6 ms·

Government intervention is what gave providers local monopolies in the first place. More legislation from the federal and state level is not needed, unless it'

Government intervention is what gave providers local monopolies in the first place. More legislation from the federal and state level is not needed, unless it's literally "All local agreements are now null and void" which isn't even legal.

munk-a 5y ago
Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance - there certainly is poor spirited legislation that's designed to assist in market capture but there is a lot more legislation out there that's protecting small markets. Anarcho-libretarianism isn't the solution here and neither is rejecting balanced legislation out of a force of habit.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  > Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance "Constant government intervention" is incompatible with the definition (literally) of a free market.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Only the kind of free market that has no rules against fraud and robbery.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    This is just daft, is your idea of free markets the drug cartels of columbia? Because thats what you get wuthoit government intervention
    - nickysielicki 5y ago
      Hey, if you don't like free markets, that's fine, I'll respect your opinion. I'm just saying that: Oxford defines a free market as: "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Wikipedia defines it as: "a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities." Investopedia defines it as: "an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control." Words have meaning, god damn it.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        But that's just folks giving the benefit of the doubt to your earlier statement - the technical definition of a free market is incompatible with our modern society.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Words do have a meaning, so tell me what is "unrestricted competition"? Because columbian cartels think it means murdering your competitor along with his family. Is that too unrestricted for you? Okay, let's leave out murder. How about paying random people to leave bad reviews for your competitors. Or paying shops so they don't stock competitors products. Or agreeing with banks that your competitor should not get a loan. Or making a deal with railroads where they will only transport your product, and not your competitors? Because all of the above have happened. Is that "unrestricted"?
  - smolder 5y ago
    Anarchical, intervention-less markets are where cartels and monopolies form and destroy competition, and then there stops being anything free about it. By that strict definition of free markets, they are ephemeral, self-defeating things.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  Government intervention is only needed to settle disputes. Governments are already constantly intervening by barring isps other than eg Comcast from building. That government intervention has to stop. Government enacted monopolies are what caused the problem in the first place. Yes government has to act to stop it, but probably at the state level.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    That's a fun idea, but we're well past that now. In reality, monopolies do exist, and the government needs to step in to resolve the dispute the people in a given area now have with the monopoly for its anticompetitive practices. Also, infrastructure isn't easy to build and is oftentimes not even profitable. Are you suggesting only places where an ISP can make money should have Internet access?
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      ISPs are government-granted monopolies. It's so disappointing how many people here don't seem to understand that. Look up regulatory capture and then down vote me...
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        Yes, but the granting of monopoly status already happened, that part is over. You can't unring that bell, is my point.
        billytetrud 5y ago
        You absolutely can "unring that bell". You outlaw government granted monopolies
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        Sure, and you could murder all of the executives of ISPs to send a message to other ISPs about anti-competitive behavior. Anything is obviously possible, but no, you can't actually "unring" this bell.
- SlowRobotAhead 5y ago
  I’m not shitting on your comment, but are you saying “we need government involvement (regulatory oversight) to solve problems made from previous government involvement (poor spirited legislation)?” I don’t think anyone is suggesting no laws at all, but perhaps we can have some foresight and not legislate ourselves into oversight which will only make more legislation which will only make more... I’m happy to see municipal internet IF the service quality and price is competitive. While we’re dealing with the Verizon’s and Comcast’s of the world, this is usually working, what do we do when we’ve destroyed the market and the local service sucks?
takeda 5y ago
Actually government intervention is the only way to solve it. The problem is that in a city there's limited space to run the wires to each home. Also if you want to have 10 competitors is really silly to expect having 10 fiber optic cables going to every home when majority of people wouldn't use more than one ISP at the time. Then 9 fibers will be then unused and degrading. When Internet was reclassified to Title II, Wheeler specifically excluded Title II's provision that required existing ISPs to lease their infrastructure to competitors. Back in late 90s, early 2000s we had tons of ISPs to chose from, exactly because of that provision. This needs to change if we want to get competition back. Or we would need cities to build such infrastructure which is even harder and more expensive thing to do. Either way it requires government intervention.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  Limited space? For wires? You know how small wires are right?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    They probably won't share conduits, and probably just in case want more than one pair... So it does add up.
  - zaphar 5y ago
    For wires that need too run out in the elements around a quarter inch or higher, plus you need conduit, and backup wires. So about an inch or more with just naive napkin estimation. I'm probably underestimating it actually.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    Take away the government intervention and you take away the property easements that allow utilities to put up poles and run wires through yards, etc, to get to all the houses. Good luck with your "let everyone run their tiny wires wherever without the government being involved" plan. You've heard of NIMBYism, right? How many times do you think you'll be allowed to rip up the street?

munk-a 5y ago

Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance - there certainly is poor spirited legislation that's designed to assist in market capture but there is a lot more legislation out there that's protecting small markets. Anarcho-libretarianism isn't the solution here and neither is rejecting balanced legislation out of a force of habit.

nickysielicki 5y ago
> Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance "Constant government intervention" is incompatible with the definition (literally) of a free market.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Only the kind of free market that has no rules against fraud and robbery.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  This is just daft, is your idea of free markets the drug cartels of columbia? Because thats what you get wuthoit government intervention
  - nickysielicki 5y ago
    Hey, if you don't like free markets, that's fine, I'll respect your opinion. I'm just saying that: Oxford defines a free market as: "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Wikipedia defines it as: "a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities." Investopedia defines it as: "an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control." Words have meaning, god damn it.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      But that's just folks giving the benefit of the doubt to your earlier statement - the technical definition of a free market is incompatible with our modern society.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Words do have a meaning, so tell me what is "unrestricted competition"? Because columbian cartels think it means murdering your competitor along with his family. Is that too unrestricted for you? Okay, let's leave out murder. How about paying random people to leave bad reviews for your competitors. Or paying shops so they don't stock competitors products. Or agreeing with banks that your competitor should not get a loan. Or making a deal with railroads where they will only transport your product, and not your competitors? Because all of the above have happened. Is that "unrestricted"?
- smolder 5y ago
  Anarchical, intervention-less markets are where cartels and monopolies form and destroy competition, and then there stops being anything free about it. By that strict definition of free markets, they are ephemeral, self-defeating things.
billytetrud 5y ago
Government intervention is only needed to settle disputes. Governments are already constantly intervening by barring isps other than eg Comcast from building. That government intervention has to stop. Government enacted monopolies are what caused the problem in the first place. Yes government has to act to stop it, but probably at the state level.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  That's a fun idea, but we're well past that now. In reality, monopolies do exist, and the government needs to step in to resolve the dispute the people in a given area now have with the monopoly for its anticompetitive practices. Also, infrastructure isn't easy to build and is oftentimes not even profitable. Are you suggesting only places where an ISP can make money should have Internet access?
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    ISPs are government-granted monopolies. It's so disappointing how many people here don't seem to understand that. Look up regulatory capture and then down vote me...
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Yes, but the granting of monopoly status already happened, that part is over. You can't unring that bell, is my point.
      - billytetrud 5y ago
        You absolutely can "unring that bell". You outlaw government granted monopolies
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        Sure, and you could murder all of the executives of ISPs to send a message to other ISPs about anti-competitive behavior. Anything is obviously possible, but no, you can't actually "unring" this bell.
SlowRobotAhead 5y ago
I’m not shitting on your comment, but are you saying “we need government involvement (regulatory oversight) to solve problems made from previous government involvement (poor spirited legislation)?” I don’t think anyone is suggesting no laws at all, but perhaps we can have some foresight and not legislate ourselves into oversight which will only make more legislation which will only make more... I’m happy to see municipal internet IF the service quality and price is competitive. While we’re dealing with the Verizon’s and Comcast’s of the world, this is usually working, what do we do when we’ve destroyed the market and the local service sucks?

takeda 5y ago

Actually government intervention is the only way to solve it. The problem is that in a city there's limited space to run the wires to each home. Also if you want to have 10 competitors is really silly to expect having 10 fiber optic cables going to every home when majority of people wouldn't use more than one ISP at the time. Then 9 fibers will be then unused and degrading. When Internet was reclassified to Title II, Wheeler specifically excluded Title II's provision that required existing ISPs to lease their infrastructure to competitors. Back in late 90s, early 2000s we had tons of ISPs to chose from, exactly because of that provision. This needs to change if we want to get competition back. Or we would need cities to build such infrastructure which is even harder and more expensive thing to do. Either way it requires government intervention.

billytetrud 5y ago
Limited space? For wires? You know how small wires are right?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  They probably won't share conduits, and probably just in case want more than one pair... So it does add up.
- zaphar 5y ago
  For wires that need too run out in the elements around a quarter inch or higher, plus you need conduit, and backup wires. So about an inch or more with just naive napkin estimation. I'm probably underestimating it actually.
- majormajor 5y ago
  Take away the government intervention and you take away the property easements that allow utilities to put up poles and run wires through yards, etc, to get to all the houses. Good luck with your "let everyone run their tiny wires wherever without the government being involved" plan. You've heard of NIMBYism, right? How many times do you think you'll be allowed to rip up the street?