4 ms·

This is what frustrated me the most with some of my friends "free market" arguments when net neutrality was in the news. I am also a believer in the invisible

by djaque 6y ago

This is what frustrated me the most with some of my friends "free market" arguments when net neutrality was in the news. I am also a believer in the invisible hand, but it doesn't work when I can literally only choose from one provider.

pascalxus 6y ago
it's not the invisible hand's fault when that hand is tied behind it's back. there's so many politicians that have been creating legislation that prevents new entrants from coming into the market with regulatory capture. that's not a free market.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > there's so many politicians that have been creating legislation that prevents new entrants from coming into the market with regulatory capture. Politicians paid for by the incumbents. Not everywhere though: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_Infrastructure_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In... * https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-if-switching-fiber-isps-was-as-easy-as-clicking-a-mouse/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-...
- msla 6y ago
  The fact it's impossible for everyone to build cable everywhere means it isn't a free market.
  - posguy 6y ago
    The cost of the labor to build and maintain said cable makes it economically infeasible for a second ISP to build out service in many areas of the US. Permissive regulation will only enable competition in urban cores, as being a 3rd or 4th provider in suburban areas is not profitable. Some areas have so few possible customers per mile that a fiber build by the incumbent provider would not break even for decades even with an 80% take rate by every building passed.
    - msla 6y ago
      Just so we're no longer talking around the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly > A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors. This frequently occurs in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity.[1] Natural monopolies were recognized as potential sources of market failure as early as the 19th century; John Stuart Mill advocated government regulation to make them serve the public good. ... and suffice it to say, I agree wit John Stuart Mill.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  it's not the invisible hand's fault when that hand is tied behind it's back. There is no real way "untie" this hand in this case. The regulatory pseudo-markets that governments impose are often presented as "deregulation" but they aren't that. They're just a different kind of regulation. However, both companies and politicians put forward the claim that these pseudo-markets make their players "private enterprise" and so-absolved from responsibility to the public but that's a self-serving fiction.
donatj 6y ago
How much of that comes down to municipalities not allowing competition on the poles though?
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  When a municipality is "not allowing competition on the poles", that doesn't the municipality is standing in the way of a natural free market. The act described as "allowing competition on the poles" is actually an act of regulation. It is telling whoever owns the poles what to do (even if that whoever is the municipality). This is no more "opening up to the free market" than if someone owns some land and a regulator says "you have to allow other people's cattle to graze here and must charge what we consider a fair price". --> This isn't to say free markets are the best or that we should unregulated natural monopolies in the name of private property. Rather, regulatory pseudo-markets often wind-up just as shams to allow effective monopolies without implied responsibility to the public that a regulated monopoly has.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    I would love for the US telecommunications industry to be deregulated, but until that happens most are living under a government mandated monopoly, or a duopoly if you’re lucky. The government is regulating it, why should we tolerate regulations that are not in the interests of cheap reliable and available internet?
    - FactolSarin 6y ago
      In most states there's no legal monopoly. It's just there's a high barrier to entry for new providers. This is what an unregulated market looks like
robbyt 6y ago
"free market" is a lie that republicans tell their children.

by djaque 6y ago

pascalxus 6y ago

it's not the invisible hand's fault when that hand is tied behind it's back. there's so many politicians that have been creating legislation that prevents new entrants from coming into the market with regulatory capture. that's not a free market.

throw0101a 6y ago
> there's so many politicians that have been creating legislation that prevents new entrants from coming into the market with regulatory capture. Politicians paid for by the incumbents. Not everywhere though: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_Infrastructure_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In... * https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-if-switching-fiber-isps-was-as-easy-as-clicking-a-mouse/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-...
msla 6y ago
The fact it's impossible for everyone to build cable everywhere means it isn't a free market.
- posguy 6y ago
  The cost of the labor to build and maintain said cable makes it economically infeasible for a second ISP to build out service in many areas of the US. Permissive regulation will only enable competition in urban cores, as being a 3rd or 4th provider in suburban areas is not profitable. Some areas have so few possible customers per mile that a fiber build by the incumbent provider would not break even for decades even with an 80% take rate by every building passed.
  - msla 6y ago
    Just so we're no longer talking around the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly > A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors. This frequently occurs in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity.[1] Natural monopolies were recognized as potential sources of market failure as early as the 19th century; John Stuart Mill advocated government regulation to make them serve the public good. ... and suffice it to say, I agree wit John Stuart Mill.
joe_the_user 6y ago
it's not the invisible hand's fault when that hand is tied behind it's back. There is no real way "untie" this hand in this case. The regulatory pseudo-markets that governments impose are often presented as "deregulation" but they aren't that. They're just a different kind of regulation. However, both companies and politicians put forward the claim that these pseudo-markets make their players "private enterprise" and so-absolved from responsibility to the public but that's a self-serving fiction.

donatj 6y ago

How much of that comes down to municipalities not allowing competition on the poles though?

joe_the_user 6y ago
When a municipality is "not allowing competition on the poles", that doesn't the municipality is standing in the way of a natural free market. The act described as "allowing competition on the poles" is actually an act of regulation. It is telling whoever owns the poles what to do (even if that whoever is the municipality). This is no more "opening up to the free market" than if someone owns some land and a regulator says "you have to allow other people's cattle to graze here and must charge what we consider a fair price". --> This isn't to say free markets are the best or that we should unregulated natural monopolies in the name of private property. Rather, regulatory pseudo-markets often wind-up just as shams to allow effective monopolies without implied responsibility to the public that a regulated monopoly has.
- xnyan 6y ago
  I would love for the US telecommunications industry to be deregulated, but until that happens most are living under a government mandated monopoly, or a duopoly if you’re lucky. The government is regulating it, why should we tolerate regulations that are not in the interests of cheap reliable and available internet?
  - FactolSarin 6y ago
    In most states there's no legal monopoly. It's just there's a high barrier to entry for new providers. This is what an unregulated market looks like

robbyt 6y ago

"free market" is a lie that republicans tell their children.