4 ms·

> So in short I see no problem here to solve and I do not think government should get involved. That's patently absurd. You can't just add a natural monopoly t

by taw24 10y ago

> So in short I see no problem here to solve and I do not think government should get involved. That's patently absurd. You can't just add a natural monopoly to a public good and come up with a competitive market. The most basic of economic analysis -- really, first semester stuff -- would tell you that these are the precise situations where external regulation is needed to even approach something that looks like an efficient distribution of resources. I would describe your economic philosophy as something closer to a religion, but even most religions aren't provably incorrect.

massysett 10y ago
The market for internet access is not just wires running in the street; it's also wireless. Railroads seemed a natural monopoly too, until trucks came along. Thus the Staggers Act, so the "natural monopoly" rail rates are not regulated. Now it's the reverse. In the dawn of a new technological age, people want to shackle the old technology rather than deregulate it. My economic philosophy is no religion; the government regulates the distribution of wireless spectrum and I have no objection to that, nor do I object to the regulation of wireline operators in exchange for their use of public rights-of-way. But this regulation should be measured and the minimum amount necessary. Net neutrality regulations are far beyond minimal. So please continue on with demonstrating where what I have said is provably incorrect?
- DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
  I understand your argument about how wireless Internet providers will compete with wired providers which would presumably mean NN becomes irrelevant - but that assumes the wireless providers are in competition with wired providers in the same way truck haulage companies compete with the railroad system. The problem is: they don't. There are 4 main wireless providers in the US (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint), the vast majority (if not all) of the other carriers are MVNOs that run on top of the Big 4's infrastructure. The problem is AT&T is also a major wired provider (U-Verse), as is Verizon. Only T-Mobile and Sprint have no horizontal-business interests in wired networks - but incidentally note that T-Mobile and Sprint also have the smallest service coverage areas compared to AT&T and Verizon - in some parts of the country AT&T is your only real option for wireless service, and AT&T has no compunction with simultaneously selling you a $100/mo wireless plan with a low data limit, a $65/mo DirecTV plan, and $70/mo U-verse wired home Internet plan - where they would gladly throttle Netflix to entice you to watch your DirecTV service instead. The invisible-hand-of-the-market cannot solve this problem because of the sheer start-up costs of physical infrastructure needed to set-up a competing wired (or even wireless!) Internet service - and as we've seen with Google Fiber and municipal Internet services the incumbents quickly drop their prices to prevent these newly competing services from becoming established, if not being completely obstructionist as we see with Comcast holding coax poles ransom. This is why we need to classify last-mile Internet access as a regulated public utility, not as a captive market for rent-seeking companies. So in your example, at least, I don't see how competition from the wireless industry will budge wired services in consumers' interests, but instead corral us all into a much worse position.

by taw24 10y ago

massysett 10y ago

The market for internet access is not just wires running in the street; it's also wireless. Railroads seemed a natural monopoly too, until trucks came along. Thus the Staggers Act, so the "natural monopoly" rail rates are not regulated. Now it's the reverse. In the dawn of a new technological age, people want to shackle the old technology rather than deregulate it. My economic philosophy is no religion; the government regulates the distribution of wireless spectrum and I have no objection to that, nor do I object to the regulation of wireline operators in exchange for their use of public rights-of-way. But this regulation should be measured and the minimum amount necessary. Net neutrality regulations are far beyond minimal. So please continue on with demonstrating where what I have said is provably incorrect?

DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
I understand your argument about how wireless Internet providers will compete with wired providers which would presumably mean NN becomes irrelevant - but that assumes the wireless providers are in competition with wired providers in the same way truck haulage companies compete with the railroad system. The problem is: they don't. There are 4 main wireless providers in the US (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint), the vast majority (if not all) of the other carriers are MVNOs that run on top of the Big 4's infrastructure. The problem is AT&T is also a major wired provider (U-Verse), as is Verizon. Only T-Mobile and Sprint have no horizontal-business interests in wired networks - but incidentally note that T-Mobile and Sprint also have the smallest service coverage areas compared to AT&T and Verizon - in some parts of the country AT&T is your only real option for wireless service, and AT&T has no compunction with simultaneously selling you a $100/mo wireless plan with a low data limit, a $65/mo DirecTV plan, and $70/mo U-verse wired home Internet plan - where they would gladly throttle Netflix to entice you to watch your DirecTV service instead. The invisible-hand-of-the-market cannot solve this problem because of the sheer start-up costs of physical infrastructure needed to set-up a competing wired (or even wireless!) Internet service - and as we've seen with Google Fiber and municipal Internet services the incumbents quickly drop their prices to prevent these newly competing services from becoming established, if not being completely obstructionist as we see with Comcast holding coax poles ransom. This is why we need to classify last-mile Internet access as a regulated public utility, not as a captive market for rent-seeking companies. So in your example, at least, I don't see how competition from the wireless industry will budge wired services in consumers' interests, but instead corral us all into a much worse position.