[171329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Apr 26 16:13:34 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5359EB4F.50405@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:11:12 -0700
To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
> I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
>=20
>> Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
>> not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
>> doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
>> non-operational now.
>=20
> In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that =
existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC =
internet services. There are no regulations that support that monopoly. =
Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive permits, and build =
out a second cable system if they wanted to. However, the population =
density is such that even if that company captured 50% of the market, it =
would merely make the market economically unviable for both companies.
In such instances, you do indeed have =93natural monopolies=94 which are =
an economic construct, not a regulatory artifact.
>> Besides, what has this to do with my original questions?
>=20
> Which were "Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have =
monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?" and =
"How is this good for the consumer?" and "How is this good for the =
market?"
>=20
> My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government =
entities allowing and protecting (two pretty much interchangeable terms, =
I prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is =
"Huh? What?" and to the second and third "Best service for the best =
price is pretty good for everybody. Except the losers that can't rip =
you off without the FCC protection.=94
How, exactly, are the governments protecting the monopolies of ILECs and =
Cable companies? It seems to me that it=92s more a case of those =
monopolies persisting because the non-regulatory (largely economic) =
barriers to competition are large enough that they prevent viable =
competitors from forming. Allowing those unregulated monopolies to =
subsequently leverage that into a =93content protection racket=94 is the =
internet equivalent of turning a regulatory blind eye to more =
traditional forms of extortion.
So, no, eliminating the government=92s protection of monopolies =
(wherever you think that is occurring) will not solve the more general =
problem of monopolies that are a problem without government protection.
Owen
