4 ms·

> Why is it different for the telecoms? Because the telecoms have gotten tons of help from the public, via the government, over the years. At the Federal leve

by Kadin 17y ago

> Why is it different for the telecoms? Because the telecoms have gotten tons of help from the public, via the government, over the years. At the Federal level, the cable and satellite companies got the original anti-circumvention laws that led to the DMCA. They also get to be exempt from a lot of state level regulation that they might not like, in exchange for the far friendlier FCC. And at the local level, telcos get to use public rights of way and often have monopoly grants. They're in no way comparable to a small entrepreneur. They're like a company that's been given (or bought) permission to operate a toll road. In exchange for being allowed to make money, they need to charge everyone the same tolls and the amount of the tolls that they charge is going to be subject to regulation. As for why the government doesn't just build and operate the infrastructure itself ... if the telcos keep it up, that may just be what happens. Critical infrastructure has been a frequent target, historically, for nationalization when the owners of that infrastructure are perceived to be rent-seeking to excess. The public tolerance for toll roads evaporated in the 1880s [1] and they were almost entirely stamped out by the Progressives; the telecommunication operators of today would do well to keep that in mind. [1] http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Klein.Majewski.Turnpikes http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Klein.Majewski.Turnpikes

fnid2 17y ago
Personally, I think it'd be great to have a public wireless grid, but think of the privacy issues. The government could have much easier access to our emails. But back to your point, the toll roads I travel on charge more for semi-trucks than they charge for passenger vehicles. I understand the thought that the public is investing in these wires, so they own them, but the public invests in all sorts of industries, including pharmaceuticals (via the NIH), vehicles (buying GM), mortgages (fannie may, aig), but yet they don't regulate what gm charges for cars or Pfizer charges for their drugs. I wonder why we believe it is okay for the govt to meddle in some areas and not others? Where and how do we draw the line?
- CamperBob 17y ago
  But back to your point, the toll roads I travel on charge more for semi-trucks than they charge for passenger vehicles. Yes, because the semis cause more than their share of road-maintenance costs. This is akin to charging me 2x as much if I want to upgrade to a pipe that's 2x as fast. Nobody has a problem with that. The problem happens when the government sells the tollway to a private corporation, who then starts up its own trucking line. The road's new owner charges its own trucks $0.25 and everybody else's trucks $5.00. How could you defend that? I wonder why we believe it is okay for the govt to meddle in some areas and not others? Where and how do we draw the line? This isn't even a new question. There are some interesting parallels with the early telephone switching system. About a hundred years ago, an undertaker named Strowger noticed that his competitor was getting all the calls whenever someone kicked the bucket. It didn't take much investigation before he discovered that Betty the Switchboard Operator was the sister-in-law of Bob the Undertaker at the competing funeral home. Nowadays we're faced with the exact same scenario, but due to the logistics of the last-wire monopoly, we can't solve it by inventing a new switching system like Strowger did. That's where the government has a legitimate role to play.

by Kadin 17y ago

fnid2 17y ago

Personally, I think it'd be great to have a public wireless grid, but think of the privacy issues. The government could have much easier access to our emails. But back to your point, the toll roads I travel on charge more for semi-trucks than they charge for passenger vehicles. I understand the thought that the public is investing in these wires, so they own them, but the public invests in all sorts of industries, including pharmaceuticals (via the NIH), vehicles (buying GM), mortgages (fannie may, aig), but yet they don't regulate what gm charges for cars or Pfizer charges for their drugs. I wonder why we believe it is okay for the govt to meddle in some areas and not others? Where and how do we draw the line?

CamperBob 17y ago
But back to your point, the toll roads I travel on charge more for semi-trucks than they charge for passenger vehicles. Yes, because the semis cause more than their share of road-maintenance costs. This is akin to charging me 2x as much if I want to upgrade to a pipe that's 2x as fast. Nobody has a problem with that. The problem happens when the government sells the tollway to a private corporation, who then starts up its own trucking line. The road's new owner charges its own trucks $0.25 and everybody else's trucks $5.00. How could you defend that? I wonder why we believe it is okay for the govt to meddle in some areas and not others? Where and how do we draw the line? This isn't even a new question. There are some interesting parallels with the early telephone switching system. About a hundred years ago, an undertaker named Strowger noticed that his competitor was getting all the calls whenever someone kicked the bucket. It didn't take much investigation before he discovered that Betty the Switchboard Operator was the sister-in-law of Bob the Undertaker at the competing funeral home. Nowadays we're faced with the exact same scenario, but due to the logistics of the last-wire monopoly, we can't solve it by inventing a new switching system like Strowger did. That's where the government has a legitimate role to play.