4 ms·

Applying Kushnick logic to another industry: if Apple raises prices on Macs and uses that cash to bankroll iPhone development, well that's something that requir

by zorpner 12y ago

Applying Kushnick logic to another industry: if Apple raises prices on Macs and uses that cash to bankroll iPhone development, well that's something that requires a federal investigation. This isn't a good analogy -- if Apple had been granted use of public goods (rights-of-way, airwaves, and local/regional monopolies on service) in exchange for guarantees of service, raising their prices on such a service to fund another segment of the company would absolutely require investigation.

rayiner 12y ago
Verizon paid for its wireless spectrum, it lost its local monopolies pursuant to the 1996 deregulation, and in most places, it pays the local power company for access to utility poles. E.g. here in Baltimore, it's BGE that owns the poles, not Verizon.
- zorpner 12y ago
  I've been part of an ISP startup -- go find out what happens if you try to pay the local power company for access to utility poles. A de facto monopoly is still a monopoly. You can't "purchase" a public good like a segment of the wireless spectrum and do with it whatever you please. Exclusive access to that segment can be granted to you in exchange for money by the government, and it comes with many conditions.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > You can't "purchase" a public good Sure you can. Indeed, one of the dominant theories of contemporary economics is that market failures in public goods should be handled by turning them into property rights and privatizing them.
    - zorpner 12y ago
      Take my statement as shorthand for "I don't believe that it's possible to purchase a public good and the economic theory that public goods should be privatized is legitimate only insofar as it would lead to desirable revolution". I'm happy to disagree, though -- it's not exactly a settled question and I doubt either of us are going to convince the other during this conversation.
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      Dominant among whom? People who want to gut public institutions and "The Commons" and carve up the spoils like post-Soviet kleptocrats for their own personal gain? There is a large population of people (including many economists) who DON'T subscribe to your supposedly "dominant" theory.
- warfangle 12y ago
  > it pays the local power company for access to utility poles. That power company is required to permit pole attachment for telecommunications (but not necessarily broadband internet service) companies, according to Title II.

by zorpner 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Verizon paid for its wireless spectrum, it lost its local monopolies pursuant to the 1996 deregulation, and in most places, it pays the local power company for access to utility poles. E.g. here in Baltimore, it's BGE that owns the poles, not Verizon.

zorpner 12y ago
I've been part of an ISP startup -- go find out what happens if you try to pay the local power company for access to utility poles. A de facto monopoly is still a monopoly. You can't "purchase" a public good like a segment of the wireless spectrum and do with it whatever you please. Exclusive access to that segment can be granted to you in exchange for money by the government, and it comes with many conditions.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > You can't "purchase" a public good Sure you can. Indeed, one of the dominant theories of contemporary economics is that market failures in public goods should be handled by turning them into property rights and privatizing them.
  - zorpner 12y ago
    Take my statement as shorthand for "I don't believe that it's possible to purchase a public good and the economic theory that public goods should be privatized is legitimate only insofar as it would lead to desirable revolution". I'm happy to disagree, though -- it's not exactly a settled question and I doubt either of us are going to convince the other during this conversation.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    Dominant among whom? People who want to gut public institutions and "The Commons" and carve up the spoils like post-Soviet kleptocrats for their own personal gain? There is a large population of people (including many economists) who DON'T subscribe to your supposedly "dominant" theory.
warfangle 12y ago
> it pays the local power company for access to utility poles. That power company is required to permit pole attachment for telecommunications (but not necessarily broadband internet service) companies, according to Title II.