Reply With Quote
How is there compe ion for monopoly ISPs?
How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster compe ion?
Well, they always did. As Scott put concisely in a post or two earlier in the thread (page 1 or 2), the ISPs are what is known as Natural Monopolies, and as such, they're strictly regulated due to the fact that they're a government sanctioned monopoly/duopoly.
Other than that, the government obviously has a compelling interest in access (just like they did for telephones, and still do for healthcare, etc), as the availability or lack of availability of those services can put huge portions of the population at an advantage/disadvantage.
Let's be clear, however, that government, even now after these changes, continues to regulate the internet (in this case under le 1, which has much less bite than le II).
How is there compe ion for monopoly ISPs?
How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster compe ion?
And why do you think that the govt. continues to go against consumer demand (IE the cons uency) and go against net neutrality?
That has already been established... there is no compe ion among ISPs. You get whatever the you get depending on where you live
So, you want the FCC to stay out of it, then. You never denied that.
The FCC has never been out of it and I clearly stated I don't want the current policy to change.
How is there compe ion for monopoly ISPs?
How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster compe ion?
Yes, but the ISPs have to simply provide the service without strings. Destroying net neutrality will create tier pricing designed to enrich corporations with economies of scale and destroy smaller businesses. The ISP monopoly bull is just that; bull .
OK, you're making zero sense.
Stop being an ignorant for once in your ing life. FCC been stepping up their game with no compelling reason other than to take control.
On February 26, 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, thus subjecting it to le II regulation, although several exemptions were also created. The reclassification was done in order to give the FCC a legal basis for imposing net neutrality rules (see below), after earlier attempts to impose such rules on an "information service" had been overturned in court.
I can accept that simple economic concepts make zero sense to you.
And what has happened in the almost two years since that regulation was put in place?
Prove to me you understand these simple economic concepts:
How is there compe ion for monopoly ISPs?
How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster compe ion?
Politics. Doesn't really take a genius to see that the political fight here is between ISPs and service providers, both of which have extremely large lobbying war chests.
That why when this thread started (back in 2014?), I mentioned that we're going to get to some hybrid bull that basically s the consumers (us) in the ass.
Did you hear any mention of actual free-market solutions, like rescinding the monopolies/duopolies? I haven't. That could've been a reasonable solution to this.
Yea, the govt. has no designs. Stop mentally jacking off.
And what has happened in the almost two years since that regulation was put in place?
And what has happened in the almost two years since that regulation was put in place?
What happened to your internet personally?
Mine did not change at all as far as access to content. Speeds got faster.
My initial understanding is that the physical fiber-optic networks created the monopolies/duopolies. Has that changed?
So you agree that this will harm small business. How is that benificial to anyone and how would that promote compe ion?
And companies respond to shareholders, which means they have a fiduciary duty to try to exploit as much of their government granted monopoly power as necessary. That's why you're never going to see 'no regulation' as long as those monopolies/duopolies exist. True deregulation means ending those monopolies. BUT, ending those deals will also mean rural america will likely be disconnected, because it's likely not a profitable market. And thus comes the big conundrum about compelling state interest vs profit motive.
The thing is, we can have this conversation, but politicos won't have it. They won't touch Comcast, Verizon, etc with a 10 foot pole.
I think your idea about rural markets not being profitable is probably wrong or otherwise overstated. But you put forth some interesting concepts there. How do you consider these to be govt. granted monopolies at this point?
Nope, the monopolies/duopolies were created because while on a big metropolis, the cost of wiring what's known as 'the last mile' (from the local hub to the home) was economically sound, the state had a compelling interest that the whole country received services (this dates back to the phone lines, and the infrastructure that demanded), and so to subsidize companies for deploying on non-economic advantageous areas, two things were granted: 1) a monopoly over a certain area, which would cover the ROI for the massive infrastructure deployment, and 2) a Universal Service Fund paid by phone users.
Again, this dates back to regulations from the 60's.
Yes, much of the upgrading of phone lines went hand and hand with the cable installation. But again, the very nature of the physical network is what created the natural monopolies/duopolies. I don't know if upgrades in technology has rendered that untrue or not. Have you an opinion/insight on that?
Well, the landscape has certainly changed. In the past, you either received a copper line or you had to use very expensive microwave/satellite communications. Nowadays, you could provision more distant areas with cell service, and/or the possibly upcoming low earth orbit network.
If there's anything relatively positive about this development, is that it'll probably force other solutions to make the current monopolies irrelevant. But I don't expect the monopolists to just lay down. So we'll see how things develop. It's clear that if we continue to have the same actors, we're going to continue to be screwed as consumers. The FCC is supposed to be the en y that actually fights for the consumer, but you know, too politicized now.
I don't think they see it that way at all. Nor do I think that people see the FCC that way whatsoever at this point. I think they are basically a corporation looking to enrich various en ies. They're essentially sanctioned mafia.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
