The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.) Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite. -- TTFN, patrick On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:57 , Wayne E Bouchard <w...@typo.org> wrote: > My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if > the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not > even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back > and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These > things take a while to resolve. This issue has been building for a > while but hasn't really reached its pinnacle yet so who is to say what > things will look like in five years from a business standpoint? To > codify something pretty well means you want it to look a particular > way or you are accepting a way of being that may or may not be in the > interests of those concerned and pretty well ending discussion, > negotiation, and experimentation regarding that point. > > The problem is that all the RBOCs/ILECs/Cable groups seem to be headed > in the same direction (and most of them are trying to run their own > CDN and force their customers to use it instead of a third party--and > running them badly to boot. Sound familiar?) If that were not the > case, such a scheme would not be viable since there would always be > someone undermining it. (Like OPEC... The price they want is never > what they get because some country or another is always selling more > than they say they're going to because they want more money, meaning > supply is greater than it should be and prices adjust accordingly.) It > only takes one or two holdouts to upset the plans of all the rest. > > *shrug* > > I'll have to see how these changes are implemented and how things > are interpreted before we know what this is going to do to > competitveness. > > -Wayne > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:42:42PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote: >> On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive". >>> >>> But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured >>> the FCC thing was timely and operational. >>> >> I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die. >> >> I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it would >> definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That >> being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to >> benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as >> any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce where >> the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead of >> interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is >> fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once >> again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and only >> the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's the >> small ISPs and small content providers that suffer. >> >> I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near future. >> >> Jack > > --- > Wayne Bouchard > w...@typo.org > Network Dude > http://www.typo.org/~web/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail