Ding Ding Ding!!Originally Posted by arkansasbob
|
|
|
|
|
Ding Ding Ding!!
I want as LITTLE gov-mint regulation on EVERY aspect of my life, as possible. That does NOT mean I don't support regulation, per se. But it has to serve a useful purpose...as defined by me!
If XYZ Telecom builds an infrastructure, broadband cable lines, or whatever, with their own investment, they OWN those lines. And as the owner, they are free to charge whatever the market will bear. If customers are unhappy with XYZ, then any other company can come in and lay cable, or whatever, right along side and offer a better service/price. Customers will dump XYZ in favor of the new choice.
This is what I support. Now, if the current situation is, the 2nd company can't get some gov-mint entity to approve their right-of-way, for whatever reason, then YES, I support eliminating that gov-mint entity's authority to do that.
I don't think you understand what a duopoly or monopoly is. It is not possible to have 30 different telecom companies digging up roads and 30 different telecom companies stringing cable wires in every city. Even if that was possible, there is no guarantee that the companies won't conspire against against customers and charge whatever they want.
So the issue here is that the internet traffic does not work that way; say XYZ telecom has the only boardband backbone in an area (their may be 3-4 telecoms that get the service to your house but they all end up going through the same central backbones ), their customers like using ABC internet streaming site and use it alot, XYZ decides to throttle the through put of ABC back to it's customers thus diminishing their customers experience. After customer complaints to ABC about their service and doing investigation they find XYZ's throttling them (and nothing else), XYZ reponds to both the customers and ABC that for them to remove the throttle ABC needs to pay $$$ to support an infrastructure upgrade, doesn't matter if the customers paid for the highest speeds, they are still throttled accessing the site.
So at the end of the day a consumer's service from a 3rd party vendor is held hostage by the telecom to extort money from the 3rd party.
To think of it another way you drive to a popular store, take your local street (local ISP), to a highway (XYZ Telecom), and take an exit/road built by the store (ABC streaming). Because of the popularity and high traffic to the exit of the store the highway decides to reduce the speed limit to 10mph in the lanes that access the exit. When people complain the highway tells the store it has to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
And adds a toll. Need to put that in there too.
what you left out is that the traffic to the exit slows down the traffic on the highway. if that is the case, then the store (and in turn, their customers) should pay for the infrastructure upgrades, not the people who have been using the highway for years and don't care about that store, but just want to get to their normal destination as quickly as possible (and pay the tolls to get there).
Who paid to have Tech Dr repaved?
A three part piece about "The Broadband Gap" written in 2009 for the New York Times. Worth reading.
Part 1: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...theirs-faster/
Part 2: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...dband-cheaper/
Part 3: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...re-fiber/?_r=0
is that a rhetorical question? because i have no idea.
Well, I do know, from your numerous libtard posts, you don't understand what a free market is.I don't think you understand what a duopoly or monopoly is. It is not possible to have 30 different telecom companies digging up roads and 30 different telecom companies stringing cable wires in every city. Even if that was possible, there is no guarantee that the companies won't conspire against against customers and charge whatever they want.
First, we all know, in a free market, there would never, NEVER be "30" telecoms vying in the same geographic market area. It's not practical. There are natural "barriers to entry" in true FREE markets. The economics of entering a market, any market in any industry, can be prohibitive. In other words, in this case, most of the other 30 telecoms will choose to enter other market areas with fewer barriers. Makes more sense.
Look...it's really, really simple. A "free market" is like water and seeks its own level.
Many retail "experts" told Sam Walton he was crazy trying to take on Gibson, Howard, Penny, Sears, etc... But you will note there are NOT many retailers, i.e. "30 telecoms" vying for that market today. The same would be true in any market area in Internet service. The winner, the one (or maybe two) companies consumers like the best would survive, and!! they will ONLY remain as long as they continue to please the market. Sam Walton said "shoppers vote with their feet" meaning, in his case, they walked past the Gibson and Howard stores and into Walmart.
The telecom business is not a free market, it is an oligopoly, if you look up Oligopoly examples one of the first is US Telecommunications and Broadband Services, heck the first picture on Google shows some of the companies are that are running it:
http://www.slideshare.net/simplify36...e-of-oligopoly
The free market isn't free to change as their are such high barriers to entry and the major players cooperate with each other.
Look...it's really, really, simple. The telecom and internet backbone is NOT an example of what a free market is.
Many must think you are wrong.Look...it's really, really, simple. The telecom and internet backbone is NOT an example of what a free market is.
CRUZ: Regulating Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom...
POLL: 61% Oppose Federal Rules on Web...
It is not rhetorical. It illustrates exactly what is being talked about. Think it through.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
