3 ms·

> Your argument would hold water if the free market has been given chance at all. The largely-unregulated market was given a chance. It created local monopolie

> Your argument would hold water if the free market has been given chance at all. The largely-unregulated market was given a chance. It created local monopolies and duopolies. It's long past time to try something else.

nine_k 11y ago
What kind of market has it been? Local monopolies were granted by municipalities, certain officials and not the prospective end users. The very first winning bid from a cable company carried the monopoly clause. Once the monopolies had been granted, the market was no longer free; basically the market was (and is) no more. I'd argue that a free market for cable / broadband access never ever existed.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > I'd argue that a free market for cable / broadband access never ever existed. I agree. This is because that market was never regulated. A free market for POTS/DSL access did exist (and to a large extent still exists). Federally regulated mandatory line sharing made it happen. It does not benefit the public good to run multiple, competing sets of infrastructure to carry commodities. However, -as we see in things as disparate as Instant Messaging networks, remote-controlled lightbulbs, and wired Internet access- private business places far more value on capturing and walling in sections of the population than they do helping to facilitate a vibrant, competitive marketplace that promotes customer choice. From a business perspective, this lock-in makes sense. This isn't the best thing for society, though.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  I think GP is thinking further back to ol' Ma Bell. If Bell hadn't been broken up, and competition-promoting regulations put in place, there would have been no need for municipal exclusivity agreements--Bell would have been the only carrier out there in the first place. It's possible that Cable could eventually have grown to compete technologically, but in a world where Bell was still a single unregulated entity, it strikes me as unlikely that cable could have survived independently.

nine_k 11y ago

What kind of market has it been? Local monopolies were granted by municipalities, certain officials and not the prospective end users. The very first winning bid from a cable company carried the monopoly clause. Once the monopolies had been granted, the market was no longer free; basically the market was (and is) no more. I'd argue that a free market for cable / broadband access never ever existed.

simoncion 11y ago
> I'd argue that a free market for cable / broadband access never ever existed. I agree. This is because that market was never regulated. A free market for POTS/DSL access did exist (and to a large extent still exists). Federally regulated mandatory line sharing made it happen. It does not benefit the public good to run multiple, competing sets of infrastructure to carry commodities. However, -as we see in things as disparate as Instant Messaging networks, remote-controlled lightbulbs, and wired Internet access- private business places far more value on capturing and walling in sections of the population than they do helping to facilitate a vibrant, competitive marketplace that promotes customer choice. From a business perspective, this lock-in makes sense. This isn't the best thing for society, though.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
I think GP is thinking further back to ol' Ma Bell. If Bell hadn't been broken up, and competition-promoting regulations put in place, there would have been no need for municipal exclusivity agreements--Bell would have been the only carrier out there in the first place. It's possible that Cable could eventually have grown to compete technologically, but in a world where Bell was still a single unregulated entity, it strikes me as unlikely that cable could have survived independently.