Persuasive Speech On The Internet

The future of the telecommunication industry is an exciting future. No longer can these companies depend on telephone service plans to maintain profit. Each company needs to find other avenues, packages and services that can be sold to existing customers while attracting new customers. The companies

This is a very corrupt action in many means because the government can't help every company.

United States vs. Microsoft is one the largest, most controversial antitrust lawsuits in American history. Many claim the government is wrongly punishing Microsoft for being innovative and successful, arguing that Windows dominates the market because of the product’s popularity, not because of malpractice by the parent company. Others argue in favor of the government, claiming that Microsoft’s practices conflict with the free market ideal. There are many arguments for both sides of the lawsuit, but what the case really comes down to is this: does the government have the right to interfere in today’s marketplace? Or is Microsoft violating laws that are rightfully imposed by the government?

One month has to look at competition since the early 1990’s, especially since the act 1996 act. The most effective competition has come from technology evolution that enabled multiple platforms with different product-characteristics and economics to compete. They, in turn, then forced each other into cycles of further innovation. When the telecommunications act of 1996 has passed, there were hints of incipient competition in both the long-distance and video-distribution markets as a result of new technology. Local telephony was still essentially a monopoly. Although wireless was thriving, it was seen primarily as a purely mobile service.”

The United States has a history of breaking up monopolies for the better of the public and this article harps on that history. I agree with this writer’s opinion; these companies need to sell their subsidiaries. Monopolies are not good for business and they are not good for the people. The hold too much power for a business and they destroy the main objective of a capitalist society, competition. I’m not sure how well his ideas on breaking up these companies will work, but something must be

The biggest concern is that the internet will become pay-to-play technology with two tiers: one that has speedy service and one that doesn’t. The high-speed lane would be occupied by big internet and media companies, and affluent households. For everyone else there would be the slow lane.

The Australian competition and consumer commission commenced an inquiry looking into Telstra’s rural monopoly in September 2016(4). They concluded that giving service providers roaming capabilities off the Telstra network may have an adverse effect on price levels and there was no evidence that there would be a decrease in Telstra’s pricing through more competition. Currently rural and regional customers benefit from the high competition in metropolitan areas because the industry has consistent Australia wide pricing schedules for their consumer services (5).

This results in unused capacity and stronger competition. Therefore it might be difficult for the smaller companies to survive.

But apart from negative influence, a government can also contribute something positive to a company. Sometimes a government decides to protect certain sectors or products by giving

The business case presented focuses on insatiable demand amongst a growing population for a service built on dilapidated, poorly maintained infrastructure, against a backdrop of government deregulation in the telecoms sector. As of 1992, there were a mere 78k telephone lines for the 27m people living in 4.7m households (a population set to double over the coming 24 years), with users suffering success rates of just 25%. Demand was forecast to grow to 500k subscribers by 1996. The recent deregulation of the telecoms sector (via the break-up of TPTC into TPC and TTCL) and the formation of a regulator (TCC) had

Internet in China is owned by the government. The Chinese government monitor and control all online access routes by using a highly advanced and extensive gatekeeping program (The Economist, 2013) known as the Great Firewall of China. Internet is China is so strictly controlled that businesses and individuals may only rent “bandwidth from state-owned entities” (Herold, 2012).

The purpose of this report is to analyze the strategic situation of Malaysian Airline (MAS). The company was in 1963 it is a government owned airline, the airline operates both transatlantic and transpacific flights. Mas has received more than 100 awards since it started operating such as the leading airline (2011) Asia’s leading business class airline (2010) as well as the five star airline (2012). This has helped the company to build up its image as the top airline in Malaysia. They are a number of strategies which MAS can use to make the company to be more profitable strategy implementation which is the process used to overcome the external factors (Hambrick, 2007). A company can get affected if the company management

The positive outcome of this strategy is that the company will get more profit. It is because the company no need to share the profits with others company. The negative outcome is that it is more risky. The government will take action to take over the company because there have no acknowledge of the company.

In this case some big companies dominate the whole industry and as a result the small companies

Malaysia Airlines (abbreviated MAS), is the government-owned flag carrier of Malaysia. Due to fuel price hiking, inefficient management, global economic crisis, government intervention and low load factor, MAS suffers substantial loss which