Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition. Monopolies can not persist without regulation. A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to monopolies by regulation. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
You are confused. Unless you are talking about "persist" on a time horizon spanning generations. If so, then nothing can persist, with or without regulation. And more importantly, I am not willing to wait that long for a fix.
A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to monopolies by regulation.
Regulations can work to ensure monopolies do not form. This is not supposition, but historical fact. It is an open question whether our current regulator regime is capable of repeating that feat, however. -- TTFN, patrick
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
You are confused.
I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this: --xx-- The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that telephone service is a "classic" example of market failure and that government regulation in the "public interest" was necessary. But as Adam D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention. Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] <http://mises.org/daily/5266/#note55> In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone industry. (...) The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a "natural" monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and *then,* with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an *ex* *post* rationalization for their monopoly power. --xx-- The Myth of Natural Monopoly http://mises.org/daily/5266/
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:01 , Everton Marques <everton.marques@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
You are confused.
I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this:
That's nice. A bit disingenuous, but nice. To be clear, I have no idea if AT&T was a natural monopoly in the 1890s or not. But the idea that there can be no "natural monopoly" is ludicrous, unless you distort the definition so far out of shape is doesn't resemble anything except a complex syllogism in a textbook. Here in the real world, sometimes there is very clearly an overwhelming preference for a single company / provider / etc. to own a market segment. Pointing out the laws of physics do not prohibit competition does not mean there will be competition. But we can agree to disagree. :) -- TTFN, patrick
--xx-- The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that telephone service is a "classic" example of market failure and that government regulation in the "public interest" was necessary. But as Adam D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention.
Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] <http://mises.org/daily/5266/#note55> In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone industry. (...) The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a "natural" monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and *then,* with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an *ex* *post* rationalization for their monopoly power. --xx-- The Myth of Natural Monopoly http://mises.org/daily/5266/
On 4/24/2014 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to monopolies by regulation.
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." --- Yogi Berra Due to the existence of Regulatory Capture, Mr. Gilmore has a point.
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome. Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the most highly dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market to support the deployment of more than one copy of a given media type to that population. As a result, there is, in most places, a natural monopoly in each media type, whether that’s electrical, water, cable, twisted pair, fiber, etc.
A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to monopolies by regulation.
Yes, but an unregulated monopoly is a monopoly without constraints imposed by regulation. Owen
participants (5)
-
Andris Kalnozols -
Everton Marques -
Larry Sheldon -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore