state-run behemoth.  Openreach exists because Ofgem/CMA believe more competition is required, not less.

Thus returning to the 'Energy' topic, the separation of network provider and (customer facing) service provider in the Openreach/BT spilt is analogous to the separation of energy distribution (e.g. the DNO) and energy supplier (e.g. eDF).

Which earlier in the thread you dismissed as "a contrived construction that was dreamed up to try and excuse privatising it all in the first place".

The_Green_Hornet

Section62 said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

Monopoly

A monopoly in its purest form is when one business dominates the whole market – it has 100% concentration. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) describe a monopoly as any firm with more than 25% of the industry's sales.

There you go, hope that's helped you.  The world's not as simple as many seem to think.

Very helpful.

You've confirmed that Openreach doesn't have a "monopoly", which you scolded The_Green_Hornet for suggesting.  Perhaps an apology would be in order?

That one organisation (e.g. the CMA) use the term in a different way, doesn't change the definition of the term. 

The CMA don't have a monopoly on defining the meaning of words.

As you say, the world's not as simple as many seem to think.

Returning to topic, the lack of a monopolistic position in some geographic areas when it comes to the provision of fixed communications connections means that Openreach has experienced strong competition from other providers, precisely because they have been able to provide better services and/or at lower cost.

There's no reason to think that a state-run Openreach would have lower costs.  Indeed, the CMA (see above) together with Ofcom are minded to believe that a break-up of BT/Openreach (i.e. further fragmentation) may be the way to go, rather than forming a state-run behemoth.  Openreach exists because Ofgem/CMA believe more competition is required, not less.

Thus returning to the 'Energy' topic, the separation of network provider and (customer facing) service provider in the Openreach/BT spilt is analogous to the separation of energy distribution (e.g. the DNO) and energy supplier (e.g. eDF).

Which earlier in the thread you dismissed as "a contrived construction that was dreamed up to try and excuse privatising it all in the first place".

I don't need an apology as most people understand what a monopoly is.

I will just leave wittynamegoeshere sitting in his hole digging deeper and deeper.

sevenhills

[Deleted User] said:

 Octopus Energy the sole interested buyer wants £1Bn to take Bulb’s customer base.

You would think that with energy companies making massive profits that wouldn't be the case?
Perhaps the business of energy retail is not that lucrative!