5 ms·

>As a libertarian who knows tech, I'm on the government's side here That's an oxymoron. The core reason internet service sucks for the vast majority of Americ

by ancap 12y ago

>As a libertarian who knows tech, I'm on the government's side here That's an oxymoron. The core reason internet service sucks for the vast majority of Americans is because state and local governments grant monopoly status to the ISP cartels. This move by the FCC does nothing to remedy that and consequently will not solve the problem. If they require higher "standard" of internet without doing away with the monopolies, for the vast majority of people this will only mean a higher bill.

dublinben 12y ago
There are no government granted ISP monopolies.
- magila 12y ago
  There are no de jure ISP monopolies, but municipalities routinely demand franchise terms which only the incumbent provider could possibly satisfy (100% coverage, large up-front fees, etc).
  - Retra 12y ago
    This reminds me of how a military contracts are assigned: Write a spec of what you need, and have companies bid to meet it. Unfortunately, if a company gets a good connection, they can just have the spec drafted in such a way that only that company could meet it. And thus, corruption.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Some companies write narrowly defined job requirements.
cbd1984 12y ago
Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly?
- ancap 12y ago
  >Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? I am not aware of any. >Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly? No, otherwise the "natural monopoly" existed before the first company ever laid cables.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    >> Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? > I am not aware of any. I think, judging by your username (ancap), you are philosophically opposed to the concept, because the existence of natural monopolies would represent a failure of the pure free market capitalism you promote. I doubt I will convince you, and I doubt anyone else here needs to be convinced that natural monopolies exist. >> Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly? > No, otherwise the "natural monopoly" existed before the first company ever laid cables. This simply does not make sense, which is further evidence that you're opposed to the concept. The high fixed costs of the laying of the cables relative to the small marginal cost of adding a new subscriber once cables have been laid is what creates a natural monopoly in this context. The massive economies of scale which are only available to the company which already has the cables laid make it infeasible for a new company to lay its own cables; that's how a natural monopoly is enforced. Therefore, it's nonsense to imagine the monopoly existed before the cable was laid.
    - ancap 12y ago
      >I doubt I will convince you, and I doubt anyone else here needs to be convinced that natural monopolies exist. You won't even try to provide an example? Perhaps it is not I who is "philosophically opposed to the concept". >This simply does not make sense, which is further evidence that you're opposed to the concept. The high fixed costs of the laying of the cables relative to the small marginal cost of adding a new subscriber once cables have been laid is what creates a natural monopoly in this context. The massive economies of scale which are only available to the company which already has the cables laid make it infeasible for a new company to lay its own cables; that's how a natural monopoly is enforced. You asked whether the cost of laying cables makes a company a monopoly. The question itself demonstrates "nonsense". If the cost of laying cables is an inhibiting factor for the first company, then it is also the inhibiting factor for any companies which follow. The cost of adding new subscribers is irrelevant. If the first company is not meeting the demands of the customer then the conditions are ripe for a competitor.

by ancap 12y ago

dublinben 12y ago

There are no government granted ISP monopolies.

magila 12y ago
There are no de jure ISP monopolies, but municipalities routinely demand franchise terms which only the incumbent provider could possibly satisfy (100% coverage, large up-front fees, etc).
- Retra 12y ago
  This reminds me of how a military contracts are assigned: Write a spec of what you need, and have companies bid to meet it. Unfortunately, if a company gets a good connection, they can just have the spec drafted in such a way that only that company could meet it. And thus, corruption.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Some companies write narrowly defined job requirements.

cbd1984 12y ago

Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly?

ancap 12y ago
>Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? I am not aware of any. >Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly? No, otherwise the "natural monopoly" existed before the first company ever laid cables.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  >> Do you think there is any such thing as a natural monopoly? > I am not aware of any. I think, judging by your username (ancap), you are philosophically opposed to the concept, because the existence of natural monopolies would represent a failure of the pure free market capitalism you promote. I doubt I will convince you, and I doubt anyone else here needs to be convinced that natural monopolies exist. >> Do you think the cost inherent in laying cables makes the entity that owns the cables a natural monopoly? > No, otherwise the "natural monopoly" existed before the first company ever laid cables. This simply does not make sense, which is further evidence that you're opposed to the concept. The high fixed costs of the laying of the cables relative to the small marginal cost of adding a new subscriber once cables have been laid is what creates a natural monopoly in this context. The massive economies of scale which are only available to the company which already has the cables laid make it infeasible for a new company to lay its own cables; that's how a natural monopoly is enforced. Therefore, it's nonsense to imagine the monopoly existed before the cable was laid.
  - ancap 12y ago
    >I doubt I will convince you, and I doubt anyone else here needs to be convinced that natural monopolies exist. You won't even try to provide an example? Perhaps it is not I who is "philosophically opposed to the concept". >This simply does not make sense, which is further evidence that you're opposed to the concept. The high fixed costs of the laying of the cables relative to the small marginal cost of adding a new subscriber once cables have been laid is what creates a natural monopoly in this context. The massive economies of scale which are only available to the company which already has the cables laid make it infeasible for a new company to lay its own cables; that's how a natural monopoly is enforced. You asked whether the cost of laying cables makes a company a monopoly. The question itself demonstrates "nonsense". If the cost of laying cables is an inhibiting factor for the first company, then it is also the inhibiting factor for any companies which follow. The cost of adding new subscribers is irrelevant. If the first company is not meeting the demands of the customer then the conditions are ripe for a competitor.