5 ms·

Unregulated Capitalism in the very reason monopolies are created. Founder of Capitalism favoured an economy where a lot of small companies competed together to

Unregulated Capitalism in the very reason monopolies are created. Founder of Capitalism favoured an economy where a lot of small companies competed together to the benefit of consumers. He also recommended regulations where natural monopolies arise due to limited supply. As an example, he recommended heavy taxes on rent seeking[1]. This is a case of American Capitalism taken to its logically conclusion where any regulation makes it anti competitive. American psyche is so attuned to "Free Market" that anything lazy argument will be invoked. On the contrary we have Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in India which has done wonders for us. Our market is highly regulated, yet we enjoy cheapest ISP services. We have also favoured Net Neutrality by opposing Facebook[2] when they came knocking on our door and now its part of our regulations after a year long deliberation [3]. [1] https://www.prosper.org.au/about/geoists-in-history/adam-smith-on-the-rentier/ https://www.prosper.org.au/about/geoists-in-history/adam-smi... [2] http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/TRAI-rules-in-favour-of-Net-neutrality/article14068029.ece http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/TRAI-ru... [3] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/trai-differential-data-pricing-regulations-net-neutrality/1/1104985.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/trai-differential-data-pr...

rdtsc 9y ago
> We have also favoured Net Neutrality by opposing Facebook[2] Interesting, wonder if Indians see it as a tiny bit ironic that Facebook then turns around and campaigns for net neutrality is US. Once were in the position to be the ISP (effectively), they had no issue taking Verizon's side.
- drieddust 9y ago
  Companies will be opportunistic. OT but I am not sure why AntiTrust is not invoked against Facebook. They don't have any competition and have done things which can be considered abuse of position.
  - eropple 9y ago
    They have lots of competition. Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat (especially among younger sets), etc. They don't have vertically-integrated competition, granted, but they have enough competition to point at to be left alone.
drdaeman 9y ago
Counterexample: we had mostly unregulated (except for mandatory government survelliance boxes, billing software licensing, and a reasonably affordable license to provide telecommunication services if you have more than 1K subscribers or more than 2 years in business - but all of this wasn't particularly heavy) market in Russia and the competition had worked. From the subscriber perspective, it was a norm to have 5+ different options, that had actually competed on pricing, quality and features. Every year prices used to go down. Then, when they got real low (like 100-200 RUB - when it just didn't made sense to go lower), speeds and packages started to grow. And whenever one option did something wrong (like throttling P2P traffic) they started lose active userbase very fast. It really worked. Then things had changed. Last 5 years our Czar and his pet Duma noticed there is lack of regulation, so they started to write laws one after another. All sort of mandatory logging, censorship, peering policies (who can and who can't peer), extra licensing rules, UGC-related policies, etc etc - and, of course, all for the sake of subscribers' and national "security". Small ISPs died like it was a plague. Larger ones grow even larger - for obvious reasons. Various explanations are possible (and regulations here are mostly different from NN, just authoritarian government strengthening their hold), but here's what I'm absolutely certain of: not all regulation is good. At the very least, consider if you trust your government (and all future governments) with such powers. --- Full disclosure: I've worked for 10 years for an ISP in Russia. Haven't been to the U.S. so don't know how exactly things are there. Yet, have a preliminary/uneducated opinion that they should've either hold NN (as a sort of a kludge - but there is no competition) and think how they can add more competition (=choice), or abolish NN but only simultaneously deregulating things so new ISP startups can actually enter the market.
- DiThi 9y ago
  > and regulations here are mostly different from NN Not mostly, but totally. It costs very very little to comply with NN law, and protects the consumer. The ones you mention sound more costly and attacks the consumer freedom. > or abolish NN but only simultaneously deregulating things so new ISP startups can actually enter the market. There's a lot of regulations that should be gone, but NN is not one of them.
  - 9y ago

rdtsc 9y ago

> We have also favoured Net Neutrality by opposing Facebook[2] Interesting, wonder if Indians see it as a tiny bit ironic that Facebook then turns around and campaigns for net neutrality is US. Once were in the position to be the ISP (effectively), they had no issue taking Verizon's side.

drieddust 9y ago
Companies will be opportunistic. OT but I am not sure why AntiTrust is not invoked against Facebook. They don't have any competition and have done things which can be considered abuse of position.
- eropple 9y ago
  They have lots of competition. Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat (especially among younger sets), etc. They don't have vertically-integrated competition, granted, but they have enough competition to point at to be left alone.

drdaeman 9y ago

Counterexample: we had mostly unregulated (except for mandatory government survelliance boxes, billing software licensing, and a reasonably affordable license to provide telecommunication services if you have more than 1K subscribers or more than 2 years in business - but all of this wasn't particularly heavy) market in Russia and the competition had worked. From the subscriber perspective, it was a norm to have 5+ different options, that had actually competed on pricing, quality and features. Every year prices used to go down. Then, when they got real low (like 100-200 RUB - when it just didn't made sense to go lower), speeds and packages started to grow. And whenever one option did something wrong (like throttling P2P traffic) they started lose active userbase very fast. It really worked. Then things had changed. Last 5 years our Czar and his pet Duma noticed there is lack of regulation, so they started to write laws one after another. All sort of mandatory logging, censorship, peering policies (who can and who can't peer), extra licensing rules, UGC-related policies, etc etc - and, of course, all for the sake of subscribers' and national "security". Small ISPs died like it was a plague. Larger ones grow even larger - for obvious reasons. Various explanations are possible (and regulations here are mostly different from NN, just authoritarian government strengthening their hold), but here's what I'm absolutely certain of: not all regulation is good. At the very least, consider if you trust your government (and all future governments) with such powers. --- Full disclosure: I've worked for 10 years for an ISP in Russia. Haven't been to the U.S. so don't know how exactly things are there. Yet, have a preliminary/uneducated opinion that they should've either hold NN (as a sort of a kludge - but there is no competition) and think how they can add more competition (=choice), or abolish NN but only simultaneously deregulating things so new ISP startups can actually enter the market.

DiThi 9y ago
> and regulations here are mostly different from NN Not mostly, but totally. It costs very very little to comply with NN law, and protects the consumer. The ones you mention sound more costly and attacks the consumer freedom. > or abolish NN but only simultaneously deregulating things so new ISP startups can actually enter the market. There's a lot of regulations that should be gone, but NN is not one of them.
- 9y ago