23 ms·

I cannot disagree more with you. Why do most people only have one choice of cable provider? Because the government gave the cable providers local monopolies.

I cannot disagree more with you. Why do most people only have one choice of cable provider? Because the government gave the cable providers local monopolies. So we're stuck, until new technology is rolled out that hasn't been denoted to one company. The best way to manage this problem would be to say that: 1. The individual owns the line from their house to the street (it is managed by their provider). 2. Any provider can run cables on the street (they must share access to telephone polls etc since they get a right of way from the government they must share. The key is to always keep things free and competitive and not have bureaucrats making deals that hurt everyone in the long run.

krschultz 17y ago
That works in valueable markets that are cheap to build up infrastructure - almost everyone in the suburbs of large cities have a choice of DSL vs Cable at least. But it doesn't work in cities where there simply is not the room to let people run cable at will (in NYC it is BRUTAL to get internet installed even something like commercial ADSL or T1 lines are a bitch because of the massive amount of underground infrastructure already). And it doesn't work in areas where it is less profitable becuase the area is more rural. So the government is basically making it more expensive for people in the suburbs to support those in the rural areas so that the economy as a whole is more efficient since everyone will have better access to the internet. The "bureaucrats making deals that hurt everyone" is a strawman. Why would anyone do something that hurts everyone? Underneith the surface there is a non-obvious reason for a lot of policies but when viewed on a macro scale make a lot of sense. I feel like a lot of anti-government arguements boil down to "I set the limits on the economic value of a government action solely on what it does to my direct taxation and fees", rather than looking at the whole picture. As a programmer is it better to pay a bit more for internet but have a larger market to sell to, or pay slightly less for internet but have significantly fewer customers? The question becomes - how best can we provide the internet connection people demand in this country for the least amount of money? Somehow running fiber twice in one town and not at all in another doesn't seem like the best position. I think the solution is to make the system completely free market and competitive in a lot of areas where it works, and completely government subsidized areas where the market fails. Half and half in a patchwork fashion across the country is probably the least inefficient method that could possible be derived, yet that is what we have.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Often political decisions are driven by short term concerns with no real idea about the long term consequences and there is no way for an individual to opt out. If a company makes a bad deal, they will eventually go out of business or renegotiate the deal (the other party doesn't want them to go out of business). There is no such constraint on the government, you can see this in all sorts of decisions. Some examples: 1. Burning crops while people starved during the great depression. 2. Printing tons of money, devaluing the currency. 3. Current Cable Monopolies. 4. Software Patents 5. Never ending copyrights 6. The war on drugs 7. Prohibition 8. All sorts of developing countries that take on massive debt. 9. Paying farmers not to produce 10. Minimum wage laws 11. Maximum hour laws (can only work 35 hours a week) Just to name a few. I understand the concept of network effects, but you have to remember to look at what else that money could be spent on -- that is what is truly hard. By subsidizing rural/suburban living we encourage it and thus people waste more time commuting, wasting fuel, increasing traffic, requiring more subsidies (larger roads) and so on. People need to understand that the market is the worlds most powerful information system -- it instantly conveys the wants/desires/needs of every individual in the world.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    By subsidizing rural/suburban living we encourage it and thus people waste more time commuting, wasting fuel, increasing traffic, requiring more subsidies (larger roads) and so on. Interesting that you would pivot from a pro-market position into a social engineering one. Those two usually don't go together. Look I've paid for the T-1 line to be ran 200 miles so I could have high-speed internet -- and I did this back when you could count the number of T-1s in my area on both hands. So I don't mind only having those who can afford it pay for it. But I also understand that this country is huge, and spread out. And I don't want to encourage people to live anywhere. If you asked my druthers, I'd want them staying at home in rural America, on fiber, and living more of the agrarian life that the urban one. But that's not the point. The point is that the community as a whole has a vested interest in infrastructure: roads, power lines, and communication. It's the same argument as national defense: government does really badly at some things, but there are some things that it's the only effective player to pool resources and common interests. That's not a license for socialism, that's just saying that a piece of wire to every home -- phone, power, or internet -- is a political issue much like how many aircraft carriers we need. If we left it up to individuals to decide the response wouldn't be uniform enough, and uniformity is the one requirement that these attributes need to have. Communication and electric power aren't like pork bellies and automobiles -- they are extensions of our powers as individuals: our power to innovate, collaborate, discover, and create. Hell, it's more like gun ownership than buying pork-chops at the supermarket. They are a hell of a lot more critical than health care or consumer protection. I'm absolutely for a maximized free market. But the argument here is that limited communication abilities reduces information in the market, stifles innovation, and limits choices. That's why I chose the greater freedom of universal high-speed connectivity -- not as a government bureaucracy, but as government defining the markets so that all the players meet all the needs.
brk 17y ago
* Because the government gave the cable providers local monopolies.* This is untrue. I'm not sure which "government" you are referring to. In most parts of the US, an MSO negotiates with a community government to install and maintain a cable TV service. These contracts are generally NOT exclusive, or are not exclusive for a long period of time. However, in most areas where the population density is low to moderate, there is not enough market base to support two MSO's in the same area. So while you may think there is an exclusive arrangement, there often is not. In fact, many cities want to lure in more operators to give the citizens better choices and encourage competitive pricing. I've been personally involved in this sitting on the telecommunications board in previous city ~8 years ago. We had an agreement with Charter, and wanted to get another cable company into the city, but couldn't make it worth their while in any realistic manner.

krschultz 17y ago

That works in valueable markets that are cheap to build up infrastructure - almost everyone in the suburbs of large cities have a choice of DSL vs Cable at least. But it doesn't work in cities where there simply is not the room to let people run cable at will (in NYC it is BRUTAL to get internet installed even something like commercial ADSL or T1 lines are a bitch because of the massive amount of underground infrastructure already). And it doesn't work in areas where it is less profitable becuase the area is more rural. So the government is basically making it more expensive for people in the suburbs to support those in the rural areas so that the economy as a whole is more efficient since everyone will have better access to the internet. The "bureaucrats making deals that hurt everyone" is a strawman. Why would anyone do something that hurts everyone? Underneith the surface there is a non-obvious reason for a lot of policies but when viewed on a macro scale make a lot of sense. I feel like a lot of anti-government arguements boil down to "I set the limits on the economic value of a government action solely on what it does to my direct taxation and fees", rather than looking at the whole picture. As a programmer is it better to pay a bit more for internet but have a larger market to sell to, or pay slightly less for internet but have significantly fewer customers? The question becomes - how best can we provide the internet connection people demand in this country for the least amount of money? Somehow running fiber twice in one town and not at all in another doesn't seem like the best position. I think the solution is to make the system completely free market and competitive in a lot of areas where it works, and completely government subsidized areas where the market fails. Half and half in a patchwork fashion across the country is probably the least inefficient method that could possible be derived, yet that is what we have.

dantheman 17y ago
Often political decisions are driven by short term concerns with no real idea about the long term consequences and there is no way for an individual to opt out. If a company makes a bad deal, they will eventually go out of business or renegotiate the deal (the other party doesn't want them to go out of business). There is no such constraint on the government, you can see this in all sorts of decisions. Some examples: 1. Burning crops while people starved during the great depression. 2. Printing tons of money, devaluing the currency. 3. Current Cable Monopolies. 4. Software Patents 5. Never ending copyrights 6. The war on drugs 7. Prohibition 8. All sorts of developing countries that take on massive debt. 9. Paying farmers not to produce 10. Minimum wage laws 11. Maximum hour laws (can only work 35 hours a week) Just to name a few. I understand the concept of network effects, but you have to remember to look at what else that money could be spent on -- that is what is truly hard. By subsidizing rural/suburban living we encourage it and thus people waste more time commuting, wasting fuel, increasing traffic, requiring more subsidies (larger roads) and so on. People need to understand that the market is the worlds most powerful information system -- it instantly conveys the wants/desires/needs of every individual in the world.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  By subsidizing rural/suburban living we encourage it and thus people waste more time commuting, wasting fuel, increasing traffic, requiring more subsidies (larger roads) and so on. Interesting that you would pivot from a pro-market position into a social engineering one. Those two usually don't go together. Look I've paid for the T-1 line to be ran 200 miles so I could have high-speed internet -- and I did this back when you could count the number of T-1s in my area on both hands. So I don't mind only having those who can afford it pay for it. But I also understand that this country is huge, and spread out. And I don't want to encourage people to live anywhere. If you asked my druthers, I'd want them staying at home in rural America, on fiber, and living more of the agrarian life that the urban one. But that's not the point. The point is that the community as a whole has a vested interest in infrastructure: roads, power lines, and communication. It's the same argument as national defense: government does really badly at some things, but there are some things that it's the only effective player to pool resources and common interests. That's not a license for socialism, that's just saying that a piece of wire to every home -- phone, power, or internet -- is a political issue much like how many aircraft carriers we need. If we left it up to individuals to decide the response wouldn't be uniform enough, and uniformity is the one requirement that these attributes need to have. Communication and electric power aren't like pork bellies and automobiles -- they are extensions of our powers as individuals: our power to innovate, collaborate, discover, and create. Hell, it's more like gun ownership than buying pork-chops at the supermarket. They are a hell of a lot more critical than health care or consumer protection. I'm absolutely for a maximized free market. But the argument here is that limited communication abilities reduces information in the market, stifles innovation, and limits choices. That's why I chose the greater freedom of universal high-speed connectivity -- not as a government bureaucracy, but as government defining the markets so that all the players meet all the needs.

brk 17y ago

* Because the government gave the cable providers local monopolies.* This is untrue. I'm not sure which "government" you are referring to. In most parts of the US, an MSO negotiates with a community government to install and maintain a cable TV service. These contracts are generally NOT exclusive, or are not exclusive for a long period of time. However, in most areas where the population density is low to moderate, there is not enough market base to support two MSO's in the same area. So while you may think there is an exclusive arrangement, there often is not. In fact, many cities want to lure in more operators to give the citizens better choices and encourage competitive pricing. I've been personally involved in this sitting on the telecommunications board in previous city ~8 years ago. We had an agreement with Charter, and wanted to get another cable company into the city, but couldn't make it worth their while in any realistic manner.