Posted on 11/28/2017 5:46:05 AM PST by FreedomNotSafety
Yep. But many here are more worried about their movie streaming or getting cheap service. On a different thread a few creepers thought that government control of the internet would keep conservative and right speech free.
Its amazing how un-free many Freepers would have us if it meant free movie streaming.
I think the original AT&T monopoly was good public policy, bringing near universal phone service to the country which greatly enhanced our collective economic well being. And there are certainly examples of bad monopolies created by government.
There's also no question that monopolies can arise absent government involvement, and it's the fundamental nature of capitalism that companies will try to increase their pricing power by eliminating the competition, often by acquiring them.
It's also indesputable that every economic theory includes some level of governmental regulation to protect competition.
Some, like the Austrians, have a very light touch but even Hayek didn't believe in complete laissez faire.
The larger point is that in the real world monopolies occur regardless of how they came about and where they do exist government has a legitimate role in regulating them.
“It’s also indesputable that every economic theory includes some level of governmental regulation to protect competition.
The larger point is that in the real world monopolies occur regardless of how they came about and where they do exist government has a legitimate role in regulating them.”
Well you closed that circle up nicely. The government is supposed to protect competition except when it is creating or regulating monopolies.
More like, even if it creates monopolies it has an obligation to regulate them to mitigate the lack of competition.
bump
Alright! We have boiled it down to this; The government should regulate the monopolies it creates.
My viewpoint requires this... /s.
Right. As well as those it didn't create.
Consider the original AT&T monopoly and most public utilities.
You can argue that government shouldn't have created them in the first place but guess what, that argument lost and those monopolies exist. And as monopolies they need to be regulated.
The original ATT monopoly was created by the government. Public utilities are government created monopolies. You will have to dig much harder to find any monopoly that the government did not help create.
Your logic is still circular. The government regulates monopolies because it creates monopolies.
The true logic is that government regulation causes monopolies. Go back to Smith.
Maybe you can share one monopoly that arose and was sustained in a free enterprise system. Just one that would justify all the government regulating and power grabbing.
I'm not aware of any government regulation that created Standard Oil, Northern Securities or American Sugar.There were many more pre-Roosevelt examples that arose, hence trust-busting.
Were they sustainable? Probably not forever but they would have lasted a lot longer than they did absent enforcement of Sherman.
The Austrians argue that permanent monopolies won't arise without government interference in the market, which may be true, but clearly long-lived ones did and they were very anti-competitive.
Naturally occurring monopolies may eventually die for a variety of reasons but we've decided that we aren't willing to just sit it out and wait until it happens.
No, what I am saying is that a monopoly requires *force*. The only way to get someone to buy something they don’t want to buy or to shop somewhere they don’t want to shop is to force them to do so. The only entity entitled to use force to achieve something without fear of consequence for their actions is government. Ergo, the only way a monopoly can exist is if the government *allows* it by forcing people to buy a product or shop an establishment.
Please see the paragraph titled “Gaming the System” at this link: http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/net-neutrality-rules-still-threat-internet-freedom
Comcast and Level 3 reached an agreement before the FCC had to step in, but the word on the street was that the FCC - under Net Neutrality rules - would have blocked Comcast’s efforts to charge Level 3 more for their Neflix data.
In the end, Comcast passed the additional network transit costs on to their subscribers. So their subscribers - even those who don’t use Netflix - got a bit of a rate hike to help bring Netflix to those who do subscribe to it. They did this because they were afraid of what precedent would be set by the FCC if they had to rule.
And read the examples that follow as well - just so you know it’s not a one-off.
Anytime you let government decide winners and losers in a marketplace, you stifle innovation and growth. No one wants to risk their money to innovate or bring a new product to market knowing they will have to fight (and/or bribe) the FCC - or some other bureaucracy - who is running interference for the very companies you are trying to compete against.
Getting rid of the stupid idea that the Internet is some sort of public utility subject to government regulation is the best thing that could happen.
The biggest years for growth and innovation on the ‘net were the first ten or so after it went public. That was before government started getting involved. I know. I was there.
Get out of the way and let the people decide.
You're omitting the most common manifestation - a product someone wants or needs is only available from one supplier.
No government regulation created Standard Oil or American Sugar Refining. They arose through very aggressive business practices, including horizontal and vertical integration via acquisition and anti-competitive arrangements with and payoffs to various players in the supply chain.
Permanent monopolies may need government support, but natural ones can arise and last a long time absent regulation.
So their subscribers - even those who don’t use Netflix - got a bit of a rate hike to help bring Netflix to those who do subscribe to it.
Comcast had another option - charge each of their users for the bandwidth they consumed. There was no requirement for them to spread the Netflix costs to all users, that was just their business decision because they knew charging on the basis of usage is very unpopular with consumers.
And read the examples that follow as well - just so you know it’s not a one-off.
No, I know the regulatory structure isn't well suited to the Internet. The FCC certainly knows it which is why when they applied common carrier status rules to ISPs they only enforced a small percentage of the provisions.
Getting rid of the stupid idea that the Internet is some sort of public utility subject to government regulation is the best thing that could happen.
I'm conflicted on this. I think there's a public policy argument to make that it's in the country's interest to have near-universal baseline broadband access which doesn't discriminate on the basis of content.
The modern economy relies on the Internet and one of the factors depressing poorer rural areas is poor access to broadband. This is only going to get worse as we transition to more of an 'on demand' employment model. Not everyone wants to or can move to the city.
On the other hand I don't know if it can be done without too much regulation.
Part of the problem with this debate is we're all arguing over hypotheticals. The NN supporters are afraid of AT&T and Verizon favoring their own content and stifling competition and the anti-NNers are afraid of government regulation stifling competition.
Neither has happened yet but there's too much money on the table for the players not to try.
Natural monopolies will fail. Every.Single.Time. It may take a while, but they will fail. Giving the government the power to decide who is and isn’t a monopoly does nothing but foster corruption. Suddenly, those at the “It’s a Monopoly” lever become very important people...and wheels get greased. Instead of payoffs to the supply chain you get payoffs (in the form of campaign contributions) to politicians and “hookers and blow” for regulators.
Comcast *should* be free to choose to whom they apply the added costs. They shouldn’t be *forced* by government to have to decide how to apply the costs to their end users.
For over twenty years since the privatization of the Internet there was zero regulation. And (if you can believe it) there was no censorship by providers - those that tried any form of it at all it were eventually forced into bankruptcy as their respective customer bases evaporated.
Net Neutrality was a reward to the politically-connected for political contributions and the aforementioned “hookers and blow”.
Nothing more.
Quite possibly true but missing the point.
Before they fail they are by definition anti-competitive and harmful to the market. That's why every developed nation I can think of regulates monopolies.
Giving the government the power to decide who is and isn’t a monopoly does nothing but foster corruption.
If not the government, which is really you and me in a representative republic, then who? Or is it your position that since the monopoly probably won't be permanent society should ignore it?
Comcast *should* be free to choose to whom they apply the added costs. They shouldn’t be *forced* by government to have to decide how to apply the costs to their end users.
I agree that this is the ideal and I haven't heard of an instance where the NN rules have changed this.
For over twenty years since the privatization of the Internet there was zero regulation. And (if you can believe it) there was no censorship by providers - those that tried any form of it at all it were eventually forced into bankruptcy as their respective customer bases evaporated.
And I want that model to continue as I think you do - which is what's interesting about this debate.
What I don't want is for my ISP to decide my level of service based on the content provider I choose to use.
If they want me to pay more for using more bandwidth, fine, but I don't want them to charge me more for streaming a movie from Netflix than for streaming a PPV movie from them.
Please note that if I have true choice in broadband providers then I don't care - I'll find an ISP that does what I want. But monopoly situations are different and there's no question that many ISPs are de facto monopolies in certain communities.
That's ridiculous. Governments might protect or help sustain monopolies, but monopolies can certainly come into existence without relying on governments to do so. Governments might help create some monopolies, but they certainly aren't the only origin of them.
The fact is, local cable providers do have de facto monopolies, just like power companies do.
Under such conditions, I am not impressed by the free market purists who are speaking theoretically about a situation which does not in fact exist on the ground.
As a Comcast customer, for example, I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. Period. That applies on a monthly basis as well as an on-demand basis. There's certainly an implication there that I shouldn't expect them to selectively degrade the service from a third party (e.g. Netflix) in such as way as to destroy competition—the better to "steer" me towards purchasing Comcast's own streaming service.
As long as there is a situation where entities like Comcast possess de facto monopolies on things like wired bandwidth, it's reasonable for government to prevent them from selectively throttling services provides by third parties to customers such as myself. As I mentioned, I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth, and someone like Netflix should be able to deliver that data to me at whatever speed I'm paying for it to be delivered at. It's frankly none of Comcast's business who is sending me data, as long as I'm not breaking the law.
What if Comcast suddenly decided not to deliver FR-based data packets to my residence? Without some kind of protection, would they theoretically be able to do that—because they have a monopoly on wired broadband in my region? Should I then be forced to use an inferior bandwidth provider because of that policy?
What if all service providers—whose corporate boards are consistently run by Leftists, let's not forget—decide not to deliver any FR packets—and only FR packets? My current opinion is that such a situation should not be able to occur, even theoretically. If that means I agree with some aspects of "Net Neutrality", then I'm guilty as charged...
Thanks for proving my point. Local cable companies are
Monopolies because of government. The only monopolist cable companies are such because the governemt granted them a monopoly n
You're implication seemed to be that all monopolies arise due to government, which is patently false. In some cases, monopolies may arise due to the direct actions of government, while in others—such as, say, your local power company or cable provider—it can at least be argued that monopolies arise as a result of practicality more so than as a direct consequence of government action.
For example, just how many power poles and associated wiring—subterranean cables—can exist as a sheer practical matter?
Regardless, it has effectively been established that these monopolies do in fact exist—whether as a result of government action or not.
Given that fact—that in reality, not theoretically, de facto monopolies currently exist with respect to wired broadband—it's rather difficult to argue that any private company enjoying such an advantage should be allowed to engage in unfair business practices which are enabled as a direct consequence of that advantage.
I would note that your response doesn't even begin to address the bona fide issues I raised with respect to removing the anti-monopoly protections I cited. A company like Comcast—while possessing a monopoly—certainly shouldn't be able to degrade the quality of a third party service (e.g. Netflix) with which they directly compete (by offering a similar service).
The vast majority of fair-minded people—whether conservative, liberal, or lbertarian—would agree that conditions should not exist which would permit a corporation like Comcast to abuse their monopoly power in the way that I described.
Thus, no matter what you want to call it—"Net Neutrality" or something else—I don't agree that a company like Comcast should be able to pull such a stunt.
As I mentioned earlier, it's really none of Comcast's business what data I'm receiving. They are contracted to deliver me a certain amount of bandwidth on an on-demand and monthly basis, and they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily degrade the quality of services with which they offer competitive products.
So at least in this particular case, that's not selling "snake oil"—quite the contrary—it's a concrete example of a patently unfair business practice enabled by de facto monopoly power which exists as a practical matter. Thus, I'd like to hear precisely how such an abuse—which, to my mind, borders on outright fraud—can be prevented in the absence of so-called "Net Neutrality" policy, or whatever label people would like to slap on it...
Name one
No. Who cares? We're supposed to be talking about net neutrality here, not your novel, whimsical, and irrelevant theory that every monopoly that has ever existed throughout history has come about as a result of government.
Are you not aware of the topic of this thread? If you'd like to post another thread discussing the all-important question of where monopolies come from, you're at liberty to do so, but what the ostensible reason for posting this article was, is to engage in a thoughtful debate about net neutrality policy, and whether it is needed to protect against unfair business practices which can occur due to the fact that de facto monopolies do exist in the wired broadband industry.
You seem to be interested in going off on some tangent related to a pet theory about which I couldn't care less at this moment, and whose premise is absurd on its face. Either that, you're doing it in a deliberate effort to deflect from the salient point of this thread...
You responded with a reply discussing monopolies. If you do not wish to discuss how they are relevant to this topic it is your prerogative.
Your misunderstand of the true nature of monopolies has helped you believe that government regulation will enhance your service. As a justification for government regulation you state that it is necessary because many ISPs are monopolies and then you speak of a theoretical failure of a free market to deliver the unrestricted internet services.
If an ISP is in a position to restrict your content it will most likely be able to do so because of its monopoly position which is provided via governemt regulation. Having more governemt regulation will lead to even less choice and regulation of content.
You state that there are de facto monopolies to support your big government regulating scheme that takes us back to Ma Bell. Yet there is are no de facto monopolies only governemt provided monopolies. I have asked for a single example of your assertion of a de facto ISP monopoly. Just one name. You diatribe is proof enough that you cannot.
If it will eventually fail, then it is - by definition - not a monopoly.
The only true monopolies that exist are things like power companies, gas companies, water companies, and cable providers. All backed by what? The force of government.
Yes, society should ignore a cornered market. Trust me - if the price of something gets high enough, competitors will enter that market with a cheaper/better product or service. Of course that’s provided the government doesn’t hamper them with things like licensing fees, certifications, franchise fees, special taxes, inspection fees...etc.
These are all examples (and it’s certainly not an exhaustive list) of barriers that government puts in place which - intended or not - hamper competition and allow monopolies to exist and in most cases flourish.
Giving a government power to regulate something will always result in in corruption and you will end up with what we have today: Crony Capitalism.
Comcast was forced by the threat of NN to either a) eat the cost of the additional bandwidth, or b) find a way to charge their end users. Neither of which made any sense because the content provider was the one causing the problem and the one that should have been eating the costs. Again, they chose not to fight *because* neither side wanted to set a bad precedent.
Finally, it matters not one whit whether or not your cable provider charges Netflix’s peering partner more for their use of the cable provider’s bandwidth - even if they provide the same service. By that logic, Kroger should be forced to offer shelf space for Kraft’s mayonnaise at cost because they have a competing product. That makes zero sense.
If you - or anyone else - have, and don’t like, a government-mandated monopoly on last-mile providers in your area, perhaps *you* should petition *your* local, county, or state government for a redress of *your* grievances rather than trying to make the federal government fix *your* problem - which I, and many others, don’t have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.