3 ms·
Telecommunications companies have a regulatory body because their market is a 'granted monopoly'. They have a pseudo monopoly in the sense that for any other co
by redial 16y ago
Telecommunications companies have a regulatory body because their market is a 'granted monopoly'. They have a pseudo monopoly in the sense that for any other company to compete would require a giant initial investment, and possibly a concession from the government, as is the case in wireless communications, so immediately they have all the customers. The government says, ok, will lets you use this spectrum, but you play by our rules.
It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.
- lwhi 16y agoThe world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved. It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it. But why? - this is an opinion, not a fact. Apple is acting as a self-governing private regulator of a marketplace - digital technologies have allowed this situation to become viable .. in the past markets have been inherently more 'free' due to their non-digital nature.
- redial 16y agoIt is not an opinion, it is in the law. The government has no law to enforce in a case like this one. That is why they don't tell Walmart what to sell. As much as they want them to only sell american made goods, they don't have any law preventing Walmart to sell china's merchandise. And that is why they can regulate the telecommunications industry, because they have laws that let them. "The world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved." This might be the case, and I partially agree with you. But as it stands now, Apple are not doing anything wrong.
- lwhi 16y agoI suppose much of this rests on whether you believe Apple is operating a 'store' or a marketplace. It's complicated - I realise where the law currently stands; however, I feel that the law might need to be amended. I believe the AppStore is a privately regulated marketplace operating within the free-market. This type of scenario is likely to become more commonplace in the future. I can understand how the subject of the free-market (and possible government intervention) is at odds with a lot of people's politics, but I think the potential for abuse from the private sector is too great to ignore.
- sigzero 16y agoThen developers can go play in another marketplace if they want. It's a totally "opt in" scenario.
- lwhi 16y agoIn my opinion; if this model of commerce becomes much more popular, this excuse isn't going to be able to last. Although it's a very extreme example - a sweatshop is often opt-in. There are circumstances where opt-in means nothing.
- sigzero 16y ago"Apple is acting as a self-governing private regulator of a marketplace" No no, not "a marketplace". It is "their marketplace" and it is an "opt in" marketplace at that. There is zero reason to invite any kind of regulation into that.
- lwhi 16y agoIt's a privately regulated marketplace operating within the free-market. It seems quite obvious to me why this can prove to be problematic in many scenarios, but I understand why many would disagree.