LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdf
Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy...
Fair enough, with qualifications, of course.
The history of regulation shows that firms lobbied for it when competition reduced their profits. In 1897 the National Electric Light Assn. began lobbying for regulation and for "fair profit" price controls by the various states only after upstart firms had started taking some of their market share.
The same scenario for the telephone industry. Actually, the first states to adopt regulation were the ones that had low profits and high output. The effects of these regulations were to increase price and reduce output.
Another effect of regulation, in every case it seems, is that a company seeking to enter a market has to first get a license from the state. And therein could be the reason for our monopolies/duopolies—in my area, Comcast has exclusive rights. Why?
In a market with no artificial barriers to entry, the "monopoly" firm always always has to guard against upstart competitors seeking a part of the monopoly profit (which is why you'd never see $200/month broadband at this time).
And the natural barriers—the high start-up costs—can be mitigated by the speculative/futures markets. (Perhaps not a panacea, but something to consider.)
Again, it should be stated that the incumbents benefit from heavy regulation because they have the economies of scale to overcome the increased compliance costs.
The problem with price controls is that they create the wrong incentives for the firm. Government pricing is based on historical prices, not the current technology.
If an industry is unregulated, when there are rapid technological advances, the old facilities become obsolete before their historical cost is fully depreciated. Firms abandon obsolete facilities sooner than if there had been no advancement.
But under a planned regime, the older facilities are protected by the averaging of their cost with the cheaper newer facilities into the rate structure. This has two effects that are exactly the opposite of what advocates of regulation say they want.
First, since the older facilities are not abandoned and their cost is averaged with the newer ones, the price does not go down as quickly as it would if the old facility were abandoned altogether (assuming the new technology makes the product cheaper).
Second, because the bargain for the licensee is they're given a government-secured market, firms are more willing to try risky new technologies because they are less sensitive to cost overruns; and since the consumer is made to pay for it anyway. . .
Firms operating under regulation are less motivated to control costs than they would be in a competitive market and they do not abandon their older, inefficient facilities as readily.
The point of all of this is that it's better to live with a temporary monopoly, subject to free entry, then to have Leviathan with threat of force limiting our choices and stifling innovation.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to LegoPower77
"Were an a lose-lose situation here. I just don't see how some regulatory board is a panacea."
I agree.
It isn't meant to be a panacea. It's meant to provide some counterbalancing force to try to slow the process of things getting worse.
Where I disagree is in the belief that regulation is always worse than the problem it tries to cure.
It's important for anyone who wants to understand the net neutrality issue to understand that no one started out wanting net neutrality regulation. It has never been anyone's ideal solution to anything. Net neutrality is a rear guard action to mitigate against the results of trends that some have been warning against for years, namely that as competition diminished, we abandoned the TA96 framework, and the old regulatory regime(such as common carriage) was dismantled, that the de facto neutrality of the net would be under assault as power was consolidated(over 95% of small business and residential broadband access is controlled by two companies in any given location, the area's telco and cableco).
As a result we now have essentially oligopoly with neither the restraints that would be imposed by a competitive market nor the restraints that were previously imposed by government. This is indeed a mess that it will be very difficult for us to extract ourselves from.
I think we have to weigh the risks of unintended consequences from regulation against the fact that if we impose no boundaries the behavior of these companies is likely to get worse. Frankly companies are much like children testing the boundaries to see how much they will be allowed to get by with. They try something and look up to see if society is going to do anything about it. If society doesn't do anything about it they try something more. If there is no robust competition to reign them in and the society shows no interest in setting limits then what is the likely result going to be?
Net neutrality isn't a fix for anything. I do think, however, it will slow down the ill intentioned and may allow us to avoid the worst consequences of the problems we have brought on ourselves. Hopefully in the meanwhile we will develop other effective longer term solutions. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdf
Oh my gosh, the entitlement mentality just continues to get piled on, higher and higher. "Give me. Give me. Give me. Take from them." Despicable. I've never seen a thicker display of self-absorbed liberalism. Incredible.
No one is adding anything of value to this thread any more -- just saying the same things over and over again in different ways, as if it makes a difference. So many of you are just too caught up in your perspectives to recognize the reality. Nuf Sed. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to bicker
Are we trying to get at truth or are we trying to be pro-american? The two things aren't always the same.
It's interesting that you feel that way because my statements are nothing more than a restatement of your own claims above, namely that one is always free and empowered because one always has the choice of nothing as a substitute for something.
|
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to bicker
"Barriers to entry don't constitute any obligation owed to you."
I don't know why you are accusing me of making such an argument. That isn't my argument.
"There are multiple suppliers in areas where sufficient profit motive is offered"
Again you ignore the way things like network effects and first mover advantage drastically alters the economic calculations for those wishing to enter the market after the first mover is established and impose a quite different set of costs on those trying to compete with the dominant player.
Is "sufficient profit" something that is probable or even possible or is it something absurd?
Of course any barriers can be overcome by an extreme enough set of circumstances(such as if everyone was willing to pay a million dollars a month for an internet connection) but that doesn't mean such things will happen with any set of probable real world parameters. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to bicker
said by bicker  :Blah blah blah. Another "I want give me" perspective. Yet you probably have no qualms about exploiting whatever benefits a healthy economy affords YOU, like JOBS. Ya, we should be so lucky to have have a JOB. I know, we should work for free in thanks to the mighty company for employing us, and providing us the benefits of the "healthy economy."
Do you really believe the stuff you shovel?
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
1 edit | reply to bicker
Yeah..
Satellite: Too slow on uploads and latency makes it useless for VOIP.
T-1 Cheapest I can find is 380.00 a month for 1500/1500 service.
Wireless: Yes, there are several wireless providers in LA. The cheapest one is over 100 dollars a month and offers 1500/384 service.
Dial up: Maybe. With all the throttling going on, it might end up being FASTER then cable or DSL!
You sound like you believe that broadband should only be available to the elite that can afford it. BULL$HIT!
Broadband should be available to EVERYONE...and in many countries it is!
If you're an American and so concerned about your country, then consider this: The USA is quickly becoming a third world country technology/Internet wise, and attitudes like yours only make it happen worse and faster! |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to clickie
You are the first person in this thread to make any valid points, but even then, you're just raising matters for which reasonable people disagree, and both sides can claim that they're "right" and the other side is "wrong".
I don't talk about government guaranteeing securities because I believe it is WRONG.
If you really believe that this should be a utility, consider how much you'll pay in taxes to have the government acquire the assets via eminent domain. If you're not willing to pay that amount, then any kind of mid-range solution to the issue, such as regulation, is just a selfish grab for someone else's assets.
Let it happen to your assets and see how much YOU like it.
Your third-party long distance carriers example is irrelevant. That's not what is happening here. There aren't competing HSI services running on the cable. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to TScheisskopf
Your personal attacks "evince" no special wisdom or knowledge either. Your message here provides nothing of value. It is just another denial of the reality that I've outlined. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to RainWind
Competition is not blocked. That's a cop-out business-haters use to distort the issue. Competition is what it is, and it is what it is because that's how much profit there is in offering competing services.
You call it "pro-consumer regulation" but what it really is is Big Brother interfering with business. And look at the REALITY... thirty years and counting of a pro-business perspective in this country and there are still people like you who refuse to acknowledge it. Even the Democrats are pro-business now. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to bicker
And Laisez-Faire capitalism is the staunch conservative's answer to everything. One look at the unrestrained nonsense caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall showed how well that works out. We've been given the rewards of the *exact* same crap that caused the Great Depression.
You can't create wealth by selling bags of risk that are comprised of a mixture of mortgage securities written to people who are not likely to pay it back and damned certain not to pay it back. Yet that's exactly what happened and the economy takes another shot in the back because of unrestrained highly leveraged speculation -- things that were hard to do before 2000 because of the risks to everyone else who has to swim in the same pool.
Of course, the solution to this problem is to just let the market sort it out. But the government stepped in and has been guaranteeing these securities -- a decidedly LIBERAL thing to do for a bunch of people who should lose their investments just the same way that people are losing their homes. But you don't talk much about that, do you -- since socialistic assistance is fine as long as it benefits the wealthy.
Back on topic, these services are less and less discretionary and more utility. "Doing without" is, in many cases, becoming harder and harder just as "doing without" was harder and harder as electricity, telephone and natural gas lines made their way into consumer homes. If Comcast can't provide unfettered access, they need to be regulated. Period. And that goes for every other ISP.
Would you tolerate AT&T knocking the volume down on a call you placed through a third-party long distance carrier? I doubt "Well sir, it's our wires, we can do what we want" would be an acceptable answer if you complained. Yet that's exactly the power you're granting to Comcast. It's their pipes, don't like it, don't use them. That's not an acceptable situation because it's no longer just a "service". It's a utility used for online banking, education, communication and entertainment. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to bicker
Yours is no "true American perspective" by any metric other than those passed back and forth in the dark fever swamps of Internet discourse.
You evince no special wisdom or knowledge here. In fact, you evince an ignorance that is impressive. We are paying for the service. Thus, we have a voice.
And don't trot out that trope about "Well, go to another provider". Over the last 8 years, this administration has gutted the parts of the telecom deregulation act that would have allowed true competition and most areas of the US have to deal with natural monopolies and no choice save one.
Sir, one gets the impression you know very little of which you speak, except for a few shopworn and tired phrases. |
|
RainWind
join:2000-10-20
Van Wert, OH
| reply to bicker
People have no alternative options because competition is blocked. You argument really holds no water, you just seem to like telling people they have a childish "give me now" mentality when that isn't even the case.
We either need more regulation or the government needs to piss off and let other companies move in to compete when and how they please. No more slapping Verizon's hand for offering special deals to customer's who have initiated a port out request. No blocking of new competition. No more regulating what a company can charge. Telco's can't just drop their pricing at will to compete with cable.
All people are asking for is a little pro-consumer regulation because one company is given a monopoly in an specific area and there is no alternate provider because of it.
The blame is not on the consumers. The problem is regulation and the local government pushing away competition. Your argument might have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that the reason competition doesn't move in has to do with government and regulation. Verizon can't just waltz into a town and start laying fiber.
Either competition needs to stop getting cock blocked, or the government needs to go one step further with regulation. |
|
ThoughT2010
@sonotechnique.ca
| reply to KrK
cable and dsl companies normally sublease their network to other companies..
Bell Canada here subleases to several other companies, I'm currently using Acanac, which is bell sympatico but without bell's restrictions (port 25 being blocked, and whatever else)
Apparently rogers canada does the same (cable) |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to LegoPower77
said by LegoPower77 :While I don't like Comcast throttling content, it's worse to have a government agent with the power of the police dictating the marketplace. 100% correct. People here seem to want everything their way and so are pushing for things that will make THEIR OWN options WORSE. Too many simply don't understand the negative impact such regulation has on business, and how THEY will lose as a result. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to KrK
Blah blah blah. Another "I want give me" perspective. Yet you probably have no qualms about exploiting whatever benefits a healthy economy affords YOU, like JOBS. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to TScheisskopf
I don't get paid anything to post. I do it for leisure. It is interesting to see so many selfish people posting their "I want give me" diatribes, and hopefully my posting will give someone among you the push towards a true American perspective. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
Barriers to entry don't constitute any obligation owed to you. There are multiple suppliers in areas where sufficient profit motive is offered. So the blame for a lack of suppliers of the specific type of Internet service you want, high-speed Internet, rests squarely on CONSUMERS resisting those offerings at the price they're being offered at. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
Your statements are un-American, asdfdfdfdfdf. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to qworster
There are dozens of ways to get "the Internet". We're talking about high-speed Internet, and there are even several ways to get that these days too... IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR THEM. Your unwillingness to pay does not constitute anything other than what it is.
I defend it because I'm an American. How come you ATTACK it? |
|
