[171295] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail))
Fri Apr 25 12:09:16 2014
In-Reply-To: <5359E48D.80504@cox.net>
From: "Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail)" <allenmckinleykitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:05:44 -0400
To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>,
"patrick@ianai.net" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I beg your indulgence..
On Apr 25, 2014, at 0:29, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
> ...On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>w=
rote:
>>=20
>>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
>>>>=20
>>>> Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
>>>=20
>>> You are confused.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this:
>=20
> Thank you.
> ...
> [more comment below]
>> --xx--
> ...
> I don't know what got me to thinking about it earlier today but I recalled=
when I started at the telephone company in Los Angeles there was a pitch ma=
de early on that in earlier days a business in Los Angeles had to have sever=
al telephones on desks to be able to talk to all of their customers.
>=20
> Which was true ONLY because regulation required that each telephone line t=
erminate in an instrument owned by the providing company.
>=20
The above statement contains an error that obscures the issue. As someone wh=
o also recalls this state of affairs, I must point out that it was the resp=
ective telcos' "regulation" - not government regulation in any sense - that p=
rohibited any equipment but their own from being attached to their lines. In=
other words, those telcos were behaving anti-competitively with all the pow=
er they could muster to do so (surprise!) and also doing whatever they could=
to obscure that fact.=20
Regulation was demanded by consumers - in order to protect them from the rid=
iculous results of this assertion of privilege on the telcos' part. To Mr Sh=
eldon, this resulted in regulation (by government) creating a monopoly. I be=
lieve Mr Gilmore might argue that well-crafted regulation requiring intercon=
nectivity as a public good would have prevented both the "need" for monopoly=
-creating regulation and also would have protected the public from the inher=
ent tendency toward monopoly as vendors do battle to protect their turf rath=
er than provide the best possible outcome for their customers.
> Absent that one regulation, businesses would have invented multi-line inst=
ruments a lot earlier than was the case.
So THIS argument is completely off the mark. In fact, one could say a regula=
tion was needed which would have forbade the telcos' anti-competitive behavi=
or, and then the competitive marketplace could have played out further. Inst=
ead, what we got - partly to address some of the other concerns like interco=
nnection - was a set of regulations that favored one (well-connected) vendor=
, leading to a monopoly.
So in some respects, each Mr Sheldon and Mr Gilmore are both right. No surpr=
ise there, either, as I have immense respect for both. I tend to lean toward=
s Mr Gilmore's position, though, in that I personally hold that powerful ven=
dors have a natural positive feedback tendency towards monopoly if they can a=
ttain it, and regulation that is wisely and truly customer-centered can prev=
ent much damage; I side with Mr Sheldon only insofar as I observe that one t=
actic of a determined monopolist is to engage compliant regulators to more f=
irmly ensconce them, and I believe that's a Bad Thing.
Blessings..
..Allen Kitchen, Old Guy=
