4 ms·

Seems like the CRTC needs to find a way to remain relevant. This is central planning, socialist style. I hope everyone enjoys it.

by yoyar 16y ago

coryl 16y ago
Uhh, not quite socialist, very much capitalist. This is poor regulation of a growing industry monopolized by the huge corps that own cable and phoneline infrastructure. They've somehow lobbied and convinced our government to allow them to charge us up the ass for 'overages'.
- swaits 16y ago
  That still doesn't sound like a free market to me. Very much capitalist?
  - DougBTX 16y ago
    Free market capitalism is a subset of capitalism. You can be capitalist without being free market, for example when one company holds a monopoly.
    - swaits 16y ago
      Umm, whatev. Allowing the market to set prices is a core tenet of capitalism. This Canadian ISP thing is certainly not "very much capitalist". Not in any way. I'm not looking for a flamegasm here, so this is my final reply to this thread. Peace.
- jt2190 16y ago
  Yes, this is lobbying out of control. It was this kind of thing that caused me to move to the United States... How was I supposed to build a career in high-tech when Canadian high-tech companies were at a terrible disadvantage compared to their U.S. competitors? The country is full of very bright, talented people with initiative and drive, and it's squandered.
- yoyar 16y ago
  This is why I wrote the comment in the manner that I did. There is an ongoing confusion about what is the free market and what is corporatism/fascism. The free market provides for free competition between individuals where all transactions are voluntary and no force is used to interfere with any interactions between parties. In a corporatist/fascist environment the government uses force to interfere in nearly all aspects of the market. In fascism, corporations end up in bed with the government and the corps use that power to get what they want while the government sells the idea by using propaganda to fool people into thinking that "it's all for your own good". When the government is in charge of setting rates for internet access this is the farthest thing in the world from a free market. What it is, is soviet style socialist central planning. But there seems to be a strong desire to blame the free market for all woes, despite the obvious government interference in all aspects of these interactions. What is free about having the government set the policies for internet charges? In a free market the government wouldn't be involved at all, and the rates would be determined via competition. Take a look at markets that are relatively more free, such as the cell phone market and the market for computer chips. Quality and features improve while prices go down over time. When I admire my HTC Android phone I marvel at the quality and features and the amazing technology. This is the result of healthy competition. Take a look at markets where the government is involved such as health care. Quality and choice are reduced while prices go through the roof. (and no, that's not going to change with "obamacare") Please don't confuse markets that are highly regulated and controlled by the government with free markets. They are polar opposites.
  - uytrtyui 16y ago
    >such as the cell phone market Not in Canada - same two monopoly suppliers. Means you get the iPhone 18months after the US, kindle 2 years later, still can't get skypein etc.
    - yoyar 16y ago
      I was referring to the hardware. Not the set of supplier corporations that are intertwined with the state.
    - noarchy 16y ago
- nirav 16y ago
  There's no "somehow", it is almost like telecom companies can force govt to form regulations in their interest.
  - hexis 16y ago
    Not "almost like", it's exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
jaysoo 16y ago
If this was socialism then either the government or the public would own Bell/Rogers/Telus. This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you would call it.
- ascuttlefish 16y ago
  Regulatory capture?
- yoyar 16y ago
  Corporatism.
- jmaygarden 16y ago
  Tyranny? ;)
- nirav 16y ago
  This is called Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly in half-assed capitalism. Note that this can be worse than monopoly because few competitors can essentially create informal cartels.
  - yoyar 16y ago
    If there is an Oligopoly, then how has this occurred? What entity is there providing the conditions for the Oligopoly to exist and persist? If there were not government interference via the CRTC we would have open competition. But we don't because the CRTC is there. And they have the power to make sure that no real competition can take hold. Where does this lead us? Straight back to corporatism (the government and corporations are in bed together) - Let's not use the term capitalism anywhere in this context.
  - shawnee_ 16y ago
    Yup. What frequently happens is that companies in an Oligopoly are able to collude to raise the barriers of entry, keeping out new competitors: sometimes with "help" of government regulations, sometimes because of lack of government regulation. As long as there are only a couple of them (< 4 controlling > 80 percent of the industry), they can keep prices artificially higher than they need to be. When there's no actual competition and little threat of new competitors entering the market, their incentive to innovate or become more efficient is diminished. Consumers end up paying too much for mediocre goods/services.

Seems like the CRTC needs to find a way to remain relevant. This is central planning, socialist style. I hope everyone enjoys it.

by yoyar 16y ago

Seems like the CRTC needs to find a way to remain relevant. This is central planning, socialist style. I hope everyone enjoys it.

coryl 16y ago

Uhh, not quite socialist, very much capitalist. This is poor regulation of a growing industry monopolized by the huge corps that own cable and phoneline infrastructure. They've somehow lobbied and convinced our government to allow them to charge us up the ass for 'overages'.

swaits 16y ago
That still doesn't sound like a free market to me. Very much capitalist?
- DougBTX 16y ago
  Free market capitalism is a subset of capitalism. You can be capitalist without being free market, for example when one company holds a monopoly.
  - swaits 16y ago
    Umm, whatev. Allowing the market to set prices is a core tenet of capitalism. This Canadian ISP thing is certainly not "very much capitalist". Not in any way. I'm not looking for a flamegasm here, so this is my final reply to this thread. Peace.
jt2190 16y ago
Yes, this is lobbying out of control. It was this kind of thing that caused me to move to the United States... How was I supposed to build a career in high-tech when Canadian high-tech companies were at a terrible disadvantage compared to their U.S. competitors? The country is full of very bright, talented people with initiative and drive, and it's squandered.
yoyar 16y ago
This is why I wrote the comment in the manner that I did. There is an ongoing confusion about what is the free market and what is corporatism/fascism. The free market provides for free competition between individuals where all transactions are voluntary and no force is used to interfere with any interactions between parties. In a corporatist/fascist environment the government uses force to interfere in nearly all aspects of the market. In fascism, corporations end up in bed with the government and the corps use that power to get what they want while the government sells the idea by using propaganda to fool people into thinking that "it's all for your own good". When the government is in charge of setting rates for internet access this is the farthest thing in the world from a free market. What it is, is soviet style socialist central planning. But there seems to be a strong desire to blame the free market for all woes, despite the obvious government interference in all aspects of these interactions. What is free about having the government set the policies for internet charges? In a free market the government wouldn't be involved at all, and the rates would be determined via competition. Take a look at markets that are relatively more free, such as the cell phone market and the market for computer chips. Quality and features improve while prices go down over time. When I admire my HTC Android phone I marvel at the quality and features and the amazing technology. This is the result of healthy competition. Take a look at markets where the government is involved such as health care. Quality and choice are reduced while prices go through the roof. (and no, that's not going to change with "obamacare") Please don't confuse markets that are highly regulated and controlled by the government with free markets. They are polar opposites.
- uytrtyui 16y ago
  >such as the cell phone market Not in Canada - same two monopoly suppliers. Means you get the iPhone 18months after the US, kindle 2 years later, still can't get skypein etc.
  - yoyar 16y ago
    I was referring to the hardware. Not the set of supplier corporations that are intertwined with the state.
  - noarchy 16y ago
nirav 16y ago
There's no "somehow", it is almost like telecom companies can force govt to form regulations in their interest.
- hexis 16y ago
  Not "almost like", it's exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

jaysoo 16y ago

If this was socialism then either the government or the public would own Bell/Rogers/Telus. This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you would call it.

ascuttlefish 16y ago
Regulatory capture?
yoyar 16y ago
Corporatism.
jmaygarden 16y ago
Tyranny? ;)
nirav 16y ago
This is called Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly in half-assed capitalism. Note that this can be worse than monopoly because few competitors can essentially create informal cartels.
- yoyar 16y ago
  If there is an Oligopoly, then how has this occurred? What entity is there providing the conditions for the Oligopoly to exist and persist? If there were not government interference via the CRTC we would have open competition. But we don't because the CRTC is there. And they have the power to make sure that no real competition can take hold. Where does this lead us? Straight back to corporatism (the government and corporations are in bed together) - Let's not use the term capitalism anywhere in this context.
- shawnee_ 16y ago
  Yup. What frequently happens is that companies in an Oligopoly are able to collude to raise the barriers of entry, keeping out new competitors: sometimes with "help" of government regulations, sometimes because of lack of government regulation. As long as there are only a couple of them (< 4 controlling > 80 percent of the industry), they can keep prices artificially higher than they need to be. When there's no actual competition and little threat of new competitors entering the market, their incentive to innovate or become more efficient is diminished. Consumers end up paying too much for mediocre goods/services.