3 ms·

I'm by no means an economic expert, but more of these discussions need more discussion about "natural monopoly" anyone here against the idea that the last-mile

by pyvpx 12y ago

I'm by no means an economic expert, but more of these discussions need more discussion about "natural monopoly" anyone here against the idea that the last-mile/access network is a natural monopoly?

josu 12y ago
The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a 'natural' monopoly has ever existed http://mises.org/daily/5266/ http://mises.org/daily/5266/
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 12y ago
  Thomas DiLorenzo is indeed an economist who holds that view, but my impression is that the view is relatively unusual and not widely shared in the profession.
  - josu 12y ago
    Yes, you are right, not many economists share this view.
adventured 12y ago
I believe competition for economic services is always a good thing. The challenge is establishing a framework that encourages that, in a way that functions, especially when you have a very regulated economy in general that you then have to dance around every step of the way to get something done. Working within what's realistically possible (a free market in telecom services is impossible in the US), I find the idea of the government owning the last mile and renting it out to competition to be interesting. The companies pay a toll to provide services over it (internet, phone, tv, whatever), the government is charged with then putting that money back into upgrading the infrastructure. It would be open to any company, and no law should be allowed to be passed barring open competition. With Comcast now a government protected monopoly, deeply in bed with all the right politicians, much like Verizon and AT&T, this scenario is impossible at scale (it would take decades of local munis building out their own networks to dent the Comcast monopoly, and Comcast will fight them every step of the way). When your market system is broken by regulation and entrenched lobbying, and compromised by an existing protected monopoly (Comcast), you only have two choices: either fight your way back to a free market system, or demolish the broken half-way system and institute a better managed system ideally with competition. This is the exact same scenario that was faced in the healthcare market, and for the exact same reasons in principle. Half-way systems are more often terrible than not in my opinion, you tend to get the worst of both worlds.

by pyvpx 12y ago

I'm by no means an economic expert, but more of these discussions need more discussion about "natural monopoly" anyone here against the idea that the last-mile/access network is a natural monopoly?

josu 12y ago

The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a 'natural' monopoly has ever existed http://mises.org/daily/5266/ http://mises.org/daily/5266/

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 12y ago
Thomas DiLorenzo is indeed an economist who holds that view, but my impression is that the view is relatively unusual and not widely shared in the profession.
- josu 12y ago
  Yes, you are right, not many economists share this view.

adventured 12y ago

I believe competition for economic services is always a good thing. The challenge is establishing a framework that encourages that, in a way that functions, especially when you have a very regulated economy in general that you then have to dance around every step of the way to get something done. Working within what's realistically possible (a free market in telecom services is impossible in the US), I find the idea of the government owning the last mile and renting it out to competition to be interesting. The companies pay a toll to provide services over it (internet, phone, tv, whatever), the government is charged with then putting that money back into upgrading the infrastructure. It would be open to any company, and no law should be allowed to be passed barring open competition. With Comcast now a government protected monopoly, deeply in bed with all the right politicians, much like Verizon and AT&T, this scenario is impossible at scale (it would take decades of local munis building out their own networks to dent the Comcast monopoly, and Comcast will fight them every step of the way). When your market system is broken by regulation and entrenched lobbying, and compromised by an existing protected monopoly (Comcast), you only have two choices: either fight your way back to a free market system, or demolish the broken half-way system and institute a better managed system ideally with competition. This is the exact same scenario that was faced in the healthcare market, and for the exact same reasons in principle. Half-way systems are more often terrible than not in my opinion, you tend to get the worst of both worlds.