Content Control > FCC

FCC

Just sometimes, the more efficient market structure is one where there is *gasp* monopolistic competition. Which is what this market is. Note that it is not a pure monopoly, that would be if there were only one provider. Last I looked there are many alternatives.
But alas, in anticipation I will just say: "Bah!"
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell

Monopolistic competition? What silliness. Skip ahead a few chapters then come back. But alas, I'll just expect yet another non-sequitur.
[text was edited by author 2003-06-30 12:10:27]

There is an element of truth there oilphant. We do not have a true capitalized market system. If it were than companies would be in a hurry to offer the best service. But when was the last time that you saw this? I think what Lego was trying to say was that if there is an monopoly of services offered, that can drive one to create a new service. Case in point, the whole RIAA debacle, college kids didn’t like the type of service that they were getting so they started there p2p service.
--
If there is any realistic deterrent to marriage, it's the fact that you can't afford divorce. -- Jack Nicholson

This isn't about access to SERVICE. It's about access to CONTENT.

The people are arguing for is that a provider like Comcast shouldn't be able to block or limit access to sites run by Comcast's competitors.

People arguing for this protection basically are looking for a "must carry" provision that applies to these monopoly providers just as it does to video distribution.

IOW (as I stated in another post) you shouldn't have Comcast running say a streaming video site while bandwidth throttling a competitors streaming video site. Without an FCC mandate, this could easily happen to steer customers toward Comcast's revenue generating sites.
[text was edited by author 2003-06-30 13:12:32]