3 ms·

I never thought of it from their perspective, thank you for the links. I suppose I see it as a structural problem. That is, the company positioned their busine

by josho 10y ago

I never thought of it from their perspective, thank you for the links. I suppose I see it as a structural problem. That is, the company positioned their business lines to put them in the unique position to bundle in a way that gave them distinct market advantages. Owning the highway and distributing goods on that same highway. In the past it didn't matter so we never saw the conflict of interest. However, technology progressed and now the conflict is obvious. I wonder what do other markets do? E.g. power comes to mind. Are the transmission lines owned by the folks that produce the power? If I understand my local market the power producer is a separate company from the transmission company. That was how we choose to privatize the industry. It seems telco got a better deal during their privatization as they own both sides. The solution, strikes me as simple (split the company into transmission and content businesses). Obviously there is no political will to do that.

oli5679 10y ago
In the UK, power is regulated by a complicated system of price controls, profit caps and requirements to supply downstram rivals. I don't fully understand it orhow it works in the US. I'm sympathetic to your sentiment that Telcos seem too powerful and it could be socially optimal to constrain them. They could well be a natural monopoly, where price controls (or government provision) improves welfare. I don't like your idea of splitting upstream and downstream though. An economist called Ronald Coase once said 'whats worse than a monopoly? A chain of monopolies..' The idea of double marginalisation is not obvious but totally fundamental to the topic of vertical restraints/mergers and why they are so much less clear cut than horizontal agreements/mergers. This video is good. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2NElV61MUDE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2NElV61MUDE

by josho 10y ago

oli5679 10y ago

In the UK, power is regulated by a complicated system of price controls, profit caps and requirements to supply downstram rivals. I don't fully understand it orhow it works in the US. I'm sympathetic to your sentiment that Telcos seem too powerful and it could be socially optimal to constrain them. They could well be a natural monopoly, where price controls (or government provision) improves welfare. I don't like your idea of splitting upstream and downstream though. An economist called Ronald Coase once said 'whats worse than a monopoly? A chain of monopolies..' The idea of double marginalisation is not obvious but totally fundamental to the topic of vertical restraints/mergers and why they are so much less clear cut than horizontal agreements/mergers. This video is good. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2NElV61MUDE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2NElV61MUDE