[171362] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Apr 27 16:22:53 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <535C3C78.5080006@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:21:55 -0700
To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>=20
>>> Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
>>=20
>> This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect
>> monopolies, but that=92s not always the outcome.
>>=20
>> 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=92s electrical, water, =
cable,
>> twisted pair, fiber, etc.
>=20
> Sounds like the market at work, not monopoly power......I've never =
heard the term "monopoly" used where the market contains all the players =
that want to play.
It doesn=92t. What it contains is all the players that can afford to =
play.
When the number of players that can afford to play=3D=3D1 that=92s =
pretty much the definition of monopoly.
If you want to try and pervert the term to meet your previous (bizarre) =
claims, then I=92m sure you can do enough dancing around the dictionary =
to eventually arrive at your chosen destination.
However, Patrick and I are more concerned with the actual outcome for =
consumers (including ourselves) than with the sophistry required to =
engage in the discussion you appear to want to have.
Owen
