4 ms·

Nope, you can’t the-free-market-will-fix-everything this one. The telco lobbyists wrote the government regulations. Wireless is slow and coverage is spotty. Sat

Nope, you can’t the-free-market-will-fix-everything this one. The telco lobbyists wrote the government regulations. Wireless is slow and coverage is spotty. Satellite is unreliable, expensive, and has a fixed latency cost that can’t be eliminated.

gustavus 3y ago
> Nope, you can’t the-free-market-will-fix-everything this one. The telco lobbyists wrote the government regulations Just a point of clarification, the free market generally means independence from government regulation. This isn't the free market failing so much as incumbents using the power of government to force their advantage, part of the argument of the free market is that by not allowing the government to interfere in this manner no one can get laws written to benefit them because the government doesn't get involved in the first place. Now granted that's in a frictionless airless world with spherical cows. But to say the free market failed and the very next sentence say it is because of regulation from the government is oxymoronic.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  Even in this version of the free market, monopoly is still the incentive and end goal. Eventually, either a single player wins out (possibly by buying or merging with previous competitors) or a few big players agree that colluding with each other is more profitable then competing (remember there is no government interfering in this free market to prevent this). Once this happens, new players won't enter the market because they can immediately be crushed by the incumbent. So either way, monopoly is the inevitable end point.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Monopoly is only an incentive if it is clear that it will be permitted.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
      But it always is though. In a government regulated economy, there is regulatory capture and lobbying to create industry friendly laws that allow monopoly (aka our current system). In a fully free market, then there is no laws to prevent monopoly. And by monopoly, I am also referring to systems where there are a few big players that just don't compete against one another, or one where there is a big player and a few small but inconsequential players. All of these result in the same effect as plain monopoly.
      - simfree 3y ago
        Especially with natural monopolies like infrastructure, there is no economic case to overbuild most power grids, water/sewer districts, Telecom infrastructure or natural gas networks regardless of regulation. The rare times you see overbuilding there is always a scheme involved, whether it's Comcast's recent edge outs to appear as though they aren't bleeding internet customers, or government money incentivising an overbuild cause the current ISP didn't document that they serve a set of addresses.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  The definition of "a free market" you're offering here is one that has never existed. So we can either talk about the free markets we have (which compared to markets in other places and at other times are stupendously free) or we can talk about, yes, spherical cows.
skidd0 3y ago
> The telco lobbyists wrote the government regulations. This is the issue. There isn't a free market in this (or many) sectors because of regulatory capture. If that were gone, if competition was even possible, then we would see improvement.
- simfree 3y ago
  We wouldn't necessarily see improvement, especially in a deregulated Telecom environment where you order new service and the technician gets you installed but knocks your neighbors on a competitor out of service, resulting in them scheduling a tech who knocks you out of service. Physical networks like this also clutter up the skies or create areas you can't dig in, and accrue damage while decreasing in value each year until they are abandoned or upgraded. Abandoned Telecom infrastructure is a serious issue all its own as well, no one wants legacy unused cabling running under their streets or in their building.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

gustavus 3y ago

> Nope, you can’t the-free-market-will-fix-everything this one. The telco lobbyists wrote the government regulations Just a point of clarification, the free market generally means independence from government regulation. This isn't the free market failing so much as incumbents using the power of government to force their advantage, part of the argument of the free market is that by not allowing the government to interfere in this manner no one can get laws written to benefit them because the government doesn't get involved in the first place. Now granted that's in a frictionless airless world with spherical cows. But to say the free market failed and the very next sentence say it is because of regulation from the government is oxymoronic.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
Even in this version of the free market, monopoly is still the incentive and end goal. Eventually, either a single player wins out (possibly by buying or merging with previous competitors) or a few big players agree that colluding with each other is more profitable then competing (remember there is no government interfering in this free market to prevent this). Once this happens, new players won't enter the market because they can immediately be crushed by the incumbent. So either way, monopoly is the inevitable end point.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Monopoly is only an incentive if it is clear that it will be permitted.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    But it always is though. In a government regulated economy, there is regulatory capture and lobbying to create industry friendly laws that allow monopoly (aka our current system). In a fully free market, then there is no laws to prevent monopoly. And by monopoly, I am also referring to systems where there are a few big players that just don't compete against one another, or one where there is a big player and a few small but inconsequential players. All of these result in the same effect as plain monopoly.
    - simfree 3y ago
      Especially with natural monopolies like infrastructure, there is no economic case to overbuild most power grids, water/sewer districts, Telecom infrastructure or natural gas networks regardless of regulation. The rare times you see overbuilding there is always a scheme involved, whether it's Comcast's recent edge outs to appear as though they aren't bleeding internet customers, or government money incentivising an overbuild cause the current ISP didn't document that they serve a set of addresses.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
The definition of "a free market" you're offering here is one that has never existed. So we can either talk about the free markets we have (which compared to markets in other places and at other times are stupendously free) or we can talk about, yes, spherical cows.

skidd0 3y ago

> The telco lobbyists wrote the government regulations. This is the issue. There isn't a free market in this (or many) sectors because of regulatory capture. If that were gone, if competition was even possible, then we would see improvement.

simfree 3y ago
We wouldn't necessarily see improvement, especially in a deregulated Telecom environment where you order new service and the technician gets you installed but knocks your neighbors on a competitor out of service, resulting in them scheduling a tech who knocks you out of service. Physical networks like this also clutter up the skies or create areas you can't dig in, and accrue damage while decreasing in value each year until they are abandoned or upgraded. Abandoned Telecom infrastructure is a serious issue all its own as well, no one wants legacy unused cabling running under their streets or in their building.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]