3 ms·

What if the free market in telecommunication does not exist "yet" or is, due to a long history of regulation and government involvement, inhibited, we need to a

What if the free market in telecommunication does not exist "yet" or is, due to a long history of regulation and government involvement, inhibited, we need to add another bureaucratic layer? If Google Fiber shows up in my neighborhood and Comcast did everything to upset us, would not we all switch and Comcast realize that it needs to adjust (its service, pricing, quality, speed)? I guess my difficulty lies in not understanding why this market warrants a different approach than any other market.

Karunamon 12y ago
Two decades is a long time to set up a market, to be honest. And in that time, there have been fewer choices in the market, with smaller companies being regularly gobbled up into large conglomerates with astoundingly bad customer satisfaction the result. or is, due to a long history of regulation and government involvement, inhibited And this is really begging the question, in the fallacious sense. Where does this "bureaucratic layer" argument come from? The only telcos that are going to be burdened by these regs are ones who are already doing shady stuff. In other words, the ones that need to be. And on a more visceral and arational level? Fuck 'em. Fuck Comcast, fuck Verizon. They had years to get their house in order, and it wasn't regulation preventing them from doing so. It wasn't regulation that gives Comcast the worst customer satisfaction scores in the entire industry. It wasn't regulation that made Comcast's "capacity" problems magically disappear when Google Fiber shows up in the same city. It wasn't regulation that made Comcast acquire and abuse what amounts to a monopoly position. It wasn't regulation that made Verizon run what amounts to a protection racket on Netflix. Nobody put a gun to the CEO's heads and said "be the biggest bastards you possibly can" - they managed to do that quite well with minimal government involvement. Perhaps this market warrants a different approach because it's demonstrably broken and because the internet is more akin to infrastructure than a consumer good.
- novalis78 12y ago
  Stefan Molyneux came out with a one hour long video today - very detailed historic overview and discussion - of the government involvement that led to the current state of affairs (which beg for more government involvement, etc). Its worth watching it in its entirety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 Personally, I can't stand Comcast/Verizon/AT&T either, but I was born in Stasi East Germany. To me, the idea to further entrench government in what should be a completely free market place, seems backwards.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    A "completely free marketplace" will always tend towards a monopoly, and besides, that philosophy doesn't work when there are physical barriers to entry.
    - afsina 12y ago
      No, Government intervention leads to a monopoly.

Karunamon 12y ago

Two decades is a long time to set up a market, to be honest. And in that time, there have been fewer choices in the market, with smaller companies being regularly gobbled up into large conglomerates with astoundingly bad customer satisfaction the result. or is, due to a long history of regulation and government involvement, inhibited And this is really begging the question, in the fallacious sense. Where does this "bureaucratic layer" argument come from? The only telcos that are going to be burdened by these regs are ones who are already doing shady stuff. In other words, the ones that need to be. And on a more visceral and arational level? Fuck 'em. Fuck Comcast, fuck Verizon. They had years to get their house in order, and it wasn't regulation preventing them from doing so. It wasn't regulation that gives Comcast the worst customer satisfaction scores in the entire industry. It wasn't regulation that made Comcast's "capacity" problems magically disappear when Google Fiber shows up in the same city. It wasn't regulation that made Comcast acquire and abuse what amounts to a monopoly position. It wasn't regulation that made Verizon run what amounts to a protection racket on Netflix. Nobody put a gun to the CEO's heads and said "be the biggest bastards you possibly can" - they managed to do that quite well with minimal government involvement. Perhaps this market warrants a different approach because it's demonstrably broken and because the internet is more akin to infrastructure than a consumer good.

novalis78 12y ago
Stefan Molyneux came out with a one hour long video today - very detailed historic overview and discussion - of the government involvement that led to the current state of affairs (which beg for more government involvement, etc). Its worth watching it in its entirety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 Personally, I can't stand Comcast/Verizon/AT&T either, but I was born in Stasi East Germany. To me, the idea to further entrench government in what should be a completely free market place, seems backwards.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  A "completely free marketplace" will always tend towards a monopoly, and besides, that philosophy doesn't work when there are physical barriers to entry.
  - afsina 12y ago
    No, Government intervention leads to a monopoly.