3 ms·

I'm sorry you feel insulted when someone points out that you believe something which is patently false. >Most economic "laws" apply in competitive markets with

I'm sorry you feel insulted when someone points out that you believe something which is patently false. >Most economic "laws" apply in competitive markets with limited barriers to entry. It is hard to see how they apply even in an unregulated situation where infrastructure costs are so high and one market participant already has infrastructure in place. The problem here is certain city councils putting a price tag on the license to lay cable. Government creates a barrier to entry in order to aid Comcast's monopoly. All the laws of economics are intact and this isn't a problem of infrastructure costs. >There can be more than one problem. In your area regulation may be a significant part of the problem but in other places (e.g. Europe) regulation can really help in places to enable competition. Government is not a business. It does not enable competition ever. Maybe you feel better telling yourself such fairy tales but there is no example you can point to. People also generally believe things like that IP aids innovation, yet there is not a single study showing this and a bunch of studies showing it hampers innovation. IP is a state-granted monopoly over an idea/pattern/concept. When it is favorable to certain corrupt city councils, they aid Comcast's monopoly. I didn't mention it but the place I live now which also has no FIOS is Harrisburg, PA. This is the Detroit you never heard of with 7x the public debt per capita vs. Detroit. The long-time mayor took a bunch of loans for stuff like a Wild West museum and left the city crippled with debt. They are in the process of selling off assets to avoid bankruptcy. Same deal here as Baltimore, too expensive to play ball with the city council so it isn't worth it to get a license but FIOS is everywhere in surrounding municipalities.

josephlord 13y ago
I didn't feel insulted but you said that someone else must be off their rocker to believe something you think is wrong which is completely unnecessary. I don't disagree that government can make things worse or even that they may be the main problem in Baltimore and many areas. However I also believe that there can often be problems in unregulated infrastructure markets and also that government can help. Almost everyone in the UK has a choice of ADSL providers (and most now have the option of VDSL/FTTC from many providers at higher prices). It isn't perfect but the situation could be much worse. This is enabled by the regulation of the wholesale prices of BT Openreach, the arm of the former telephone monopoly company responsible for the lines. I offer this as an example of government enabling competition and a much better scenario than if the incumbent infrastructure owner could charge monopoly rents and only face competition in the highest density most lucrative areas at the cost of significant disruption as more companies dig up the roads. Bad government is bad and there are places even good government doesn't help much but that doesn't mean that government always makes things worse and less competitive. Don't forget that even in pure economic theory there are two "efficient" outcomes, perfect competition where the consumers obtain the entire surplus value and monopoly where the monopolist obtains the surplus.
- praxeologist 13y ago
  I don't think price fixing qualifies as enabling competition. You mention a choice of providers, versus I guess previously only having the choice of BT's monopoly? So, government already creates this telecom monopoly then breaks it up a bit, uh no that doesn't work at all sorry. Absent regulation, I have all the choice in the world.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    I think if a company wanted to compete with BT Openreach they can it is just impractical in most scenarios. There is also a cable company with its own infrastructure covering about half the country but they aren't interested in increasing coverage. Because the local loop is regulated you can then have competition at the level above that with different pricing and service offers, so you can choose BT or at very similar price a number of others or for a little more really good ones offering IPv6 and good support (within the limits of the Openreach managed lines). Is it perfect - definitely not but it is a hell of a lot better than the situation in much of the states and I believe than pure unregulated market in this sector.

josephlord 13y ago

I didn't feel insulted but you said that someone else must be off their rocker to believe something you think is wrong which is completely unnecessary. I don't disagree that government can make things worse or even that they may be the main problem in Baltimore and many areas. However I also believe that there can often be problems in unregulated infrastructure markets and also that government can help. Almost everyone in the UK has a choice of ADSL providers (and most now have the option of VDSL/FTTC from many providers at higher prices). It isn't perfect but the situation could be much worse. This is enabled by the regulation of the wholesale prices of BT Openreach, the arm of the former telephone monopoly company responsible for the lines. I offer this as an example of government enabling competition and a much better scenario than if the incumbent infrastructure owner could charge monopoly rents and only face competition in the highest density most lucrative areas at the cost of significant disruption as more companies dig up the roads. Bad government is bad and there are places even good government doesn't help much but that doesn't mean that government always makes things worse and less competitive. Don't forget that even in pure economic theory there are two "efficient" outcomes, perfect competition where the consumers obtain the entire surplus value and monopoly where the monopolist obtains the surplus.

praxeologist 13y ago
I don't think price fixing qualifies as enabling competition. You mention a choice of providers, versus I guess previously only having the choice of BT's monopoly? So, government already creates this telecom monopoly then breaks it up a bit, uh no that doesn't work at all sorry. Absent regulation, I have all the choice in the world.
- josephlord 13y ago
  I think if a company wanted to compete with BT Openreach they can it is just impractical in most scenarios. There is also a cable company with its own infrastructure covering about half the country but they aren't interested in increasing coverage. Because the local loop is regulated you can then have competition at the level above that with different pricing and service offers, so you can choose BT or at very similar price a number of others or for a little more really good ones offering IPv6 and good support (within the limits of the Openreach managed lines). Is it perfect - definitely not but it is a hell of a lot better than the situation in much of the states and I believe than pure unregulated market in this sector.