A Timeline of the War of 1812

A Timeline of the War of 1812 The War of 1812 officially began on June 18, 1812 when America declared war against the British. Known as Mr. Madisons War or The Second American Revolution, the war would last for over two years. It officially ended with the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814. Following is a timeline of the major events that led to declaring war along with the events of the war itself.   Timeline of the War of 1812 1803-1812 - British impress approximately 10,000 Americans, forcing them to work on British ships.July 23, 1805 - British decide in Essex case that American traders who travel between neutral and enemy ports will allow for the seizing many commercial ships.January 25, 1806 - James Madison delivers report concerning British interference and impressment of sailors causing anti-British feelings to arise.August 1806 - American minister James Monroe and envoy William Pinkney are unable to resolve the major problems between the British and Americans concerning commercial shipping and impressment.1806 - The British blockade France; American ships are caught in the middle, and the British seize approximately 1,000 US ships.March 1807 - Thomas Jefferson receives the Monroe-Pinkney treaty but does not submit it to Congress because it represents a dismal failure for the Americans.June 1807 - The American ship Chesapeake is fired on by the British ship Leopard after refusing to be boarded. This creates an international incident. December 1807 - Thomas Jefferson attempts peaceful coercion of the British with his embargo, but it results in economic disaster for merchants.1811 - Battle of Tippecanoe - Tecumsehs brother (the Prophet) leads attack on William Henry Harrisons army of 1,000 men.June 18, 1812 - America declares war against the British. This war is known as Mr. Madisons War or The Second American Revolution.August 16, 1812 - the U.S. loses Ft. Mackinac as the British invade American territory.1812 - Three attempts are made by the U.S. to invade Canada. They all end in failure.1812 - The USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) defeats the HMS Guerriere.January 1813 - Battle of Frenchtown. British and Indian allies repel Kentucky troops in bloody fighting. The American survivors are killed in the Raisin River Massacre.April 1813 - Battle of York (Toronto). US troops take control of Great Lakes and burn York.September 1813 - Battle of Lake Erie. US forces under Captain Perry defeat a British naval attack. October 1813 - Battle of Thames (Ontario, Canada). Tecumseh is killed in a US victory.March 27, 1814 - Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Mississippi Territory). Andrew Jackson defeats the Creek Indians.1814 - The British plan a 3-part invasion of US: Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, the mouth of Mississippi River. The British are eventually turned back at Baltimore harbor.  August 24-25, 1814 - The British burn Washington, D.C. and Madison flees the White House.September 1814 - Battle of Plattsburgh (Lake Champlain). The US secures its northern border with a huge victory over a larger British force.December 15, 1814 - The Hartford Convention occurs. A group of Federalists discuss secession and propose seven amendments to protect the influence of Northeastern states.December 24, 1814 - Treaty of Ghent. The British and American diplomats agree to return to the status quo from before the war.January 1815 - Battle of New Orleans. Andrew Jackson scores a huge victory and paves the way to the Wh ite House. 700 British are killed, 1,400 are wounded. The US only loses 8 soldiers.

Could the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet happen today Essays

Could the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet happen today Essays Could the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet happen today Paper Could the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet happen today Paper Essay Topic: Romeo and Juliet The story of the star crossed lovers is a true tragedy as there was so much potential for the relationship to work. The feelings that the couple from two houses alike in dignity were so immense that they ended up dying for each other. If it wasnt for fate, their dedication would have allowed them to grow old together, and not end up dying at such a young age. Fate is a continuous factor throughout the play and leads to much of the tragedy. A good example of this is the Capulet party. It is quite ironic that Peter, the Capulets servant cant read the list of people invited to the Capulets party. So he approaches Benvolio. This leads to Mercutio asking Romeo to come with them the party, which happens to be a masked ball, so they would not be identified as Montagues. In Act 1, Scene 4, Romeo says some consequence, yet hanging in the stars, shall bitterly begin this fearful date Even before he had met Juliet, Romeo has predicted that something will start that night of the party but would lead to disaster and heartache- which it eventually does. Perhaps the largest part of that fate plays in the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is in Act 2, Scene 3, where friar Lawrence is established as a herbalist. This gives him the knowledge to make the concoction that makes Juliet appear dead. If Juliet had not appeared dead, then Romeo would have not have committed suicide. Thus ending with them still alive, but by chance they both had visited Friar Lawrence and not a different religious representative. The relationship between the parents and children makes the suicides truly sad, as Romeo and Juliet were two children who would be missed. Montague and Lady Montague were both concerned for Romeo when he is acting differently because of Rosalyns rejection. Lady Montague asks Benvolio, Romeos cousin, O where is Romeo? because she is concerned. Montague then goes on to say Could we but learn from whence his sorrows grow, we would as willingly give cure as know. He is basically saying I would give anything to know what troubles my son, and to make it right. Capulet only wants the best for his daughter and at the beginning of the story Capulet tells Paris, Juliet is too young to marry. Earth hath swallowed all my hopes but she. Meaning, Juliet is Capulets only surviving child. She is the hopeful lady of my earth. He wants things to go right for his much loved daughter. The death of Tybalt causes Capulet to realise life is short and that Juliet should marry Paris to make her secure in life. Juliet refuses Paris as a husband so Capulet threatens to throw Juliet out because she is disgracing Capulet. He says, You shall not house with me. And you be not hang, beg, starve, die in the streets! Although he did not do this to be horrible, he just wanted the best for his daughter and he considered the best to be Paris; a lovely gentleman Juliet appears to have a formal relationship with her mother, Lady Capulet. Juliet has not been raised by her Mother, but by her nurse. There is a lack of emotion between the mother and daughter. Throughout the play there is very little conversation between the two, and Lady Capulet only seems to deliver messages, and do as Capulet tells her. She seems to have no power or place in Juliets life. The nurse has raised Juliet and Capulet makes all the important decisions. Juliets nurse takes messages between Romeo and Juliet making the relationship easier for them. As I told you, my lady bade me inquire you out. -The nurse speaking to Romeo. When Romeo tells the nurse of the marriage, the nurse replies This afternoon sir? Well, she shall be there. The nurse can travel freely around Verona and suspicions are not raised when she speaks to Romeo, unlike Juliet, who would rarely be allowed out of the Capulets mansion, let alone to speak to a male and a family enemy. Friar Lawrences plan to Turn your households rancour to pure love. was a good idea but misguided. If he had refused to marry the couple then perhaps their dedication to each other would not have been so strong. If Benvolio had not persuaded Romeo to come to the party then he would never have seen Juliet and a relationship would not have started. Juliet would probably have ended up marrying Paris and would have found another lover to idolise. Courtly love is a part of both Romeo and Juliets lives, although not involved in their relationship together. Romeo at first wishes to court Rosalyn but she is not interested. The love Paris had got for Juliet is courtly. When Paris speaks to Capulet he says, Now my lord, what say you to my suit. and Younger than she are happy mothers made. There is no reference to how much he loves Juliet but that he wants to make Juliet a happy mother. There is no romance between the two. Paris arranged the marriage through Capulet. Juliet appears to have no affection towards Paris, as she barely knows him. After Tybalts Death, the marriage to Paris is forced upon Juliet. When Romeo and Juliet first met there was a fascination between them that continues throughout the entire play, although it is far more obvious at the beginning of the story. When they first met there was lots of flirting and Romeo plays words and refers to blushing pilgrims (his lips) and a shrine (her hands). After this meeting the feelings that they have for each other becomes deeper. Juliet is the sun, arise fair sun and kill the envious moon. Romeo is so in love with Juliet, he is comparing her to the goddess of the moon and saying that Juliet is far more beautiful. Two of the fairest stars in all the heaven, having some business, do entreat her eyes. Again Romeo is comparing her spiritual representations. He is almost saying she is more than human. Juliet is what all mankind look up to with the urge to explore, and yet not quite understanding what is attracting them to her. Romeos love soon turns to lust O whilt though leave me so unsatisfied? (Act 2, Scene 2). Romeo is basically asking Juliet if she is going to make love to him. Her reply is that she will only make love to him if they are married. At this point their relationship enters a new level of commitment, and once married, a more mature relationship is established. Once Romeo is banished foe killing Tybalt, it becomes clear how dedicated Juliet really is. If the plan had gone right, Juliet would have given up her family and security to live with Romeo and to be his wife forever. Upon hearing about Romeo being banished for her cousins death, Juliet says, Ill go to my wedding bed, and death, not Romeo, take my maidenhead. (Act 3, Scene 2) She would rather die a virgin that night, than live without Romeo. But because the plan went wrong, we see Juliet has all consuming feelings of love for Romeo and their relationship. When discovering Juliets death, Romeo asks Balthasar Hast thou no letters to me from the friar? the Friars letter had not been delivered to Romeo and so he is unaware that Juliet is just under the Friars concoction. However, unaware of the circumstances, Romeo heads back to Juliet. On seeing her body he swears they will live forever and he swallows the poison. Seal with a righteous kiss a dateless bargain to engrossing death. Meaning that he and Juliet will be together forever in death (Act 5, Scene 3). When Juliet awakes she is shocked to see Romeos dead body lying next to her. She cannot live without Romeo so she stabs herself with Romeos dagger and as she does so she says, O happy dagger! This is thy sheath; there rest and let me die! She would rather be dead than live without her one true love. The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet could still happen in todays society as the amount of control that Capulet had over Juliet still exists today although perhaps not to such a high degree. It could cause a teenager to rebel against their parents and go with the person their parents would disapprove of most. Juliet has quite a remote and emotionless relationship with her mother and a girl today may well seek the attention and love of an older male to replace the affection that she doesnt receive at home. People today still have arranged marriages, either as a part of religion or tradition. If they could not support themselves without their parents, then they may marry so they dont end up on the streets. There are still people committing suicide because of love. Some people can be so deeply in love that they are willing to die if their partner died because they see no point in living without them. Friends loyalties are, generally, to their friends and not to their parents. This could lead to messages and rumours being passed between the two partners form their friends. Also Love at first sight is not a common occurrence but it does happen. There are factors though, that makes the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet happening in today very unrealistic. In todays society, children would not necessarily have to marry someone they dont want to. Most parents dont want their children to rush into marriage at that age. Parents today are more comfortable with their children dating and family feuds still occur but are far less common. Marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment. Divorce is a common practise between couples who no longer want to be together for whatever reason. This means there is no real reason to commit suicide to escape a relationship you dont want to be in. Several of the key events, which make Romeo and Juliet a true tragedy, come back down to fate. It would be extremely difficult, or nearly impossible to find a drug that would make you appear dead. Even if you could, communication is much easier now than it was in Shakespeares time and an e-mail, phone call or text message could have been sent instead. Also it is now quite rare to find someone who cant read. This would mean that the party would not have been known. But this is today so the news of someone having a party would not stay a secret for long and the word would spread quickly. I personally believe that the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet could still happen in todays society but it would not be on the same scale as the story of Romeo and Juliet.

Electric Industry Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Electric Industry - Essay Example The competition in the electricity industry is not as complex as it seems. What has happened is players have always believed that one electricity firm can supply the entire demand at a considerably lower cost than multiple electric firms serving the appropriate market. From this basis they conclude that electric transmission and distribution must always be to be regulated, since in the absence of energy regulation, transmission and effective electricity distribution owners may not face enough competition in the industry to ensure prices are kept low to consumers and to attain economic efficiency in electricity transmitting and distributing. This is, however, the case with many other natural monopolies in the industry. Natural monopolies exists where the largest supplier in an electricity industry, often also the first supplier in a market, has a significant cost advantage over other real or potential competitors; this has always tended to be the case making competition in electricity industry seem complex. The same is the case in the same industry where fixed costs prevail, generating economies of scale that are huge in relation to the market size, as is the case in water and electricity services. This has led to complexity as these electricity firms take advantage of economies of scale and causes problems of bureaucracy and inefficiency. As with all monopolies in electricity market, monopolies who have gained their position on natural monopoly effects could be involved in behavior that abuses their market position, which always leads to calls from various consumers for government regulation. Encouraging competition in the electricity industry is not as complex but requires massive investment by private sector investment as the initial capital is many times massive thus discouraging players and this minimized competition. This would especially start with deregulation that normally lacks monopoly, and these go a long way in encouraging new

The City Hall of Los Angeles Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

The City Hall of Los Angeles - Essay Example The pride of the nation is clearly manifested by the fact that the top of City Hall's tower was designed to resemble the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The City Hall of Los Angeles is another building that represents the pride of a powerful nation in the 21st century just as El Escorial stood as a sign of a great nation in the 16th century. These two structures served their purpose of showing to the world what the country they represent was capable of doing in terms of arts, engineering, and science and technology. There are several aspects where we can equate this two architectural figures against each other. We can examine as to their purpose and usability, the motive of its conceptualization, the approach and styles the structures were developed, and their respective contributions to the history of architecture and structural engineering. This essay digs down into the essence of these facts and would try to explain them. There maybe other landmarks in the United States and the world greater than the City Hall but once in recent history it brought pride to the nation because of its structural magnificence and proportion. Besides, this structure also represents the advancement of a nation in terms or economy, culture, and science and technology. ... The building of such enormous structure serves to remind the nation of its capabilities. Speaking of the structure as a show of economic might, the LA City Hall is built in a highly progressive city within an economically superior state which is part of a super powerful nation. It represented the government being the based of its management and operation. It was built from materials obtained from different parts of LA which clearly show that its creation is a pooling of everyone's pride. The building stood in a place where nature is so unfriendly LA being in a fault and a seismic hazard. Yet it rose to the top undaunted by this geologic challenge. The gamble could only be best when the sophistication of modern architecture combined with science and technology warrants more that fifty percent of survival. It indeed survived the challenge, proof to that is it still exists today. As further evidence to the technological advancement of its structural systems, the seismic retrofit at Los Angeles City Hall was selected as a winner in Buildings magazine's 2003 Modernization Awards among other awards and citations. One important culture of the people that pushed for the building of LA structure is risk taking attitude. Taking the challenge in a rational way and making use of creative thinking and harnessing available resources and good minds makes nothing impossible. For the creative developers some things are just difficult but never impossible. Added into its pride was designing the top of City Hall's tower to resemble the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Today with continuous upgrading and reinforcing the LA City Hall survived the challenges of times. Newer structures around the

The Modern Olympic Games Tourism Essay

The Modern Olympic Games Tourism Essay The modern Olympic Games are a major international event featuring summer and winter sports in which thousands of athletes participate in a variety of competitions. The Olympic Games are considered to be the worlds foremost sports competition with more than 200 nations participating. The Games are currently held biennially, with summer and Winter Olympic Games alternating, meaning they each occur every four years. Their creation was inspired by the ancient Olympic Games, which were held in Olympia, Greece, from the 8th century BC to the 4th century AD. Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1894. The IOC has since become the governing body of the Olympic Movement, with the Olympic Charter defining its structure and authority. The evolution of the Olympic Movement during the 20th and 21st centuries has resulted in several changes to the Olympic Games. Some of these adjustments include the creation of the Winter Games for ice and winter sports, the Paralympic Games for athletes with a disability, and the Youth Olympic Games for teenage athletes. The IOC has had to adapt to the varying economic, political, and technological realities of the 20th century. As a result, the Olympics shifted away from pure amateurism, as envisioned by Coubertin, to allow participation of professional athletes. The growing importance of the mass media created the issue of corporate sponsorship and commercialization of the Games. World wars led to the cancellation of the 1916, 1940, and 1944 Games. Large boycotts during the Cold War limited participation in the 1980 and 1984 Games. The Olympic Movement consists of international sports federations (IFs), National Olympic Committees (NOCs), and organizing committees for each specific Olympic Games. As the decision-making body, the IOC is responsible for choosing the host city for each Olympic Games. The host city is responsible for organizing and funding a celebration of the Games consistent with the Olympic Charter. The Olympic program, consisting of the sports to be contested at the Games, is also determined by the IOC. The celebration of the Games encompasses many rituals and symbols, such as the Olympic flag and torch, as well as the opening and closing ceremonies. Over 13,000 athletes compete at the Summer and Winter Olympics in 33 different sports and nearly 400 events. The first, second and third place finishers in each event receive Olympic medals: gold, silver, and bronze, respectively. The Games have grown in scale to the point that nearly every nation is represented. Such growth has created numerous challenges, including boycotts, doping, bribery, and terrorism. Every two years, the Olympics and its media exposure provide unknown athletes with the chance to attain national and sometimes international fame. The Games also constitute a major opportunity for the host city and country to showcase themselves to the world. The Olympic Games program consists of 35 sports, 30 disciplines and nearly 400 events. For example, wrestling is a Summer Olympic sport, comprising two disciplines: Greco-Roman and Freestyle. It is further broken down into fourteen events for men and four events for women, each representing a different weight class. The Summer Olympics program includes 26 sports, while the Winter Olympics program features 15 sports. Athletics, swimming, fencing, and artistic gymnastics are the only summer sports that have never been absent from the Olympic program. Cross-country skiing, figure skating, ice hockey, Nordic combined, ski jumping, and speed skating have been featured at every Winter Olympics program since its inception in 1924. Current Olympic sports, like badminton, basketball, and volleyball, first appeared on the program as demonstration sports, and were later promoted to full Olympic sports. Some sports that were featured in earlier Games were later dropped from the program. Olympic sports are governed by international sports federations (IFs) recognized by the IOC as the global supervisors of those sports. There are 35 federations represented at the IOC. There are sports recognized by the IOC that are not included on the Olympic program. These sports are not considered Olympic sports, but they can be promoted to this status during a program revision that occurs in the first IOC session following a celebration of the Olympic Games. During such revisions, sports can be excluded or included in the program on the basis of a two-thirds majority vote of the members of the IOC. There are recognized sports that have never been on an Olympic program in any capacity, including chess and surfing. In October and November 2004, the IOC established an Olympic Programme Commission, which was tasked with reviewing the sports on the Olympic program and all non-Olympic recognized sports. The goal was to apply a systematic approach to establishing the Olympic program for each celebration of the Games. The commission formulated seven criteria to judge whether a sport should be included on the Olympic program. These criteria are history and tradition of the sport, universality, popularity of the sport, image, athletes health, development of the International Federation that governs the sport, and costs of holding the sport. From this study five recognized sports emerged as candidates for inclusion at the 2012 Summer Olympics: golf, karate, rugby union, roller sports and squash. These sports were reviewed by the IOC Executive Board and then referred to the General Session in Singapore in July 2005. Of the five sports recommended for inclusion only two were selected as finalists: karate and squash. Neither sport neither attained the required two-thirds vote nor consequently was they not promoted to the Olympic program. In October 2009 the IOC voted to instate golf and rugby union as Olympic sports for the 2016 and 2020 Summer Olympic Games. The 114th IOC Session, in 2002, limited the Summer Games program to a maximum of 28 sports, 301 events, and 10,500 athletes. Three years later, at the 117th IOC Session, the first major program revision was performed, which resulted in the exclusion of baseball and softball from the official program of the 2012 London Games. Since there was no agreement in the promotion of two other sports, the 2012 program featured just 26 sports. The 2016 and 2020 Games will return to the maximum of 28 sports given the addition of rugby and golf. The host city for an Olympic Games is usually chosen seven to eight years ahead of their celebration. The process of selection is carried out in two phases that span a two-year period. The prospective host city applies to its countrys National Olympic Committee; if more than one city from the same country submits a proposal to its NOC, the national committee typically holds an internal selection, since only one city per NOC can be presented to the International Olympic Committee for consideration. Once the deadline for submission of proposals by the NOCs is reached, the first phase (Application) begins with the applicant cities asked to complete a questionnaire regarding several key criteria related to the organization of the Olympic Games. In this form, the applicants must give assurances that they will comply with the Olympic Charter and with any other regulations established by the IOC Executive Committee. The evaluation of the filled questionnaires by a specialized group provides the IOC with an overview of each applicants project and their potential to host the Games. On the basis of this technical evaluation, the IOC Executive Board selects the applicants that will proceed to the candidature stage. Once the candidate cities are selected, they must submit to the IOC a bigger and more detailed presentation of their project as part of a candidature file. Each city is thoroughly analysed by an evaluation commission. This commission will also visit the candidate cities, interviewing local officials and inspecting prospective venue sites, and submit a report on its findings one month prior to the IOCs final decision. During the interview process the candidate city must also guarantee that it will be able to fund the Games. After the work of the evaluation commission, a list of candidates is presented to the General Session of the IOC, which must assemble in a country that does not have a candidate city in the running. The IOC members gathered in the Session have the final vote on the host city. Once elected, the host city bid committee (together with the NOC of the respective country) signs a Host City Contract with the IOC, officially becoming an Olympic host nation and host city. By 2016, the Olympic Games will have been hosted by 44 cities in 23 countries, but by cities outside Europe and North America on only eight occasions. Since the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea, the Olympics have been held in Asia or Oceania four times, a sharp increase compared to the previous 92 years of modern Olympic history. The 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro will be the first Olympics for a South American country. No bids from countries in Africa have succeeded. The United States has hosted eight Olympic Games, four Summer and four Winter, more than any other nation. The British capital London holds the distinction of hosting three Olympic Games, all Summer, more than any other city. The other nations hosting the Summer Games twice are Germany, Australia, France and Greece. The other cities hosting the Summer Games twice are Los Angeles, Paris and Athens. In addition to the United States, nations hosting multiple Winter Games are France with three, while Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Japan, Canada and Italy have hosted twice. Among host cities, Lake Placid, Innsbruck and St. Moritz have played host to the Winter Olympic Games more than once, each holding that honour twice. The most recent Winter Games were held in Vancouver, Canadas third Olympics overall. The next Winter Games will be in Sochi in 2014, Russias first Winter Olympics and second Olympics overall. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games, 24 Nov, 2012) London Wins By 15 July 2003, the deadline for interested cities to submit bids to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), nine cities had submitted bids to host the 2012 Summer Olympics: Havana, Istanbul, Leipzig, London, Madrid, Moscow, New York City, Paris and Rio de Janeiro. On 18 May 2004, as a result of a scored technical evaluation, the IOC reduced the number of cities to five: London, Madrid, Moscow, New York and Paris. All five submitted their candidate files by 19 November 2004 and were visited by the IOC inspection team during February and March 2005. The Paris bid suffered two setbacks during the IOC inspection visit: a number of strikes and demonstrations coinciding with the visits, and a report that a key member of the bid team, Guy Drut, would face charges over alleged corrupt party political finances. Throughout the process, Paris was widely seen as the favourite, particularly as this was its third bid in recent years. London was seen at first as lagging Paris by a considerable margin. Its position began to improve after the appointment of Lord Coe as the new head of London 2012 on 19 May 2004. In late August 2004, reports predicted a tie between London and Paris. On 6 June 2005 the IOC released its evaluation reports for the five candidate cities. They did not contain any scores or rankings, but the report for Paris was considered the most positive. London was close behind, having closed most of the gap observed by the initial evaluation in 2004. New York and Madrid also received very positive evaluations. On 1 July 2005, when asked who would win, Jacques Rogge said, I cannot predict it since I dont know how the IOC members will vote. But my gut feeling tells me that it will be very close. Perhaps it will come down to a difference of say ten votes, or maybe less. On 6 July 2005, the final selection was announced at the 117th IOC Session in Singapore. Moscow was the first city to be eliminated, followed by New York and Madrid. The final two contenders were London and Paris. At the end of the fourth round of voting, London won the right to host the 2012 Games with 54 votes to Pariss 50. The celebrations in London were short-lived, being overshadowed by bombings on Londons transport system less than 24 hours after the announcement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics, 24 Nov, 2012) Why was London chosen? A lot of available land to regenerate Government was in favor Many hotels and restaurants Has the right facilities A good transport system In Europe, close to many spectators and potential athletes A good climate during July and August Pre Olympics Preparations for the Games Economics of the Games By almost any measure, staging the Olympic Games was big business. Revenue is generated from five principal sources: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Broadcast rights-the rights to broadcast the Games in countries around the world. In recent times, the rights for the United States accounted for about 50% and the rights for Europe accounted for 25% of the total broadcast revenue. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ International sponsorship-the rights for a company to proclaim itself an Official Sponsor of the Olympic Games on a worldwide basis in the four years leading up to the Games. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Ticketing-the tickets to the individual Olympic events. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Domestic sponsorship-the rights for a company to proclaim itself an official sponsor of the Olympics within the country hosting the Games. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Licensing rights-the rights to use the Olympic logos and trademarks on items ranging from stamps and coins to t-shirts and stuffed animals. Preparing For and Managing the Games Using its allocation of the Olympic revenues, the host city London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games had to plan for, organize, and manage the 17 days of the Games, all within the contractual obligations set forth by the IOC. The major tasks included: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Staging the Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremony, and sporting events à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Arranging for the required stadia, arenas, training facilities, and equipment à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Housing and feeding the athletes and officials à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Anticipating and solving potential transportation problems à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Meeting the needs of the media à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Providing security to ensure a safe and peaceful Olympics Importantly, while the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games was responsible for arranging for the Games infrastructure, responsibility for actually providing that infrastructure rested with the host city and country. This included the stadia and arenas to stage the events, the Olympic Village to house the athletes, the national and international transportation systems to efficiently get people to and from the host city, and the local transportation systems to shuttle people to and from the events. If funds were needed to build this infrastructure, they typically were raised through taxation, lotteries, and private investment. Chris Townsend explained: The costs of any Olympics can be broken down into software or people costs and hardware or infrastructure costs. Software costs are the responsibility of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and include the expenses associated with planning the Games, housing the athletes, and running the events. In contrast, hardware costs are the responsibility of the host city and depend greatly on the existing infrastructure. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã†â€™ The 2012 Games Great Britain was no stranger to the Olympic Games. It was one of only four nations to compete in all 26 Olympic Games, holding third place in total number of medals won. It had successfully hosted the 1908 and 1948 London Games. And it had bid on the 1992, 1996, and 2000 Games. Winning the rights to the 2012 Games was far from certain, however, with Paris, New York, Moscow, and Madrid also in the final running. The process to select the host city consisted of a series of secret ballots, with each IOC member voting for the city of his or her choice. After each round of voting, if no city obtained a majority of the votes cast, the city with the lowest number of votes was eliminated, and the remaining cities advanced to a new round of voting. By most accounts, Paris was the favourite to win the rights to the 2012 Games. However, many believed the London bid was aided by the addition of Sebastian Coe to the London Bid Committee in 2004. Coe was the 1980 and 1984 gold medallist in the 1,500-meter run, was widely considered one of the greatest middle-distance runners of all time, had served as a member of the British Parliament, and was widely respected both within and outside the Olympic community. In the end, the IOC apparently was impressed by the proposal that the London Bid Committee submitted. As announced on July 6, 2005, to the joy of its many supporters, London had won the rights to host the 2012 Games in a final, head-to-head ballot in which London received 54 votes to Pariss 50. The Plans for the 2012 Games The 2012 Games were scheduled to run from July 27 to August 12, with over 12,000 athletes from 205 countries expected to compete across 26 sports and 300 events. In a perfect world, the organizing committee knew, their decisions would satisfy many criteria. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ First, given the importance of ticketing to the Games bottom line, they had a strong incentive to maximize revenues. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Second, given that the entire world would be watching, they wanted to maximize attendance-not just at the Opening Ceremony and swimming finals, which traditionally were easy sells, but also at events like handball and table tennis, which were not. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Thirdly, the wanted to fill the seats with right people- knowledgeable fans who added to the energy and atmosphere of the event. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Finally, tickets had to be accessible not only to the worlds elite but also to average Londoners, many of whom lived around the corner from the Olympic park. With 7.9 million tickets up for sale, the LONDON ORGANISING COMMITTEE OF THE OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES anticipated an average of 500,000 spectators per day to attend the Games, with up to 800,000 on the busiest days. It estimated that roughly 30% of all tickets would be purchased by Londoners, 25% by United Kingdom residents who lived outside of London, 20% by people from the rest of Europe, and 25% by people from the rest of the world. In addition, it expected 10,000 Olympic and political dignitaries to watch some or all of the Games, 20,000 journalists and media personnel to cover the Games, 60,000 security personnel to ensure safety, and 100,000 paid and volunteer workers to help run the Games. Location and Venues A key selling point in the London bid was the plan to build the centrepiece of the Games-the Olympic Park-in East London. As stated in Londons bid document: Great Games leave welcome legacies. Consistent with Londons long-term plan, the Games will stimulate vital economic and social regeneration in what is now a disadvantaged area. Creation of the Olympic Park will involve restoring large tracts of land in East London, with new green spaces and revived wetlands. The Olympic Village will become a desirable and socially diverse new residential area, providing 3,600 new homes in a community transformed by the Games. The intent was to develop 500 acres of existing industrial and waste land in East London into the Olympic Park. By 2012, this would include: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ The 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium-for Opening and Closing Ceremonies and athletics à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ The 17,500-seat Aquatics Centre-for diving, swimming, and water polo à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ The 12,000-seat London Velopark-for indoor track cycling and outdoor BMX cycling à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ The 12,000-seat Basketball Arena à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ The 15,000-seat Olympic Field Hockey Centre à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ The 17,000-bed Olympic Village After the Games, the plan was to reduce the size of several of the larger venues to fit with the surrounding community, to relocate several of the smaller venues to other parts of the country where they could be better utilized, and to convert the Olympic Village into 3,600 units of affordable housing, with an additional 5,400 new homes to be built later. The remaining sports would use existing venues located throughout London and the UK, including Earls Court (volleyball), Excel London (judo, weightlifting, wrestling), Hyde Park (triathlon), the Millennium Dome (gymnastics), Wimbledon (tennis), and Wembley (football). Transportation A second critical element of the London bid was a plan to make the 2012 Games the first public transport Olympics, with close to 100% of ticketed spectators traveling to the Olympic events by such means. To make this happen, existing transportation links to and from the East London area were to be expanded and upgraded, turning it into one of the best-connected Communities in the city. The most talked-about of these efforts was a 12-car subway shuttle called the Olympic Javelin, which would ferry passengers from Kings Cross Station, in the heart of London, to the Olympic Park in just 7 minutes. These efforts were expected to support the transport of up to 240,000 passengers per hour into and out of the Olympic Park area. In turn, to encourage spectators to use public transportation, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games had announced that the price of every ticket to an Olympic event would include the use of Londons public transportation network on the day of that event. Atmosphere finally, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games hoped to engage and excite the British public. While Sydney came to be called the Laid-Back Games, and Beijing had been unofficially dubbed the No Fun Games, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games wanted the legacy of the 2012 Games to be one of inclusiveness. Toward this end, Sebastian Coe noted: Whilst London will be the principal venue, it is the entire United Kingdom which will be the host. The London 2012 Games will be Everybodys Games. London 2012 will be the most accessible and participative Games ever. Putting on Everybodys Games, we are clear that our stakeholders are the 60 million people living in Britain. Delivering the 2012 games The two groups responsible for delivering the 2012 games were the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, which staged the Games, and a quasi-governmental organization called the Olympic Delivery Authority, which built the infrastructure. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games forecasting budget was $3 billion. Roughly $1.2 billion of this came from its share of the broadcast revenues and international sponsorships. London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games was responsible for the rest, with a planned $1 billion coming from about 60 domestic sponsors, $650 million from ticket sales, and $150 million from licensing fees. The Olympic Delivering Authoritys total expenses were projected to run about $12 billion: $6 billion for the building of the Olympic park, $4 billion for the transportation upgrades, and the rest for smaller projects, contingencies and taxes. Roughly 60% of these funds came from national taxes, 15% came from London city taxes, and 20% came from the National Lottery. Selling tickets to the games Hired as head of ticketing in September 2007, Paul Williamson was no stranger to large sporting event. Previously, he had helped set ticketing guidelines for several FIFA World Cup Finals, the Cricket World Cup etc. He was well aware of the challenges that London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games faced: Ticketing for the FIFA World Cup was a great experience, but it pales in comparison to the Olympic Games. For a World Cup Final, you sell three million tickets to 64 matches played over 30 days in 10 or 12 major cities. The teams were all of very high calibre, the stadia were all well established, and football was the most popular sport in the world. With the Olympic Games, they were trying to sell almost eight million tickets to 26 different sports played over 17 days, with some sports wildly popular and others a complete mystery to the average person. In reality, they were running 26 world championships in a fortnight. While many ticketing issues were still up in the air, some had already been decided. In particular, it was known that: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ A total of 7.9 million tickets would be available for sale across all events. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ In late 2010, international and domestic sponsors, the 205 National Olympic Committees, the International Federations, and other IOC affiliates could place requests for tickets- specifying how many tickets at each price point they desired for each event. All would pay full price for any tickets ultimately received and, collectively, these groups would receive no more than 25% of available tickets. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ In the spring of 2011, the general public could similarly place requests for tickets, via an online ballot, specifying the event, number of tickets, and price point they desired. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ In the summer of 2011, ticket requests from both the IOC affiliates and the public would be processed and individuals would be informed as to whether they had obtained tickets. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Later in 2011 and into 2012, any remaining tickets would be offered for direct sale. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ During the Games, tickets still not sold would be available for purchase at box offices throughout London. Williamson noted that those applying for tickets were requesting entry to a particular event within a certain price tier. Not until tickets were matched to requests, in the summer of 2011, would customers find out where they actually sat in the stadium or arena. Managing Ticket Revenues When it came to managing ticket revenues, Williamson and his team looked to the 2000 Sydney Games for inspiration: While the 2004 Athens Games and the 2008 Beijing Games were wonderful events, they do not provide a great ticketing benchmark for the London Games. Athens was hampered by the small size of the city and the limited capacity of the venues. And Beijing tried hard to make tickets affordable for its domestic population, resulting in ticket prices that were artificially low. But the Sydney Games were staged in large venues in the largest city of a wealthy, sports- loving country. People were willing to pay to attend events and the results reflected this fact. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games also viewed sufficient ticket revenues as vital to the legacy of the 2012 Games. As Chris Townsend noted: With so much money involved in the Games, it is easy to view ticket sales as a drop in the bucket. What is $650 million when the Olympic Delivery Authority is spending $12 billion to build the Olympic Park and the Olympic Javelin? But putting things in perspective. Last year, Manchester United generated about $150 million in ticket revenues over a nine-month season, while the New York Yankees sold $120 million in tickets over a six-month season. They were looking to bring in four to five times those amounts, which will have a major impact on the financial legacy of these Games. But Williamson knew that maximizing ticket revenue meant more than just charging high prices Peoples willingness-to-pay for a given event will depend on many factors. Theres an expectation about what a ticket should cost based on other sporting events in and around London. Theres the global appeal of a sport, with swimming and gymnastics being very popular around the world. Theres the local appeal of the sport, often driven by the host countries past success in that sport. Theres the event stage, with most people wanting to see those stages where the gold medals are awarded. And then theres a particular team or athlete that makes the difference. Williamson also reasoned that the pricing of tickets at past Games provided only limited guidance for the pricing of the London Games: First, every host city possesses unique tastes, culture, and atmosphere. While beach volleyball may be big in Australia, table tennis is king in China. Second, the reach of the Games varies by location. Given the difficulties in getting into China, tickets to the Beijing Games were largely limited to the Chinese. Given the proximity of London to the rest of Europe, they anticipate a much more international crowd. Third, this will be the first Games where ticketing will be done via the Internet, which may alter demand for some events. Finally, with the current global financial crisis, London 2012 is entering uncharted territories. Managing Attendance The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games also wanted to fill the many venues during the games. As stated in the London bid document, Great Games generate genuine enthusiasm. This will be demonstrated by full stadia across a wide range of events. Given that organizers expected close to five billion television viewers to watch some part of the 2012 Games, the last image the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games wanted broadcast to the world was that of half-empty arenas. Everyone at the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games understood the potential fallout from attendance shortfalls. Pinned to a nearby bulletin board were several articles from recent games. In reference to the 2004 Athens Games, one New York Times headline read, Summer 2004 Games: Seats May Be Empty, But Not the Beaches. And in regard to the 2008 Beijing Games, the Los Angeles Times proclaimed, Empty Seats Are a Mystery at Beijing Olympics. Williamson broke down the challenge of maximizing attendance into two parts. First, you have to get people to buy the tickets. Second, you have to get those who purchased tickets to actually use them. Neither of these was a trivial task. When it came to getting people to buy the tickets, Williamson had no illusions: You just cant sell every ticket to every event. The Opening Ceremony? Sure. The final day of track and field? Sure. Michael Phelps in any of the swimming events? Sure. But what about a preliminary round of handball, table tennis, or archery? The demand is just lower for certain sports. The reality is, there were three classes of events they managed. First, there was big four-swimming, artistic gymnastics, athletics, and the ceremonies-where demand historically far exceeds supply and which likely sold out at almost any prices. They expected about 40% of ticket revenues to come from these four sports. Second, there was football, with almost two million tickets across 58 mens and womens matches. If there was any single sport with which they obsess, it was football. On the one hand, football is the most popular sport in Europe, which worked in their favour. On the other hand, unlike the FIFA World Cup, the Olympic teams were largely limited to players under 23 years of age, eliminating some of the biggest names in the sport. They hope to generate another 10% of ticket revenue from football. Third, there were all the other sports, where supply historically exceeds demand and where they had to work hard to maximize sales. But the challenge did not end with merely selling the tickets. As the Beijing organizers discovered, ge

Great Depression Essay

The Government Didn’t Do Enough |The Government Did Enough | | |Common Knowledge |Common Knowledge | |William Lyon Mackenzie king |William Lyon Mackenzie King | |-wouldn’t give Conservative governments financial assistance |- | |-thought unemployment was seasonal | | |-wanted to balance the budget |Richard B. Bennett | |-king beats Bennett in the 1935 election (New Deal) |-helped out those who sent him letters | |-did nothing after winning election |-Bennett’s new deal | | |Health insurance, Unemployment insurance, Maximum work week, | |Richard B.Bennett |financial assistance to farmers | |-Raised Tariffs | | |-Unemployment reflex camps |Co-operative Common Wealth Federation (CCF) | |-Bennett blanket and buggy |-J. S. Woodsworth – Saskatchewan | | |-public own | |Co-operative Common Wealth Federation (CCF) |-increase social programs | |-J. S.Woodsworth – Saskatchewan |-government spend their way out of the depression | | | | |Social Credit |Social Credit | |-â€Å"Bible â€Å"Bill Aberhardt – Alberta |-â€Å"Bible â€Å"Bill Aberhardt – Alberta | |-Federal government wouldn’t allow it |-everyone to get $25 per month to spend on necessities | | | |Union Nationale |Union Nationale | |- Maurire Duplessis – Quebec |Maurire Duplessis – Quebec | |-emphasis on french language and culture | | | | | |PDF |PDF | |Page 2: kids had to cut street car tickets in half which were|Page 23: relief camps gave you food shelter and transportation. | |12 for a quarter so then they would get 24 for a quarter |Basically everything you needed | |page 5: kids hunted squirrels and gophers for meat |Page 35: Bennett’s new deal. 8 hour work day, minimum wage, | |Page 6: kids would chew grain instead of gum (would chew |elimination of child labour, insurance plan, and controlled | |alfalfa until it became like gum) |prices. –CCF, government has ownership of bank, insurance, bank, | |Pag e 8: kids were told there was no Santa |communication and power companies. |Page 33: men would walk 11 miles to apply for a job only to |Page 19: William Abhardt purposed goal was to give $25 every month| |find out there are hundreds of people all ready there waiting|to increase prosperity | |Page 34: farmers could not afford gas so they would attach |Page 16: hundreds of men would get meals at the soup kitchen | |their car to their horse and called it the Bennett Buggy |Page 29: one didn’t have to pay income tax unless ones income was | |Page 8: unemployment relief camps only paid 20 cents a day. |over $2000 | |Page 20: hundreds of men were found sleeping in a Toronto |Page 12: relief payments sometimes were in vouchers. Could only | |park with only a newspaper covering them. Bennett Blanket |buy specific items | |Page 21: jail cells were in terrible condition. Each cell | | |might have a bed. 200 men waiting for one toilet. Stomach | |troubles because of the food | | |Pa ge 10: Large companies laid off workers from railway | | |strikes | | |Page 3: Bennett raises tariffs | | |Page 2: people committed crimes to go to jail and have food | | |to eat | | |Page 24: innocent bystanders killed because of relief camp | | |strikers | | |Page 36: hard for farmers to be relieved, no way of | | |transportation | | |Page 2: boys were given pointless tasks (dig then fill holes)| | | | | |Page 7: one would pay doctors in food because one had no | | |money | | |Page 10: men in relief camps were treated like dirt/slaves | | |Page 22: paper shack, 79 x 24 with no windows. 88 men | | |Page 33: people tried to sell vacuums, pictures, books, | | |brushes. Too desperate | | |Page 10: government wanted the unemployed men out of sight | | |Page 12: no jobs therefore unemployment so people had lots of| | |dept | |Page 15: cars had disappeared because owners had to buy | | |antifreeze, but anti freeze was costly | | |Page 7: kids did not see an orange until Christmas | | |Page 8: one could not leave the relief camp because there was| | |nothing for about 100 miles. Had to stay | | |Page 14: Canadian government deported/sent back over 10,000 | | |immigrants. Some immigrants risked their lives to come to | | |Canada. No jobs so the government sent them back thinking it | | |was the solution. | |

Natural monopoly Essay

I believe that times change and as they, change rules and regulations must adapt to the times. Therefore, the treatment of the different industries must represent the different industries as they grow. I do not think the Telephone and Broadcast should never have or ever be considered a â€Å"Natural Monopoly†. The concept of natural monopoly presents a challenging public policy dilemma. On the one hand, a natural monopoly implies that efficiency in production would be better served if a single firm supplies the entire market. On the other hand, in the absence of any competition the monopoly holder will be tempted to exploit his natural monopoly power in order to maximize its profits. A â€Å"natural monopoly† is defined in economics as an industry where the fixed cost of the capital goods is so high that it is not profitable for a second firm to enter and compete. There is a â€Å"natural† reason for this industry being a monopoly, namely that the economies of scale require one, rather than several, firms. Small-scale ownership would be less efficient. Natural monopolies are typically utilities such as water, electricity, and natural gas. It would be very costly to build a second set of water and sewerage pipes in a city. Water and gas delivery service has a high fixed cost and a low variable cost. Electricity is now being deregulated, so the generators of electric power can now compete. But the infrastructure, the wires that carry the electricity, usually remain a natural monopoly, and the various companies send their electricity through the same grid. Cable as a â€Å"Natural Monopoly†. Nearly every community in the United States allows only a single cable company to operate within its borders. Since the Boulder decision [4] in which the U. S. Supreme Court held that municipalities might be subject to antitrust liability for anticompetitive acts, most cable franchises have been nominally nonexclusive but in fact do operate to preclude all competitors. The legal rationale for municipal regulation is that cable uses city-owned streets and rights-of-way; the economic rationale is the assumption that cable is a â€Å"natural monopoly. † The theory of natural monopoly holds that â€Å"because of structural conditions that exist in certain industries, competition between firms cannot endure; and whenever these conditions exist, it is inevitable that only one firm will survive. † Thus, regulation is necessary to dilute the ill-effects of the monopoly. [5] Those who assert that cable television is a natural monopoly focus on its economies of scale; that is, its large fixed costs whose duplication by multiple companies would be inefficient and wasteful. Thus, competitive entry into the market should be proscribed because it is bound to be destructive. The Competitive Reality I believe that times change and as they, change rules and regulations must adapt to the times. Therefore, the treatment of the different industries must represent the different industries as they grow. I do not think the Telephone and Broadcast should never have or ever be considered a â€Å"Natural Monopoly†. The concept of natural monopoly presents a challenging public policy dilemma. On the one hand, a natural monopoly implies that efficiency in production would be better served if a single firm supplies the entire market. On the other hand, in the absence of any competition the monopoly holder will be tempted to exploit his natural monopoly power in order to maximize its profits. A â€Å"natural monopoly† is defined in economics as an industry where the fixed cost of the capital goods is so high that it is not profitable for a second firm to enter and compete. There is a â€Å"natural† reason for this industry being a monopoly, namely that the economies of scale require one, rather than several, firms. Small-scale ownership would be less efficient. Natural monopolies are typically utilities such as water, electricity, and natural gas. It would be very costly to build a second set of water and sewerage pipes in a city. Water and gas delivery service has a high fixed cost and a low variable cost. Electricity is now being deregulated, so the generators of electric power can now compete. But the infrastructure, the wires that carry the electricity, usually remain a natural monopoly, and the various companies send their electricity through the same grid. Cable as a â€Å"Natural Monopoly† Nearly every community in the United States allows only a single cable company to operate within its borders. Since the Boulder decision [4] in which the U. S. Supreme Court held that municipalities might be subject to antitrust liability for anticompetitive acts, most cable franchises have been nominally nonexclusive but in fact do operate to preclude all competitors. The legal rationale for municipal regulation is that cable uses city-owned streets and rights-of-way; the economic rationale is the assumption that cable is a â€Å"natural monopoly. † The theory of natural monopoly holds that â€Å"because of structural conditions that exist in certain industries, competition between firms cannot endure; and whenever these conditions exist, it is inevitable that only one firm will survive. † Thus, regulation is necessary to dilute the ill-effects of the monopoly. [5] Those who assert that cable television is a natural monopoly focus on its economies of scale; that is, its large fixed costs whose duplication by multiple companies would be inefficient and wasteful. Thus, competitive entry into the market should be proscribed because it is bound to be destructive. The Competitive Reality 1. A skeptic hearing exhortations that cable television is a natural monopoly that should be locally regulated could have some questions at this point. First, if cable is a natural monopoly, why do we need to guarantee it with a franchise? Economists Bruce Owen and Peter Greenhalgh argue persuasively that given economies of scale, if a cable company â€Å"is responsive and efficient in its pricing and service quality then there will be little incentive for competitors to enter, and no need for an exclusionary franchise policy. â€Å"[9] Thus, if entry restrictions are necessary to arrest competition, the industry by definition is not a natural monopoly. 2. Second, if cable is a natural monopoly, is it necessarily a local monopoly? Some observers use the terms interchangeably, but there is no evidence that economic laws respect municipal boundaries. Given large fixed costs, does it make sense to award a local franchise to one company when another already has facilities in an adjacent community? Yet such â€Å"wasteful duplication,† as the natural monopoly proponents would call it, occurs frequently under the franchise system. Local franchises make no sense in a true natural monopoly setting. 3. These questions, however, go to the heart of natural monopoly theory itself, a doctrine that is under increasing attack. [10] In the face of crumbling conventional wisdom in this area, the burden should be on the natural monopoly proponents to demonstrate that competition is not possible, and further, that regulation is necessary. Such a demonstration will prove impossible in the cable context. Cable is both extremely competitive, facing both direct and indirect market challenges, and, in any event, is better left unregulated. For many decades, economic textbooks have held up the telecommunications industry as the ideal model of natural monopoly. A natural monopoly is said to exist when a single firm is able to control most, if not all, output and prices in a given market due to the enormous entry barriers and economies of scale associated with the industry. More specifically, a market is said to be naturally monopolistic when one firm can serve consumers at lower costs than two or more firms (Spulber 1995: 31). For example, telephone service traditionally has required laying an extensive cable network, constructing numerous calls switching stations, and creating a variety of support services, before service could actually be initiated. Obviously, with such high entry costs, new firms can find it difficult to gain a toehold in the industry. Those problems are compounded by the fact that once a single firm overcomes the initial costs, their average cost of doing business drops rapidly relative to newcomers. The telephone monopoly, however, has been anything but natural. Overlooked in the textbooks is the extent to which federal and state governmental actions throughout this century helped build the AT&T or â€Å"Bell system† monopoly. As Robert Crandall (1991: 41) noted, â€Å"Despite the popular belief that the telephone network is a natural monopoly, the AT&T monopoly survived until the 1980s not because of its naturalness but because of overt government policy. † I hope that the above facts help support my beliefs that these industries should not be considered Natural Monopolies. These companies just executed and had better site than other in the same industry had. Today ATT is just as strong as it ever was. References Benjamin, S. M. , Lichtman, D. G. , Shelanski, H. , & Weiser , P. (2006). FOUNDATIONS. In Telecommunications Law and Policy . (2nd ed. ). (pp. 437 – 469). Durham, NC : Carolina Academic Press. Foldvary, F. E. (1999). Natural Monopolies . The Progress Report. Retrieved January 9, 2012, from http://www. progress. org/fold74. htm Thierer , A. D. (1994). UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY . 14(2).