On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others.
There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. Aye.
Mark. It sounds like we're all in agreement that the underlying issue is that some businesses enjoying a monopoly are allowed to design networks for
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 11:05 AM: the use case of yesteryear and do not have the market pressure forcing them to provide the use case of today's (or the future's) subscribers. The solution seems to be competition or regulation. The current administration supplied over $7 billion in loans and grants (http://www.wired.com/business/2011/07/rural-fiber-internet/) for internet providers to provide high speed last mile services as part of a Federal stimulus package. This type of encouragement in infrastructure and competition seem much better, to me, than regulation formed to to nanny and punish folks that run their business unfairly. I understand that Comcast, as an example, has a fiduciary duty to its stock holders to make the best return possible. But I would think its recent actions would likely fall foul to basic consumer protection regulation (failing to provide the goods or services it sold). All of Comcast's customers could file a complaint with the BBB, but it probably wouldn't be productive because many of them have no other choice for high speed internet service. As consumers, we may also have to accept that cheap internet access prices were based on the usage case of yesteryear. If we use internet services twice as often today, we may need to pay twice as much as we did yesterday. If we, as consumers, have options, but are choosing to pay for the the bare minimum option, we may as well expect the bare minimum service (which apparently is not very much). As long as we have options, which today is not always true, I think the market will function. This why events like the Comcast/TWC merger are troubling to me. Because it means we are going in the wrong direction, back towards monopoly. Our efforts, at present, are probably best spent encouraging competition and fairness. As a consumer and professional, I sincerely hope that the FCC continues on its trend to support net neutrality because I believe it encourages both competition and fairness. --Blake