The remaining motive for RBOC cross-subsidization is simply the familiar one of driving out alarm company competitors and then later recouping foregone profits.
In the case of the alarm industry, the possibility of RBOC entry would probably provide few obvious benefits to society from increased competition.
There are also allocational issues that will result from RBOC entry into alarm services.
It is unlikely that with current staffing police departments could be responsibe to the demands placed on them by new alarm customers added by RBOC entry into the industry.
In any case, in the antitrust decision concerning RBOC entry into the full panoply of information services, the computation of costs and benefits cna still be confined to the traditional elements.
In spite of the cost to society in reducing at least the predictable claims of cross-subsidy, a reasonable position would be to permit RBOC entry into competitive industries like electronic security.
45)Some regulators, commentators and RBOC competitors take the position that the telephone companies want to use phone subscribers to raise their venture capital before the product is available.
51)Interview with an RBOC employee who is knowledgeable about the phone companies and the alarm industry.
The technology used by the RBOCs and the electronic security industry is quite similar.
In so doing, the opportunities for monopolization by the RBOCs are reviewed.
Adding to the competitive pressures exerted by the national and superregional firms is the potential entry of the RBOCs.
The RBOCs have gained considerable experience in recent years in direct marketing of telecommunications services and products.