The fact there are "regulated monopolies" does not mean regulation cannot be used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of phrase to prove a point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad argument. Yeah, the phrase "regulated monopoly" exists, therefore monopolies can't exist without regulation! Q.E.D. Oh, wait, got my abbreviation wrong, I meant: W.T.F.?
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. So believe as you please. I'm going to believe that the FCC allowing monopolies (regulated or not) to charge content providers as they please will be bad for me and about 300 million other Americans. Besides, what has this to do with my original questions? -- TTFN, patrick On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:23 , Kiriki Delany <[email protected]> wrote: > Might one example of what Larry is talking about be cable providers? Also > telephone companies. > > They are often awarded exclusive contracts within cities. > > Do regulations prohibit anyone from becoming a cable company, in addition to > capital costs and difficulty of easements? > > > -Kiriki Delany > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could > enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post > > On 4/24/2014 10:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition. >>> >>> Monopolies can not persist without regulation. >> >> You are confused. > > No. I am not. > >> Unless you are talking about "persist" on a time horizon spanning >> generations. > > A monopoly can persist, as a maximum, as long as regulation protects it. > > Just look at the words! "Regulated Monopoly" has no definition without a > monopoly. > > If so, then nothing can persist, with or without >> regulation. And more importantly, I am not willing to wait that long >> for a fix. > > "fix" is another monopoly preserver. > >>> A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to >>> monopolies by regulation. >> >> Regulations can work to ensure monopolies do not form. This is not >> supposition, but historical fact. > > There is no case where regulation of monopolies prevented monopolies. > The sentence doesn't even make any sense. > > If that were actually true, there couldn't be any "regulated monopolies" > could there? > >> It is an open question whether our current regulator regime is capable >> of repeating that feat, however. > > There are a number of cases in history where the absence of regulation has > prevented monopolies. > > > > > -- > Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics > of System Administrators: > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to > learn from their mistakes. > (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
